Are you OK with millionaires/billionaires getting a big tax cut?

[Better Believe It]

[Myrina]

1. your options should be NO and HELL NO

n/t

[Chipper Chat]

11. How about FUCK NO!

Or better yet:
FUCKITY FUCK NO FUCK FUCK FUCKITY NO YOU HEARTLESS REPUBLICAN BASTARD SCUMBAGS.

[Initech]

23. +100000000000000000000

[Autumn]

2. NO I am not okay with that. n/t

[Bryn]

3. It's way over the top since they voted against measly $250

one time pay for seniors/disabled today plus no COLA for 2 years!

Fight against tax cuts for the rich. Stand with Bernie Sanders.

[Better Believe It]

4. And what happened to the COBRA insurance help?

[Crazy Dave]

7. Seniors will just have to "buck up" and learn how to sacrifice

They should be perfectly happy eating turkey pot pies for Christmas so that the rich can have their fat goose with all the trimmings :sarcasm:

[L0oniX]

29. Doncha know ...they need that money for war.

[Andy823]

5. No I am not

But I am also not OK with millions not getting and extension on their unemployment, and millions of others who can not afford a tax increase next year. What do we do with those people?

[RaleighNCDUer]

28. There was absolutely NO reason for those to be linked.

Who was the fucking IDIOT who linked them?

Boner said he would allow the tax cuts for the rich to lapse, if he had no other choice. The repukes, depite their protestations, would NEVER not extend unemployment at Christmas time - they've always backed down on it before.

So who was the MORON who told them he'd support the tax cuts for the rich, if the repukes supported extending unemployment?

[lise]

36. yeah...

Good question.......who *was* that moron?!

[Rochester]

6. Not just NO but HELL NO!

Tax them! Tax them!

[Nye Bevan]

8. I don't like it one bit, but I understand why Obama feels that it is necessary.

So not sure if I should vote "yes" or "no".

[Andy823]

10. I am with you.

I simply didn't vote either way. What so many fail to understand, and when asked fail to answer, is that there are millions who will not get an extension on their unemployment benefits, and millions of others who can not afford for their taxes to go up next year. I can't stand the idea of the rich getting more tax breaks, but I also can't stand to see millions and millions having a harder time because the republicans are bastards, and don't care about them. At least the president cares, even though I may not agree with his giving the rich and extension other their tax breaks. Sometimes we need to see both sides of an issue, and understand that it's a choice between something bad, tax cuts for the rich, and something worse, millions getting hurt financially! I have to side with those who need their tax extensions and those who can't afford a tax hike, no matter how much I don't like tax cuts for the rich!

[shireen]

15. even if the outcome ended the same,

a vigorous fight to oppose it, to at least TRY, would have been appreciated. Image is important. A president fighting back, even if he eventually lost, would have won him support among his base.

[Nye Bevan]

17. Fair point. I was kind of thinking that he was bound to lose the fight, so why even try,

But you are right, it would have sent a good message.

[JamesA1102]

18. So have the fight and let the clock run out

until the GOP take over the House and have more votes in the Senate and you really expect to get a better deal or even the same deal. Yeah, that makes so much sense.

[RaleighNCDUer]

30. What fight?

We STILL control the House. Put up a bill to extend unemployment SEPERATE from any tax bill. Let the repukes try to get the votes to kill it, at Christmas time, during a killer recession -- they'd NEVER do it.

Once unemployment is no longer a factor, put up a bill extending cuts for ONLY the bottom 98% - let the repukes try to get the votes to kill tax breaks for 98% of the population, at Christmas time, during a killer recession.

Where the fuck is the 'fight'?

Doesn't ANYBODY know how to play hardball?

[JamesA1102]

34. They'd never do it???

Have you not been paying attention the last 2 years?

[RaleighNCDUer]

38. Actually, I have. Have you?

When was the last time the republicans killed an unemployment extension?

[JamesA1102]

40. All the time

That's why the last extention lapsed in November, because the Republicans were filibustering it. And that last extention was only voted on by two Republicans, Snow and Collins, after the GOP filibusted that for weeks.

[shireen]

43. who said anything about the clock running out?!

I never said that. I'm not stupid, i know what will happen next year.

What he could have done was make his best effort to fight it publicly, not behind the scenes. If he had publicly talked about all the give and take that had to take place, displaying the Republican greed, he would have sent a powerful message. And I'm not talking one announcement and one press conference, I mean weeks of public airing of all the backroom deals by his surrogates.

What would be his 'out' to give in? Easy. The votes are not there. If they were, there would be no big brouhaha over it, poverty and middle classes would have already got their tax break, but not the rich. But even with a Democratic majority, there are still too many idiots in Congress, in both parties, who would never allow their rich benefactors to have to pay higher taxes.

[JamesA1102]

45. Fighting takes time.

And with there being only a limited number of days until the end of the year, the clock was ticking. Fight would only work more to the GOP's benefit than making a deal now.

