Extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich means tacitly admitting Reagan was right.

[burning rain]

Democrats will be as much as saying that they’ve been wrong about the tax issue all these years and have just been punishing the rich, even at the expense of hurting the overall economy. And since the Democratic position on the economy depends on having tax money to spend, ceding the tax issue will mean largely surrendering on economics. Democrats will be left to fight it out on hot-button social issues, and to hope that Republicans save them by nominating the likes of Sharron Angle and Ken Buck. That’s an unenviable position.

It’s also radically unlikely that a two-year extension of the top bracket tax cuts will be allowed to expire when the time comes. Republicans’ numbers in the Senate are only going to increase in January, and probably again in 2012 and 2014, 2006 and 2008 having been big Democratic years. Why believe Democrats will accomplish from a weaker position in the future, what they can’t from a stronger position now? Plus, they will be left to argue incoherently that tax cuts for the rich were good then, but are bad now. That, or admit openly that they cut taxes for the rich simply out of weakness, even though they knew it was wrong. Democrats are in a world of hurt if they cave on taxes.

Thanks to the DUers who encouraged me to turn a (short) reply into an OP.

[Edweird]

1. I think it just shows that certain people's political affiliations may be deceptive or dishonest.

[myrna minx]

14. That's why I feel so foolish - I should have know better- but I didn't listen to my friends who

did. :-(

[Edweird]

19. Look at the options: Obama, Clinton and Clark - all DLC birds of a feather.

We would have ended up in essentially exactly the same place no matter what. You remember how and why Dean (who is also no Liberal) was eliminated, right? I don't believe one bit of this, including the McCain/Palin loss, is the least bit coincidental.

[TheKentuckian]

2. It is suicidalish for sure.

[pnwmom]

3. No, it doesn't. It means that extending long term unemployment

insurance -- and the other parts of this second stimulus package -- were too important to not come to a compromise.

[dkf]

5. Yes.

I don't understand why this is so hard for people to get.

[pnwmom]

6. Maybe they don't know enough people who are out of work.

They'd rather deny the tax cuts to the rich than take care of those who are suffering right now.

[dkf]

7. Yeah I don't think they can see anything except for those cuts.

It's the ole red cape to the enraged bull.

[chimpymustgo]

11. I will never buy the BULLSHIT that is was all or nothing. Stupid.

[Recursion]

16. How is this even up for question?

OK, genius, tell me how to get another package through Congress.

Waiting.

[chimpymustgo]

29. Genius, you figure it out. FUCKING LOSERS.

[pnwmom]

21. It wasn't "all or nothing." It was "compromise." We got a lot that we wanted

and they didn't. They also got something big they wanted and we absolutely did not.

[myrna minx]

12. Would you please explain how the 99ers are helped by the Obama tax cuts? Are they not suffering?

Can you please explain how this bill helps those singles who make less than $20,000 a year and families who make less than $40,000 a year who's taxes are about to go up?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/07/tax-cut-compromise-whose-taxes-rise_n_793572.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-fieldhouse/any-payroll-tax-cut-shoul_b_796741.html?ir=Politics

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/08/us/politics/08impact.html?_r=2&hp

How is that caring for those "hurting right now" or are they just not the right human shield to make this bill more palatable? :shrug:

[pnwmom]

23. They will be helped if the new stimulus package works to get

the economy moving again, even if there wasn't a specific place in the package that addressed them. Once companies start hiring again there will be more jobs for everyone. That is the whole point.

You mention taxes going up for lower earning families. In this package, a one-year stimulus plan (Make America Work) was replaced by the Social Security rate cut for next year; and yes, this means slightly higher taxes for this group for next year (compared to this year.) However, the Make America Work plan was never intended to last more than a year. And under the laws enacted in 2001 and 2003, families with lower incomes were about to have their income tax rates go from 10% to 15% -- a 50% tax increase. In other words, these families NEXT year will pay slightly more than they are THIS year, since the Make America Work plan expired -- but they will be paying much LESS than if the 2001 rates were put back into place.

[Trajan]

4. Perhaps the idea was rash and unwarranted ...

Expanding that one post, I meant ...

There is no 'right' ... Reagan's tax cuts were wrong on more than one level, even if you, your thread advisor and 50 million Republicans might think they were right ...

[sabbat hunter]

8. He was right in one regard

He once said that he would rather get half of what he wanted rather than jumping off a cliff with flag flying.


That is basically what happened here. President Obama knew that the republicans would block anything but an extension of the tax cut for all. But in return we got an extension of unemployment benefits and a return of the estate tax (although not at the level it was previously, it is still back).

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hubert Flottz]

10. Did you say Obama tax cuts?

[FormerDittoHead]

13. Not just passing it, but then BRAGGING about it.

Saw John Kerry for 15 seconds this morning as he was asked "who was the winner?"

His PC answer was "The American people are the winners..." at which time I turned the channel.

With Republicans, I fucking hate bipartisanship. The only "bipartisanship" I want to see is Republicans agreeing with US, not the other way around.

If 30% of the people want to drink their Kool-Aide, that's THEIR business, but don't ask me to go to their church.

[Recursion]

15. No, it means admitting there are 41 Republicans in the Senate

Why the hell do people here not get that?

[JoePhilly]

17. No, it means Obama kept his promise to not raise taxes on those making under $250k ...

That is the single provision driving this entire compromise.

That provision is the one which results in high levels of support for the compromise across Dem, Independents, Republicans.

The majority of Americans making under 250k want to keep their tax break. They don't care about the rest.

[Tatiana]

18. Actually, the idea regarding tax cuts goes even further back to another democratic President.

JFK, IIRC wanted to pass tax cuts as a way of stimulating a sluggish economy. LBJ got the measure pushed through Congress in February of 1964. Historians have been arguing ever since whether the resulting economic growth was due to the tax cuts. Some argue that Kennedy's tax cuts were demand-side versus Reagan's supply-side cuts.

[burning rain]

28. I'm not an admirer of JFK's tax cuts for the rich, either.

He had few accomplishments and is one of history's more overrated figures, largely because he was handsome, and had glamor, flash, and a good speaking voice. Neither did he make a particularly liberal record in the House and Senate. Not so surprising that Goldwater loved JFK and loathed LBJ.

[Occam Bandage]

20. Incorrect. The Democrats have been consistently stating that the tax breaks are a bad idea,

but that they've been forced into passing them temporarily because the Republicans took hostages.

[burning rain]

24. That, then, is an admission of weakness.

That Dems couldn't enact their supposed position despite holding the White House and Congress. They chose to enable Republican filibustering by using neither the nuclear option nor reconciliation.

[quinnox]

22. unrec for the lizard pic

I'm amazed you can get away with that big-ass pic as a sigline.

[burning rain]

26. I wish to bring visibility to the reptoid issue.

No apologies!

[mmonk]

25. Democrats fell into the trap laid for them.

It currently lacks the conviction to break the Reagan hold.

[Poboy]

27. Recommend.