Honest question for defenders of the tax deal

[theaocp]

While being as honest and non-snarky as you can be, what would have been your "line in the sand" for compromising with the Republicans on the tax deal? IOW, what would you not have been willing to give up in exchange for the 13-month extension of the unemployment benefits?

As a corollary, what might you have insisted be put into the bill, such as START, DREAM, repeal of DADT, etc? This is all academic now, but I'm morbidly curious. Have at it.

[Aramchek]

1. It's a Law now. Obama's line in the sand was not making the tax cuts for the rich permanent.

[tekisui]

8. The only way to guarantee they are not made permanent is to end them now.

[Aramchek]

14. I suppose you just want to let them all expire?

[tekisui]

18. Sure.

[Aramchek]

19. Idealism doesn't get us anywhere.

[stopbush]

21. Politics isn't about guarantees, and you know that.

It's about what can get done, not what should get done.

[Bandit]

12. Everyone knows they are only "temporary" (wink..wink)

:shrug:

[Aramchek]

15. at least all the psychics do, right?

[bushisanidiot]

2. Not allowing the lower and middle classes to suffer tax hikes in January.

abaondoning them would have been BAD for the economy and bad politically. When things are hard, you don't abandon the weakest in the bunch just to prove a point.

[Myrina]

4. ... but ultimately, those making $40k/yr or less will see increases anyway.

Response?

[stopbush]

22. Abandoning them would have meant higher increases.

Response?

[niceypoo]

6. Abandoning them would have been good fiscal policy

Tax cuts have ruined the economy. When will the Democratic party stop pretending it is the republican party?

[Green_Lantern]

13. tax cuts in a recession is good economics

It puts money in the hands of people who will spend it.

Unregulated financial markets are what ruined the economy.

[onenote]

42. I remember when being a deficit hawk was a repub trait

the lines are getting pretty blurry around here these days

[Green_Lantern]

48. Democrats shouldn't base economic policy on ideology because

Proper policy depends on the state of the economy.

If we weren't in a recession raising taxes may not be bad.

[HopeHoops]

3. FUCKEDY FUCK FUCK FUCKING FUCKEDY FUCKBASTARD FUCKEDY FUCK. Wait.

You said something about "defenders". Never mind.

[frazzled]

5. It wasn't just the unemployment benefit extensions that were gotten

It was also an expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit, which assists the lowest-paid Americans; and yes, the one-year payroll tax holiday, the cost of which is to be reimbursed from general funds, and which means people can buy some clothes and food for their kids until (a) their spouses find a job as the economy recovers and (b) their pay freezes are lifted.

As for the things that were compromised away, yes, they were painful: but they were not terminal nor irreversible. A two-year extension is not a permanent extension.

As for writing START, DREAM or DADT into a tax bill? That doesn't happen. I think we'll get two out of the three in the next week or so. Guess which one I think will fail? (Hint: I think it will be DREAM).

[theaocp]

7. I'm still curious

What would you not be willing to compromise away in the pursuit of what you consider positive from this bill? Where do you draw the line?

[Green_Lantern]

10. I'd draw the line at not getting the parts of the bill that

Will stimulate the economy...the long list of middle class tax credits and regressive tax cuts.

Secondly I'd draw the line at making the tax cuts permanent.

In a recession raising taxes is a bad idea(I'm talking about the cuts up to $250,000) and without this deal the middle class cuts would've expired.

[gratuitous]

9. Bwahahahaha! Good one

"A two-year extension is not a permanent extension." Hoo boy! I'm dyin' over here.

Unless you were serious.

In which case, would you be interested in purchasing a small share of the Brooklyn Bridge? Got the deed right here. A small down payment, followed by incredibly reasonable monthly installments, and it's all yours!

[hfojvt]

16. the payroll tax cut? Are you serious?