You seem to be of the naive belief that if the President and the Dems just get out their and make their case, the people will see the light and support them. That didn't happen in the last election or with the healthcare debate or the stimulus package. First, the MSM leans to the right and adopts GOP talking points as facts which makes it twice as hard for the Dems to get their message out. Second there is a large conservative base in this country that will never agree with a Dem regardless of how many facts you place in front of them.

[JamesA1102]

16. Well said nt

[Scurrilous]

9. Brilliant poll!

K & R :thumbsup:

[Better Believe It]

13. Thank you. I've spent many hours trying to figure out the wording.

:)

[Catherina]

12. Hell fucking no n/t

[jschurchin]

14. To be honest, I don't care.

Most of the very rich pay very little in income tax anyway. They are able to hire very good accountants who are able to manipulate the tax code to allow them to pay a very low tax rate. If you believe that Warren Buffet pays a 35% tax on his income then you are a fool.

Check out this link: http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2007/06/warren-buffet-p.html

[leftstreet]

19. Meh. It would make more sense to seize their assets

But there's no one on the 'faux' Left in the US even calling for that

[krabigirl]

20. Well, in principle, i don't want our wars and police state funded. But i toed no.

[Gregorian]

21. No. There should be a flat tax. Done.

[RaleighNCDUer]

31. That is RW bullshit -

A flat tax is the MOST regressive form of tax, hurting those on the bottom disproportionately while allowing the rich to get ever richer at the expense of the poor.

[Gregorian]

42. Argh. Really? Thanks for making me aware.

I had been told this by more than one progressive liberal. Now I feel foolish. But I won't make the same mistake. I'll do my homework. Off to learn about flat taxes...

[guitar man]

22. No, but

What are we gonna do about it? I came out of high school in '82 into Reaganomics and have lived my entire adult life under some form of this pish, even during Clinton. In that time I've seen a crapload of things I've been much less than "ok" with and spoke out, spoke my mind rather plainly about it. The result? Wound up with it shoved up our ass anyway. :(

[stray cat]

24. I think no one should get a tax cut

Flat tax no deductions - a complete overhaul allowing us to cut the majority of the price of the IRS

[RaleighNCDUer]

32. Flat tax is an attack on the poor. It is RW libertarian nonsense

which flies in the face of sound economic policy.

The only way we could get to an oligarchial have/have-not society faster than our current course would be to institute a flat tax.

[Rectangle]

25. Who are the YES votes?? Please explain your vote! n/t

[lise]

37. at the risk of being

flamed mercilessly- I voted "Yes".

I am just SOOOO Sick of Congress spending $$$$ ,like a bunch of Certifiable Maniacs.

TRILLIONS upon Trillions for Wall Street and Bankster bailouts.

Wars. and then more wars. and then more wars.

etc. etc. you get the picture. I've just had it. I'm in Starve the Beast mode.

Also, with the trillions they've spent since '07, I really believe that we could all (as in every single american) be billionaires and they could tax us all at the top rates and STILL not have enough $$$ to pay back all that these bozos have spent.

I guess I'm looking for a reset here. One that does not include Wars and welfare for Wall Street Crooks and the TBTF.

And I'm prepared to do, on an individual level, everything I can to help my fellow Americans during the Fallout that I believe is coming.

Here goes. I'm gonna post this now...(ducking.)..

[Better Believe It]

39. "Starve the beast" is used by the anti-worker right-wing rich folks. Here is what they mean .....

Just cut (starve) all social programs that help working people, the elderly and the poor. They do not want to "starve" the military and programs that help the rich such as Wall Street bailouts.

[lise]

44. interesting...

in my experience, when Starve the Beast is used , "the Beast" refers to the Big Money Power Brokers.

So you'll have to use that reference to understand my post.

I have never heard of "The Beast" as referring to poor people. Seems kind of silly and, at best, terribly misguided.

[Bonhomme Richard]

26. No and I'm hunting for a tea party rally so I can join their protest

against the republican plan to add to the deficit. My chances of finding one are probably not very good.

[Dappleganger]

27. That would be "Oh HELL to the NO!" nt

[Chimichurri]

33. Their endless wars are expensive.

[Still a Democrat]

35. It depends

on what else is part of the deal.

[PBS Poll-435]

41. How do you cut by keeping the same rate?

Strange.

[Better Believe It]

46. The rate ends on January 1. To cut that rate and continue the tax cut legislation is necessary.

[PBS Poll-435]

47. Would not it make more sense to call the legislation "maintaining" or "keeping" the same rates?

:shrug:

[lise]

48. Yes.

It's a fine example of Doublespeak to call it "Cutting".

The proper term is "Maintaining" the current rates. Or "maintaining the Bush tax cuts".

No one's taxes are being cut.

I'd also like to point out, anyone is free to send the gov as much $$$ as they like (above the current rates). Warren Buffet, I'm talking to you- Knock yourself out .

Personally, if I was in a top bracket, I am sure I could use the $$$ much better myself supporting Local and National programs for the poor.

That way, I would be sure the $$ was going where I want it to go- helping individuals who need the help- and NOT to Wall Street Banksters and Corrupt Institutions and Wars .

Pretty sick of the gross mis-use of funds here.

I wish that others who checked YES would chime in with their reasoning on this.