Would anyone totally against this bill please explain a path to getting a middle class only tax cut

[ncteechur]

AND getting an unemployment insurance extension for longer than 2-3 months? Don't forget about the compassionate part of governing so that folks already hurting will not hurt further and don't forget to include the part about the republicans having more than enough votes in the senate to block any legislation from passing?

Please oh please.

AND do all this prior to the John Boehner becoming speaker.

[MannyGoldstein]

1. Sure

Three-quarters of Americans are for cutting taxes for $250k and below. No political group has ever been able to thwart that kind of pressure.

Just introduce a bill with:
1. A permanent tax cut for incomes up to $250k
2. Extension of unemployment benefits

Rethugs filibuster.

Obama makes a speech saying he won't be blackmailed.

Wait a few days.

Rethugs will cave to the pressure.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

3. Respecftfully, Was You Television Off This Weekend?

They had those votes on Saturday and they lost.

[MannyGoldstein]

5. Exactly. But Obama didn't use it to his advantage

like Clinton did when he let Gingrich kneecap himself in 1995.

But Obama is using this for other purposes.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

12. The Repubs Only Have To Wait Until 1/1 To Pass A Tax Cut For Everybody.

I will write the Tan Man's speech if the compromise falls apart.

"Today the Democrats and President Obama failed to give you the tax cuts you need.They think they can spend your money better than you can. It will be the first order of business when the Republicans take control of Congress January 1 to give you and other hard working American families the tax relief you need and deserve."

John Boehner aka The Tan Man.

[boston bean]

61. Really, the republicans will control the senate and the WH?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

65. There's Fifty Votes In The Senate Right Now For Tax Cut For Everybody Bill

There will be more next year. The Repubs want President Obama to veto it so they can say he raised taxes on everybody, worsened the recession, and then they can beat him over the head with the recession the way they did the Democratic party in 010 to devasatating effect.

[niceypoo]

82. They already control the whitehouse

That is the problem.

[TwilightGardener]

7. The problem with this, too, is that the Repubs aren't operating from

a position about which they feel guilty and feel they are doing something wrong. They're the party that believes in trickle down and tax cuts. They are opposed to letting the wealthy's taxes rise--it's not something they feel sheepish about and hope nobody notices, it is their GOSPEL. So there is no shaming them on this issue.

[Imajika]

53. AND, they just won an election promoting pretty much exactly that...

Why some think Obama can shame the Republicans is a mystery to me.

The GOP just won 63 House seats and 6 Senate running on exactly what they are arguing for now.

[JamesA1102]

6. In your dreams

The GOP is not going to cave to pressure. Their base is behind them 100%. Bills have already been introduced to extend the tax cuts for those under $250K and extending unemployment benefits that have failed in the Senate.

[MannyGoldstein]

8. Of course they will. Or they'll die.

Either way is OK.

Or do you think they're an unstoppable juggernaut?

[JamesA1102]

48. They'll die????

You are really not dealing in reality.

[ohiogringo]

41. Wrong. Most Republicans are opposed to extending tax cuts

for those making over 250K, per a CBS/Gallup poll, I believe. And a solid 2/3 of Americans. If Obama had stuck to his guns, he would have eventually won. The problem is, he's really a Republican at heart. Look at his actions, not the rhetoric.

[JamesA1102]

47. Wrong, The Repubican base has never

voted out Republicans for NOT raising taxes. You're delusional if you think that the President would have won if he let them run the clock out.

[boston bean]

62. Next year, when they try to do it again, make the same case and make them compromise. nt

[ZombieHorde]

56. The people on the frence, the people who decide elections, they can't name the three branches of

government. They won't know what happened.

[Fruittree]

59. That's a total fantasy..

sorry.

[jefferson_dem]

60. Manny...

I admire your passion but why so naïve?

[totodeinhere]

84. Meanwhile, while we go through that song and dance, the unemployed will continue to

wait for help. And every day that passes without a bill will see more lose benefits. And remember, many of the unemployed are barely hanging on now even with those meager benefits.

[dkf]

2. They think that they can wait for the cuts to expire and then Boehner will give them all this...

Crazy.