So here's a person making $20,000 and their spouse is looking for work. They get a payroll tax cut of $400. That might be good, if not for the fact that under current law, they would have gotten $800 from the 'making work pay' credit. But not to worry, a couple with both spouses working $50,000 a year jobs will get $2,000 from this plan instead of the $800 under the old system. It's always nice to support a policy that helps people who are already better off. That way it trickles down to the people who really need help, you see.

[Green_Lantern]

20. the making work pay credit expires this year so under current

Law the people in your example wouldn't get a cut unless the GOP extended that credit.

So yes they'll go from a cut of $800 to a cut of $400 but $400 is better than the $0 they'd get when the making work pay expired.

This tax deal isn't trickle down since it isn't supply-side and mostly geared toward stimulating demand.

[stopbush]

23. Thanks for the fact check.

[AlabamaLibrul]

32. I certainly understand that - but all of the tax cuts were expiring this year

Why is it that the rich get all their breaks - but poor couples only get half of what they used to?

[Green_Lantern]

38. the lowest tax bracket still gets a tax break..

First of all the making work pay credit was part of the 2008 stimulus bill, not the Bush tax cut bill, so it's apples to oranges. Also that credit means employers could take less withheld from your paycheck and end up costing you more on April 15th....that's why it is only temporary relief.


If all of the tax cuts expired then a couple making $17,000 would've gone from paying 10% to paying 15% so the working poor do get cuts as well.

Secondly they get a larger earned income credit so they can get a bigger refund in April.

It sounds odd but alot of people prefer their employer withhold more than less because then they get a refund in April instead of owing.

[hfojvt]

39. theoretically Democrats could extend that credit

since they control Congress. All they need are two or three GOP senators. They could have tried to renew the Making Work Pay credit instead of pretending that the FICA tax cut is some sort of victory for low income working people and progressives.

But no problem, let's blame Republicans for the crappy deal that Obama made with them.

Except that Reaganites have changed their argument as well. Now they are in favor of tax cuts because they stimulate demand. That's how trickle down works. Tax cuts for the rich stimulate demand and that helps us all!!!

"I look forward to signing the economic recovery bill soon. The principle of the bill is pretty simple, that we believe the more money people have in their pockets, the more likely it is somebody is going to be able to find work in America. In other words, the more money somebody has, it means somebody is more likely to demand a good or a service, which means somebody will produce a good or a service, which means somebody is likely to find work." May 22, 2003


"In my judgment, and the judgment of a lot of economists -- and the truth of the matter is, it's now become kind of the common wisdom in Washington, D.C. -- the best way to create growth is to let people keep more of their own money." (Applause.) May 2, 2003


Those quotes are from George W. Bush, trying to sell the 2003 tax cuts because those tax cuts for the rich were gonna stimulate demand.

[Green_Lantern]

41. I'm not defending Bush but if the tax cuts were allowed

To expire then couples making $17,000 would've gone from paying 10% of their income in taxes to 15%. That's the part of the deal that stimulates demand.

Secondly the making work pay credit is not necessarily a good since many people prefer their employers withhold more than less of their paycheck for taxes because then they get a refund as opposed to owing in April.

This deal has great things for working people such as a boost for the earned income tax credit and the following: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20025888-503544.html


So we should have dropped all that just because the GOP got one tiny concession?

[Trey9007]

11. IMO, many are not 'defenders' of this bill.............

Hell, even the people who are voting for it don't like all of it. What I think many are defending is the practicality of the bill. When you are negotiating with the other side, and the other side knows their bargaining power is set to increase in less than a month, you have to set your expectations accordingly.

If it were me, I would have like to have seen the tax brackets redefined. I would have been willing to allow incomes less than $1M keep their tax cuts. But incomes $1M and over would have seen an incremental increase of 1.5% in 2011, and 1.75% in 2012.


As a corollary, I would have liked to have seen EFCA or even some portions of EFCA tied to the bill, as it is my belief that organized labor were the original architects of the middle class, and if the middle class is to rise again workers must have a clear, un-fettered path to exercise their right to collective bargaining.

