"Everybody wants to go to Heaven but nobody wants to die."

[kentuck]

Everybody is saying that the 2008 crash was the worst since the Great Depression. We have spent a lot of money attempting to keep our heads above water. But nobody has really been asked to sacrifice.

Where would we be today if the Bush taxcuts had been allowed to expire? Where would we be today if the taxrates on the wealthy had been raised a few percentage points? Keep in mind that big businesses are setting on over $2 trillion dollars in assets at this moment. Higher taxes has absolutely nothing to do with whether they invest or not.

Now we are moving in on $16 trillion dollars in debt. The Republicans have their issue to demagogue and wail about. The government is in total stalemate. The best argument the Democrats can come up with is that we will not raise taxes on those making less than $250,000 per year. Really?

Personally, I think things could have been done differently.

[chickypea]

1. ???

Your last line suggests you have another plan... please explain what you would have done.

[Fumesucker]

2. Welcome to DU!

I hope you enjoy your stay!



The answer to your question is in the OP, allow the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy to expire.

Another idea not in the OP would be to not become embroiled in land wars in Asia, Afghanistan isn't called "The Graveyard of Empires" for nothing..

Edited due to caffeine deficiency..

[kentuck]

3. Is that all you picked up from the post?

Did you read anything else that might have sounded like a suggestion?

[bigtree]

5. don't you have to factor in the debt-ceiling debate in Congress?

Aren't there several actors in the pursuit of doing 'ti=hings differently?' We'd have to go back and assume that #1, the President could ultimately control what Congress did. They waited all year -- ignoring the President's urging for them to do their job and resolve the debt-ceiling dilemma -- but Congress decided to dither and jammed the President into an end-of-the-year legislative stranglehold, where, in the wake of our nation's economic meltdown, they were playing politics with our debt-ceiling (right-before the mid-term elections, as well).

Of course, there were middle-class tax breaks and incentives that would expire along with the wealthy ones. it wasn't just the President who was determined to preserve those. Democrats in Congress were also loath to let those expire. The American public was also strongly in favor of continuing those middle-class cuts. Yet, republicans were not going to allow those to stand if their precious tax cuts for the rich expired.

So, the President, in negotiations with Congress, allowed a temporary extension of the wealthy cuts. Since that time, the President has been adamant that those wealthy tax breaks be allowed to die.

What I don't understand about your query is, how do you propose that the political debate in Congress would have proceeded differently? We all know the political stakes at the time. We know the political realities of allowing the middle-class tax breaks to fall by the wayside at that time. Where was the support in Congress to do anything differently?

More importantly, given the President's determination to preserve the middle-class breaks, how do you believe he could have influenced that political process differently, at that time?

[kentuck]

6. That was not the proudest moment for the President...

...or the Democrats, in my opinion.

It was nonsense to say that no one making less than $250,000 per year should not pay any more in taxes, just as it was a mistake to not let the Bush taxcuts expire in entirety.

[bigtree]

8. I'm sorry.

For this particular debate, you can't just point at this one plank of an economic proposal made at some arbitrary time and expect to have a rational debate about what course Congress and the President should take. We all have our ideals; and we're all subject to political 'realities' which govern our choices. It's perfectly fine to speak about these issues in the abstract, but we're not usually able to match our ideals with what is ultimately reconciled out of Congress. There was a political debate at the time that was influenced by a weak, but slowly recovering economy, an election, and folks waiting for an extension of their unemployment benefits.

What would you have done with the expiring Earned Income Tax Credit?

What about the expiring Child Tax Credit?

Why wouldn't we want to find a replacement for the American Opportunity Tax Credit?

I'm sorry, Kentuck, I can't just ignore these other middle-class incentives and act as if all that was at stake at the time was that temporary wealthy tax cut extension and the $250,000 proposal,

[kentuck]

9. Sometimes...

You have to draw a line in the sand. You cannot continue to surrender and expect things to ever change. They will only get worse. Once a bully takes your apple, he will not stop there.

Do you actually believe the Repubs would have let all these things happen before the mid-term elections?

[bigtree]

10. that Congress? With the Paul guy who said he was willing to bankrupt the country for his politics?

Yes, I believe they would. Look what they've done to the nation these past three years in refusing to enact policies which would help our economy and help folks find work.

I didn't see the compromise for a temporary extension of the wealthy tax cuts as 'surrender.' I don't know what you believe the effect would have been if Congress had not found a means to compromise. Certainly, you would have gotten your way and all of the tax cuts and incentives would've been allowed to expire -- many of the middle-class breaks conceived, fought for, and put in place by our Democratic party.

Many protests assume that the legislative process is the dominion of the opposition, and that compromise in the system can only mean a sacrifice of principle or belief. But, our political institutions are designed for both argument and compromise. There is little room in our democracy to dictate one view or the other.

So, in my view of the debate at that time, it was certainly easy to come up with ideals and acts of courage which we'd wish Congress would heed and adopt. It was/is much harder to reconcile all of the myriad of interests and needs of our diverse national legislature with members representing many disparate districts, regions, and states around the nation.

[kentuck]

11. You seem to forget that we still had the Senate...

...and the Presidency? And the other side could do anything they wanted, short of genocide, and there would be no political penalty?

[bigtree]

12. I remember that all economic bills must originate in the (then-republican) House

. . . except by unanimous consent (60 votes in the Senate).

[kentuck]

13. Yes, they originate in the House but...

..they do not end there. Sixty votes is used to stop debate, usually by the other side.

[malaise]

4. Since we are dealing with plans

and I plan to send you flowers, it would be nice to know your favorite flowers.
Oh welcome to DU - enjoy your stay.

[sinkingfeeling]

7. I wish things could have been done differently. And I agree that some of

us are willing to pay more in taxes. The Democrats need to drag out more graphs and charts showing that the vast majority of the debt came from G.W.B. It's like last month, where were the news stories about the April surplus?

[jp11]

14. Of course things could have been done differently.

A lot of public employees have been asked to sacrifice and I can't speak for you but I and many others were 'asked' to accept a freeze in wages, reduction of benefits and the removal of others while paying more for just about everything.

Democrats should take a look at the progressive caucus budget plan, instead of staying in the right wing world, talking about Simpsons Bowles or Ryan's Budget as the main focus. How can we have real compromise when you only deal with one side's extreme ideas and the 'bi-partisan' recommendation, you start from the right and go to the 'center' which is center right.

Democrats have their 'ideas' like taxing the rich a bit more, closing loopholes, and ending the OBAMA tax cuts(he extended them they are his). Where will that get us I wonder, probably caving on just about all that for a Ryan'esque budget maybe the Obama tax cuts will actually end though.

Then there is the elephant in the room the military budget neither side wants to touch. We REALLY need to outspend numerous countries COMBINED I guess. The debt is a joke so long as the military is treated as the most important thing we spend money on.

[kentuck]

15. Right on!

The progressive caucus budget was the logical way to go, considering the experience of the last ten years and the mess we were/are in.