[gateley]

4. I don't know -- but in my tiny uneducated mind I'd again propose a middle-class

only tax break and a stand alone unemployment extension (Ideally, I'd add provisions for the 99ers, too)

In my little fantasy, I don't see how the Republicans could vote against this, especially if it DOESN'T happen until Boehner takes the reins because then people will see the difference in their paychecks and have done without unemployment for (hopefully only) a week. As I said, this is my little fantasy.

Initially I was for this because of those who would be so adversely affected, but the more I thought about it and the more I thought about adding hundreds of billions of dollars to the deficit (aided by mysterious unnamed 'benefactors), I came to the conclusion we would ALL be affected more than we can imagine a couple of years down the road. I wondered if maybe we'd be going "man, why did we use that band-aid when major surgery was required?

It's a tough one, I admit.

If you're for the passage of this, can you explain to me how this will help grow the economy? How this will begin to get us on the right track even though we've got even more deficit breathing down our necks? I sound like a Republican with "deficit deficit deficit" but in my (again, uneducated) mind, that just can not bode well for our country or our citizens, the poor and the middle class. I don't give a shit about the billionaires.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. The Deficit Is A Symptom Of A Sick Economy Not The Cause

I tire of repeating it. Lord Keynes must be spinning in his grave that folks on the left are using deficits as an excuse not to stimulate the economy. Herbert Hoover did two thing to worsen a recession and turn into a depression; he raised taxes and balanced the budget.

Due to the recession the economy is losing two billion dollars worth of aggregate demand which is a fifty dollar word for folks spending money. The tax receipts on that money lost would do much to decrease the deficit.

In their hearts of hearts the Repugs want the compromise to fail. Because if it does and nothing happens the fragile recovery will certainly falter and the Dems and Obama will get the blame. Obama will be easily defeated in that scenario and the Senate Democratic Caucus will be small enough to meet at a Courtyard by Marriott...

[gateley]

15. People have the same amount of take-home pay now as they will if this passes.

So where's all that revenue been?

I don't understand economics so don't understand how raising taxes and balancing the budget plunged the country into a depression, but I'll take your word for it.

So are you saying that keeping tax levels as they are now will stimulate the economy, and the amount of money we're in debt doesn't affect us?

Help me to understand.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

20. There's Less Tax Revenue, There's Much Less Tax Revenue, Because Much Less People Are Working

The reason Hoover exacerbated the recession, among other reasons of course, is because by balancing the budget and raising taxes he took money out of the economy instead of putting money in...

We have two problems, a short term problem which is this nasty recession/tepid recovery and a long term structural deficit. To solve the deficit problem you need to solve the recession problem because the recession is causing a large drop in tax receipts.

[gateley]

27. Okay, that makes sense, but again, how will this increase receipts? Will

more jobs appear?

I'm sincerely interested - I'm not just arguing my point, by the way. So I'll read and ponder anything you feel like sharing. :hi:

[JamesA1102]

49. Good analysis nt

[ncteechur]

13. Because we have a consumer economy. We don't make anything. We totally depend on

consumerism. BUT if people don't have any money to spend, they can't buy products from retailers and the few manufacturers we have left.

We have done this to ourselves over a long period of time. You can argue about a lot of other stuff as causing the FU of our economy but this is noting in the grand scheme. Our economy is what 8-9 TRilliion dollars. This is small stuff overall but if you are on the lower end of our economic spectrum, a little money is a hell of a lot.

[gateley]

17. I get that part of it, but people aren't going to have any more money if this

passes, and consumerism is down now, right?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

22. There's Less Money Because Spent Because Less People Are Working

I don't like tax cuts for the rich because the less money you have the more money you spend and vice versa... Your average Joe who makes 50K is going to spend a much larger perecentage of his salary than someone who makes 500K.

But if that's the price to pay for goodies like tax cuts for everybody, an increase in the EITC, accelerated depreciation for new business purchases, et cetera it's worth it...

[ncteechur]

23. And every bit of unemployment money goes back into the economy.

Unfortunately, it isn't enough to save, only spend.

[gateley]

30. But in my fantasy, when we reintroduce the unemployment extension (with

provisions for the 99ers), the Reps will have to cave because too many of their constituents will have been affected - same with the tax break expiring.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

38. Repubs Think U I Is Welfare

The last time UI extension came up for a vote in July only two Repubs voted for it. You can do a google search.