[Green_Lantern]

17. many on DU forget that there are Republican Senators

Who will filibuster anything Obama does.

Getting what he got and Democrats got was impressive.

[stopbush]

24. What would have been your line as to how many people lost

their tax cut so that the rich would be penalized? Everybody? I think so, because that's what would have happened as the Rs weren't about to flinch on the cuts for the rich.

That is the only reason they're in Congress to begin with. It's much easier to be a purist when you serve a narrow constituency like the Rs do, especially when the constituency is rich and you know that you can go to the mat on your purity test because your constituency isn't really going to be hurt in the process.

Ds don't have that luxury. We go for the purity test and millions of needy people are adversely effected.

[Trey9007]

25. Best statement ever...........

"It's much easier to be a purist when you serve a narrow constituency like the Rs do, especially when the constituency is rich and you know that you can go to the mat on your purity test because your constituency isn't really going to be hurt in the process.

Ds don't have that luxury. We go for the purity test and millions of needy people are adversely effected."


Belongs on Dem home page!!! Great statement!

[Rex]

26. The constituency are mostly poor working white people

that listen to Rush/Hannity/Beck 3 to 8 hours a day while at a manual labor job! The Rs don't have to flinch, because they have their followers ignorant and full of hate (over lies) for the 'other side'. The rich are very few and far between. You either stick with your guns, or fold early and take whatever your enemy gives you. That is what we Ds did and will pay for it in 2012.

[Green_Lantern]

40. Clinton did it and got 2 terms out of it...

If Obama had allowed middle class cuts expire their taxes would've increased....you think he'd be reelected on raising taxes?

Also the notion that working class people are ignorant is offensive and exactly the attitude that'll hurt Dems.

[Rex]

44. Um, I was talking about the republican base or core group.

Certainly you are not that clueless. You truly believe ALL Republicans are millionaires? :rofl:

[Green_Lantern]

50. well it really depends....

The fiscal conservatives I know are upper middle class, small business owners, or older retired people with good pensions.

The cultural conservatives I know are working class white guys but I'm not sure they are ignorant.

[bluestate10]

54. Agree. Somewhat.

"Also the notion that working class people are ignorant is offensive and exactly the attitude that'll hurt Dems."

The majority of red state voters that keep sending goonish republicans to Congress are ignorant. Blue state voters that went republican in the 2010 midterms were mostly confused by the democrat's and Obama's lack of a coherent accounting of the massive number of good policy moves they had made since coming in during 2009. I am one that thinks 2012 is setting up well for Obama and democrats, mostly because republicans now have to legislate instead of point fingers.

[Green_Lantern]

56. I know alot of smart Republicans..

Most accountants and small business owners I know are Republicans. So it's hard for me to say they're just dumb.

I just think the GOP is really good at convincing people like that to think Dems want to destroy them.

[theaocp]

27. My line was letting all tax cuts expire, yes.

They have been shown to be one of the least effective forms of economic stimulus available. The money saved could have been used for much more effective forms of stimulus, like, say, food stamps. I'm not a purist, but rather, I saw the extension of tax cuts as cowardly and unnecessary, and I blame all the Dems for it. They've had two years to take care of this and tried to get it done at the last minute.

That being said, you trying to answer a question with a question ignores my original inquiry. Where's YOUR line? Or is there none for you? Are you willing to negotiate with hostage-takers of the American public? It certainly sounds that way and for added fun, why not try and list all the things you think the pukes will NOT hold hostage next time? I'll be waiting.

[stopbush]

28. I don't have a line, that's correct. Not when the welfare of the needy

is at stake.