Also, most of the unemployed are primarily from Democratic constituencies, ergo:

African American unemployment -17%

Hispanic unemployment -13%

Whites with college degrees - 5%

Even with all that I still think the Repubs will have to add UI extension to get the four or five Democrats they need to pass a tax bill in the Senate...

[gateley]

45. Good point, the bastids. But how about the white non-college educated numbers?

Wouldn't there be enough of them to make a stink to their representatives?

The unemployed and those who would be hurt by larger withholding amounts in their paychecks (which includes me!) are the only reasons I'd be for this as it is. That and the lost revenue ==============================AZ()))2Q (<< Mossimo, my cat) from all those making over $250K.

I understand what you're saying about mending the economy at this level before addressing the debt, but I'm still not convinced. I have a feeling we'll get a chance to see, since it sure sounds as though this will pass.

If you could construct this in a way that would be ideal for our economy, what would you propose?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

25. Gately-Don't Knock Yourself. All Any Of Us Have Are Our Opinions

What troubles me is that some, imho, are blinded by ideology, and can't see the forest for the trees...

[jillan]

10. Maybe you should read this

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/10/obamarepublican-deal-coul_n_795187.html

Obama-Republican Deal Could Mean Tax Hike For One In Three Workers

[ncteechur]

16. NOtice that the chart in the story was for a ten year extension, rather than the two

in the bill. However, the next extension is ALL on the republicans because they control the House at that time.

[jillan]

28. And you really think they are going to let these tax cuts sunset during an election year?

The corporations that fund Republicans are probably preparing their attack ads right now.

[ncteechur]

40. That depends on when the GOP takes up the bill.

The tables will be turned at that time. But since the unemployment extension ends in 13 months, we will see sooner how willing they are to help out the middle class.

Keep in mind that at this point, any veto that he would make would be against bills from a Democratic Congress. In the next two years, they would be against a Republican Congress. If the dems win back control of the house in 2012 and more seats in the senate, they might be able to pass a middle class only cut. If the GOP takes it up sooner, they can bicker and the president can threaten the veto because there is time prior to the sunset.

[rgbecker]

11. Listen, the Republicans want a tax cut of some kind more than anyone.

If 41 Senate Democrats can stop their all inclusive (Rich included) cut enough times, eventually the Republicans will send along a bill with just the low and middle class cuts.

The sticking point is the fucking Democrats not able to hold together even the basic coalition. Too many have been paid off by the big money guys and several are big money guys themselves.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

14. I Could Not Disagree More

What the Repugs really want is for nothing to happen, spending which is function of hope for the future to plummet, unemployment to go back over ten percent , and to beat Obama and the Dems over the head with it.

They will be more than happy to send bills to the Senate to die... Then they can tell the Americans that the Democratic Senate and presidency are the obstacles to their well being...

[ncteechur]

18. They have also said they will attach the unfunding of health care to all bills coming out of the

House.

[rgbecker]

68. All the more reason to get used to stopping votes as a Democratic block.

It may be our best hope is to become the new party of no, stopping the Republicans on all fronts.

[Milo_Bloom]

19. Many of us don't WANT ANY of the tax cuts.

It was a budget busting bad idea that democrats opposed when it was offered in 2001/2003 and it REMAINS a budget busting bad idea today.

You need to tack the UI insurance extension onto a bill the GOP wants as an amendment.. since they want it too.. they just want it to be "paid for". Once you eliminate the tax cuts it is "paid for"

[ncteechur]

21. You forget the lockstep voting in the GOP.

They will defeat any amendment posed by the democrats but even if you could do that, what kind of bill do you suppose they would pass that you could attach it to. War resolution against Iran? Repeal of health Care? Bill to kill National Endowment of Arts? or NPR? or PBS?
Repeal of S=CHiP? Others.

Are you willing to take those to get unemployment benefits? Wouldn't that be a compromise?

[Milo_Bloom]

24. No. They do far more harm than the UI benefits do good.

Also, remember, the GOP has MORE TO LOSE than the democrats on this issue.