I'm a parent who wants only the best for my kids, but I learned long ago that one isn't an effective or responsible parent if one draws a line in the sand on certain issues. Allowing your underage kids to drink? Yes - line in the sand. Not accept a job that I feel is beneath me when doing so means my kids go hungry? Not so much a line in the sand. Take away the cut-rate school lunch program for the needy if it will mean more $ for my own kid's extracurricular activities? Nope.

[theaocp]

29. So, what do you think the

pukes will NOT hold hostage next time? How much are you willing to give away before you say enough is enough? From all the other responses, I gather people are willing to give pukes whatever they want because they don't budge and all the serious people know that. Immovable object, meet resistible force. Your thoughts?

[stopbush]

33. Now that the Rs have retaken the House, they have lost their

ability to just say no to everything. They will need to govern. That's a political reality.

And with that reality comes a change in being able to hold people hostage. The Rs have already budged and will continue to budge on DADT etc.

My feeling about this tax compromise is that the Rs got snookered by Obama. They were so fixated on the tax cuts for their rich pals that they basically left the barn door open for stimulus spending that Obama would never have been able to get through if he didn't have the rich people cuts as a bargaining chip.

The Rs will now start harping more about how awful the deficit is, because their plan to starve the beast hasn't gone away. What has gone away is any claim that they are serious about the deficit - they ran it up under Junior, then they called it doomsday under Obama, then they turned around and raised it again to funnel $ to rich people.

They've tossed away one of the linchpins in their fiscal argument for a $120-B handful of beans.

I've been in contract negotiations before, and I learned a long time ago that when a person is obsessing about one point in a contract that they are doing so based on 1. a past experience, and 2. an experience that went badly for them. People who are negotiating from a position of not being hurt again in the same way are typically blinded to new realities and options. They are easy to get over on because they set an extremely low bar in what they want out of the deal. All you have to do on the other side is acknowledge how important the clause is that they're insisting on while showing them just how expensive it's going to be to give them what they want. Most of the time, they accept whatever you extract from them because they're fixated on "their precious," rather than on the big picture.

[theaocp]

36. "They will need to govern. That's a political reality."

:rofl: They "need" to do no such thing. Besides, that line of logic says the pukes being in charge of the House is a *good* thing. Now, stuff can get done! :eyes:

Who's going to bring the message about the deficit being the pukes' fault? Obama? The rich boys in the Senate? I repeat: :rofl: The pukes are going to rake the Dems over the coals about increasing the deficit and people will forget these were bush tax cuts originally in a heartbeat. Hear me now, quote me later. I hope I am wrong.

[stopbush]

37. Yeah, I think you're wrong.

One of us is right. Time will tell.

My money's on Obama because he's smarter than the Rs and his various trials of fire have made him a wiser man when it comes to political realities.

[COLGATE4]

47. God, more 'magical thinking'. Did everybody just see a re-run

of 'The Wizard of Oz' or something? Just click your heels together three times and say "they're just temporary, they're just temporary, they're just temporary" and, when you awake you can listen to President Mitt Romney inform the nation how he did the right thing for the economy and made them permanent. God.

[Green_Lantern]

51. what difference would it make?

If Romney was President couldn't they just pass another top heavy tax cut? Even without this deal.

The difference is by not passing this then taxes would've increased on everyone and deepened the recession.

You want Romney as President?

[bluestate10]

55. StopBush. Like you, I relish sitting across from a tunnel vision negotiator.

I make mince pie out of them. Their incapacity to see the whole picture sets them up for giving me almost, if not all of what I want at a cost that I am more than willing to pay. Your observations are dead on.

[Green_Lantern]

43. there is a line in the sand with helping the "needy"

For instance you can't just hand out money to people begging on the streets but you can give them something to eat.

[Green_Lantern]

46. if the tax cuts expired than couples making $17,000 would've

Gone from paying 10% in taxes to 15%. That's called raising taxes...even European progressives know you don't raise taxes in a recession.

[dpibel]

30. Weren't about to flinch

Like this?