The economy WILL sink significantly if benefits are cut and will be GOP fault. They WANT THEM and they know they NEED THEM.. they just need the right excuse to pass them.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

29. If The Economy Sucks The Pres Will Get The Blame

If the economy sucks the pres will get the credit.

That is how it has been and will be.

Did Clinton or the Repub Congress get the credit for the economic boom in 96?


Did McCain or the Dem Congress get the blame for the economkic bust in 08?


If it was up to the Repubs unemployment would go up to 25%.

[Milo_Bloom]

33. No... GOP will get the blame.

Since things started improving under Obama and the only change was the GOP being put in office... if things suddenly turn bad.. they get the blame.

[ncteechur]

36. You hope. Keep in mind that the dems still control the senate--where bills go to die.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

39. Improving. It's 9.8%. It Was 7.7% When He Took Office

Of course he became president while the recession was unwinding but 7.7% is the baseline.

[Milo_Bloom]

43. It rose to 10.1% and has begun to back off.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

63. Actually 10.2%

Respectfully, if you think any president, regardless of party, can present the Americsn people with an unemployment rate hovering around ten percent as progress there is nothing I can do to disabuse you of notion.

I suggest that if unemployment is still hovering around ten percent in 2012 we will be having the same discussion at DU that we have every losing election year that the polls are rigged, the media is against us, the only poll that counts is the one on election day.

If you think the president doesn't ultimately get the blame or credit fot the economy please ask "presidents" Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, Bob Dole, and John McCain what they think.

[Milo_Bloom]

72. All projections are it will still be hovering "around 10%"

The CBO stated the middle class tax cuts will not lower unemployment more than .03%.

Even the rosiest prediction states that this tax deal will only add (OR SAVE) 2.2 million jobs. This isn't going to move the unemployment rate significantly.


Both times in our recent history.. when unemployment has spiked in similar ways, administrations have found ways to inject TRILLIONS of new dollars into the economy to pick it up.

Reagan did a stimulus through the defense budget to the tune of nearly 1.5 trillion.(that is how much he spent above and beyond the normal inflation adjust rate of growth) Company's awarded government contracts were forced to hire millions of people who didn't otherwise have jobs.

Clinton deregulated the investment community, allowing VC's to take ridiculously risky investments to IPOs with little risk of major consequence. As a result trillions of dollars were spent starting up new companies and millions of jobs were created.

Little bush FURTHER deregulated the banking industry, allowing people to buy homes they couldn't afford and get tens of thousands of dollars in cash out of homes they already owned. Suddenly people had tens of thousands of dollars to spend, where they had nothing before. Unfortunately, they believe that the value of their house would keep going up so it was like "free money" to them... so they spent it!


Here's the problem. You can't stimulate the economy with a $20 per week raise. That doesn't CHANGE SPENDING HABITS. To change habits you take someone who has little to no income and suddenly give them 40,000 per year. I recently hired someone who was making about 30K per year at his previous job.. he made 50K this year working for me... he has moved to a bigger apartment, is buying a new car, and bought his parents a 50 inch plasma TV for Christmas. His spending habits CHANGED based on tens of thousands of dollars more... not $20 per week.. $400 per week!

Giving the rich MORE doesn't create jobs.

Giving the poor crumbs doesn't create jobs.

Giving the middle class $20 per week doesn't create jobs.

The only part of the stimulus that worked, was the direct investment portion.. but unfortunately, it was only HALF of the stimulus package.. the rest was WASTED on nickle and dime tax cuts.

You want to have a shot to change unemployment this year? Make the 2% payroll holiday RETROACTIVE, so people suddenly get a 2-3K additional refund in April! I doubt that would be enough.. but it would at least be enough of a cash infusion to make some spending habits change for a short time.

[ncteechur]

31. how do they have more to lose?

[Milo_Bloom]

35. Because unemployment benefits are holding up part of the economy

In many cases in states where they have tenuous holds already.

If they get in.. refuse the benefits and things get dramatically worse... it will shift blame to the GOP.

This is the reason they have caved in everytime this issue has come up.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

42. When Did They Cave

The last time UI was extended was July and it passed with two Republican votes... And it only passed because Joe Manchin was sworn in...

[Milo_Bloom]

44. How many times has it come up? how many times has it been completely blocked?

Each time they back down.

And the only stated objection is always "it's not paid for"

So.. pay for it with the tax cuts.

[ncteechur]

50. maybe but I don't want to stick it to republicans on the back of some family not getting what they

need

[Milo_Bloom]

51. So you give up the farm to get crumbs?

Temporary crumbs at that.

Temporary crumbs with NO CHANCE at remotely solving the problem... so one year from now when the benefits run out and we are still stuck with budget busting tax cuts that we can't afford and we don't have money for any additional stimulus... what is the solution then?!?

[ncteechur]

74. Give up the farm? The farm is going away for everyone in Jan. Boenher ain't buying a new tractor.

[Milo_Bloom]

85. Then we are all doomed anyway.

Too bad we have to waste 700 billion dollars to get there.

Do you see how crazy this "solution" is?

It does absolutely nothing to actually stimulate the economy.. doesn't help the 99 weekers.. extends benefits until those people hit 99 weeks.. then they are done anyway.

The magic economy fairy isn't going to suddenly create 4 million jobs for them in the next 13 months.


IF we rejected the tax package, we would AT LEAST reduce the defecit by several hundred billion dollars and maybe free up some spending room to ACTUALLY stimulate the economy.

Fuck, hide it in the defense budget like Reagan did.. Republicans won't vote against additional defense spending and you can actually create some jobs.

The one thing we know from history.... TAX CUTS DON'T WORK.

[polmaven]

70. And please tell me how

that will help me in the short run, when I am unable to make my mortgage payments after February, and am foreclosed on.

[CakeGrrl]

26. When did the tax cuts get eliminated in your scenario?

How did that get past the GOP?

[Milo_Bloom]

32. When they sunset... as they democrats originally fought for!

[ncteechur]

34. The economic conditions were totally different when they were passed. We still had a surplus and

not two wars.

We also didn't have a collapse and millions of people unemployed at the time.

[Milo_Bloom]

37. Which makes it even a WORSE idea now.

These were considered non-stimulative, budget busting wastes of money when we had a surplus and were in a recession, which is why the democrats fought it so hard that it had to be passed in reconciliation.

How did they suddenly become good ideas when we have a deficit and we just barely crawled out of a recession?!?!

Complete FLIP FLOP.

[ncteechur]

52. because deficit spending doesn't matter when you are crawling out of a recession

Ask FDR. When he started addressing the deficit at the urging of some advisors, the economy slowed down. He started spending again and the public gave him even more dems in congress to help.

[Milo_Bloom]

54. So why did the dems care about that in 2001/2003?

When we were crawling out of a recession?

Are you saying the democrats were WRONG to oppose these tax cuts in 2001/2003 because they added to the deficit? They filibustered them and forced the GOP to pass them in reconciliation (which is why they had a 10 year sunset period).

You can't have it both ways.

If the deficit spending and the tax cuts were BAD in 2001/2003 after the internet bubble burst, on the heels of 9/11, when unemployment had risen nearly 60% in a year... then how could they be good now?

[ncteechur]

76. Because dems have a totally different philosophy than republicans.

Then why didn't the Congress use reconciliation to pass the middle class only and UI?


Because they don't have enough time because they were too chickenshit to take this up earlier when President Obama wanted to.

[Milo_Bloom]

83. That didn't answer the question.

Why did they argue strenuously AGAINST the tax package in 2001/2003, so much so that they filibustered it, claiming it was budget busting and would not stimulate the ailing economy?

Why is that SAME TAX PACKAGE now not considered budget busting when the deficit is FAR WORSE and the debt is 3 times as high? Do they now thing that the tax cuts will actually stimulate the economy?

Either way, they have changed their positions 100%.

[bowens43]

46. why do we need tax cuts?

we already pay some the lowest taxes of any industrialized nations.

[jeanpalmer]

55. This is the first step in de-funding SS

Don't ever take a step to imperil SS. NEVER. This is a test to see if you'll accept changes to SS. It's tempting to take the tax cut. But you're cutting off your arm to save your hand. It's gonna backfire.