WASHINGTON | Sun Sep 12, 2010 1:32pm EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The top Republican in the House of Representatives said on Sunday he would support an extension of tax cuts for middle-class Americans even if tax cuts for the wealthy are allowed to expire.

Representative John Boehner said President Barack Obama's plan to renew lower tax rates for families making less than $250,000 but let the lower rates for wealthier Americans expire was "bad policy." Republicans want to extend all of the cuts passed under former President George W. Bush.

"If the only option I have is to vote for some of those tax reductions, I'll vote for it," Boehner said on CBS's "Face the Nation" program.

[Egnever]

35. Key statement

"If the only option I have is to vote for some of those tax reductions, I'll vote for it," Boehner said on CBS's "Face the Nation" program

No matter how much you wish it were so the senate ensured that he had nothing to worry about when making this statement as it would never be the only option he had.

Put the blame where it belongs

Republicans voted unanimously against the House-passed bill, and they were joined by four Democrats — Senators Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, Joe Manchin III of West Virginia, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Jim Webb of Virginia — as well as by Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, independent of Connecticut.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/05/us/politics/05cong.html

The idea that you think boner meant that is funny, I suppose you missed when he said this when he actually was forced to vote for it.

"Asked about the Democrats' bill Thursday to extend Bush-era tax cuts only for the first $250,000 of income, the Ohio Republican was blunt. The Democrats' bill, unlike the Republican proposal to extend the cuts for every American, has no chance of passing the Senate. So do House Democrats risk losing any glint of bipartisan goodwill by bringing it up at all?

"I'm trying to catch my breath so I don't refer to this maneuver going on today as chicken crap, all right?"

--------------------------------------------------------

Yea when forced to vote on it he got right on board didnt he?

[mmonk]

45. It depends if your view of an economic system that represents

opportunity for all Americans is narrow or not.

[Johonny]

31. In my opinion they would have extended them anyways

They have always gotten extended historically, even these Republicans after getting some bluster have let them pass. Same with lower income tax cuts. Republicans put up a stink but ultimately it's hard to believe they would not pass tax cuts for the poor eventually. They just were unhappy getting into power and then having to fight for only tax cuts for the rich because the other were already done. I really don't buy the basic line had we not done this deal nothing we got would never have passed. I think in the end what we got was Democrats voting for huge tax cuts to rich people that will never give them credit for it, never donate and support them and the economy wouldn't be better off in the long run. So woot!

I is totally unclear what Dems have got for this deal. It's very possible if Start, DADT etc get to the floor of the senate it was because of this deal, but Republicans did not want it known that's what they really gave up.

[stopbush]

34. That's your opinion, and it's highly speculative.

Just like it's highly speculative to aver that the tax cuts won't expire in two years.

[Johonny]

52. That's why I labeled it an opinion.

:)

[JoePhilly]

49. Your premise is wrong from the start.

The extension of unemployment was not the lynch pin.

The critical item was continuing the tax breaks for those making under $250k. The majority of the American people care about little else.

Past that ... getting UE extended for 13 months, when the GOP blocked extending it for 3 months just recently is great, but it was not what drove the deal.

Last, you were NEVER, NEVER, NEVER going to get START, DREAM, or DADT into a tax bill. NEVER!!!!!!!

[bluestate10]

53. A moderate's response.

I would have raised the tax cut to people making $500,000 for a single and $750,000 for a couple. I would have removed the cut for the rest. What would I have asked in return for not just letting all tax cuts expire? A two year extension on UE benefits, inclusion of those whose benefits have expired for one more year, repeal of DADT. If I had to, I would have left the DREAM Act off the table, but made solid plans to bring it back in 2011 and bloody republicans if they fought enactment. START and global warming are lesser priorities for me. Global warming is better fought by informed citizens educating less informed citizens on how to make low environmental footprint choices, with a tad of federal funding thrown in, if available. START would be nice to see enacted, but I could tolerate going back to re-open bargaining with Russians.