If he really wants to cut taxes 2%, let him propose a general income tax decrease of 2%. The effect would be the same. But don't let him de-fund SS. Why do you think Repugs are willing to accept this payroll tax cut, even though it's at odds with their deficit reduction rhetoric? Because it starts the defunding of SS. Don't go down that path. Don't open the floodgates even a crack.

[woo me with science]

57. +100000 nt

[ncteechur]

66. I don't believe that is true AND you didn't answer the original question.

[rgbecker]

69. I agree. One word. LOCKBOX!

[cornermouse]

58. There shouldn't be a tax cut for anyone, period, when the economy

is in so much trouble. This particular bill is a poison pill for the elderly via social security with a thin coating of 13 months of relief for the unemployed to make it palatable.

[ncteechur]

67. But you got a tax cut from the first stimulus. Remember how imperative everyone thought the

first stimulus was? Almost all the democrats were in favor of the stimulus. Some wanted even more. Paul Krugman even advocated for a second stimulus. You were for deficit spending before you were against it?

[cornermouse]

87. I can't speak for anyone else, but I've thought tax cuts

were not a good idea for a long time now. I didn't think the first one was a good idea and I didn't care for them when Bush was in office.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

71. The Last President To Raise Taxes During A Recession Was Herbert Hoover

.

[ncteechur]

77. we had a different kind of economy then. We had manufacturing then. Don't have that anymore.

[killbotfactory]

75. You don't fix the economy by taking money out of it

You don't fix the debt by lowering the amount of taxes raised by the government due to people having less money across the board.

[ncteechur]

78. lowering the deficit doesn't help people pay their rent in February

[DemocratSinceBirth]

80. They Need To Make Economics Part Of The High School Curriculum

.

[Pistarkle]

64. Amen!

I hate the thought of having to compromise on the tax cuts, but no compromise is only in your corner when YOU have the upper hand. Right now the Republicans HAVE the upper hand – more than enough “no” votes in the Senate to keep tax cuts for the wealthy in ANY compromise. If Democratic candidates campaigned on tax cuts for the wealthy during the 2010 Campaign as the President suggested, perhaps 90% rather than 40% of eligible voters would have voted in the midterms and the Democrats would have the upper hand regarding the tax cut controversy, but that’s past history.

Because of the midterm results, Republicans will be in charge of the House and the 60 vote filibuster-proof Senate on the side of Democrats will be out the door come January 1st. At least now a compromise will benefit the middle class, the poor, and the unemployed and small businesses. The President HAD TO FIGHT for the extension of unemployment benefits, tax cuts for the middle class, payroll tax cuts, and incentives for small businesses to create jobs. The Republicans ONLY wanted tax cuts for the wealthy. It’s not the best of both worlds, but it’s better than nothing at all. After January 1st when the Republicans are in charge of the House, you can be guaranteed that those benefits will be ‘gone with the wind’.

WE criticized the President and Democrats when we didn’t get the public option but WE didn’t fight for it. We let the Tea Party and health insurance industry do ALL of the squawking and we didn’t start raising Cain until after the fact. WE must deliver the upper hand. WE must speak out in ONE voice. WE must shame the Republicans into ending those tax cuts THROUGHOUT the next two years. WE must hold local rallies. WE must fight for our rights in local AND national newspapers, internet, radio and media outlets. WE must email, fax and call Republican Congressional offices EVERY DAY. We must let Tea Party-backed Republicans know that if they continue to fight for the wealthy and ignore the middle class, the poor and the unemployed, WE WILL vote them out in 2012 and WE must mean it!

[Enrique]

73. I don't recall anyone here demanding any tax cuts

until Obama started talking about them. Now we're talking about them like the world will end without them.

[ncteechur]

79. might be that important to some

[ProudDad]

81. How many FREAKIN' times must I post this????

God damn do some research or at least keep your eyes and ears open...

THIS IS HOW!!!!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4653961&mesg_id=4654520

[DemocratSinceBirth]

86. What Happens In 2012 If The Repubs Get To 51?

.

[jenmito]

88. You are exactly right asking those questions. And the fact that your thread has 0 recs is

typical, sadly, of this site where Dems. are SUPPOSED to be able to have a place to come together ane SUPPORT Dems. in govt.