Brace yourself.

[kentuck]

When the Democrats come back, they will debate the Bush taxcuts extension. They will vote to extend the Bush taxcuts. Bet on it. They know it will not create jobs. It will only increase the deficit and give the Repubs even more ammunition for the next election, in 2012.

But, the Party is in such disarray, they will fall for the Republican arguments once again. They will agree to a two year extension, hoping they will again be in power so the Republicans cannot make it permanent or extend them even further.

Surely, the Democrats are not this stupid, you say! But, you see, they have to do whatever they can do to get this economy going again. So they will vote for more taxcuts for the wealthy. Just like true Republicans.

What does that mean? That means we are supporting a Republican Party, not a Democratic Party.

But it hasn't happened yet. No, but do you believe the Democrats will vote against extending the Bush taxcuts? I wish I had more faith in my Democratic Party.

If this happens, I cannot support this Democratic Party anymore. This is my line in the sand.

I will wait and see but it does not look good at this time.

[waiting]

1. Only for the middle class.

They will not vote to keep the cuts for those earning over 250,000 dollars a year.

[slackmaster]

4. I hope you are right, but I'll believe that when I see it

:hi:

[waiting]

8. I hope I'm right too!

We need them for the middle, the top 2% have gooten all of the breaks for the past 10 years.

[Warpy]

10. The Blue Dogs will join with Republicans to extend those tax cuts to the plutocrats

The only question is whether or not Obama will grow enough of a spine to veto the bill.

[Poboy]

18. Jellyfish do not have spines. Never have, never will. -nt

[dreamnightwind]

51. No, but they should like to sting the left... eom

Aarrgh, they SURE like to sting the left is what I meant to type.

Gibbs should go ahead and drug test me, I'll fail with flying colors.

[maryf]

52. they sting on the sly nt

[Winterblues]

33. There will have to be sixty one of them banding together

Because I know at least one Democrat will filibuster it..

[zipplewrath]

13. I'm afraid this is how it will play out

There will be months of hate and acrimony. Then in the "final days" the democrats, led by Obama, will declare it is more important to maintain the tax cuts for the middle class, "and ensure the continued success of the stimulus" than to end the tax cuts for only the wealthy. So they will extend ALL the tax cuts for 2 years. Most of the GOP still won't vote for it, because it will assuredly have some add on features about some project in some democrats district. They'll demand a "clean bill" and vote against it. The democrats will get 2 - 5 GOP votes and it will ultimately pass. Obama will claim he "tried to work" with the GOP, Gibbs will declare this a "win" for the middle class. I'll get a half dozen emails from OFA telling me how important it was that I support this "important legislation". DU will blame the GOP.

As far as I'm concerned, let them ALL expire.

[kentuck]

15. I agree.

That's about how it is going to transpire.

[blindpig]

20. Yep

it ain't 'spinelessness' or ineptitude, it is kabuki theater.

[Hansel]

43. If they extend the tax cuts they have to be paid for.

They have no choice on that.

[Hannah Bell]

45. lol. and how will they "pay for" them, i wonder.

[Donnachaidh]

48. well, they've cut food stamps - so the next in line will be Social Security

Kinda neat how this will all line up with the Catfood Commission's *findings*, dontcha think?

[Dr.Phool]

57. One word.

Meow.

[tinymontgomery]

50. I like your crystal ball

because that is how everything else has basically played out.:toast:

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

94. Correct.

[AnArmyVeteran]

2. Congressional jellyfish.

Out of all 535 members in congress only a half dozen have spines. The rest are gutless cowards who lack the courage to do what is right for the American people or our decaying country.

[apnu]

5. Hell I'd take a congress critter that stood up for their constituents.

Things would be much more sane in DC if the Congresspersons and Senators simply did what was best for the people who elected them. It is sad that we don't even have that.

[lonestarnot]

3. And I am a yellowdog to the core, but what she said!

[bullwinkle428]

6. If Harry Reid is our "firewall", I know where to place my own bet.

K&R.

[MilesColtrane]

7. Bookmarking

[kentuck]

9. I wish I had more confidence in the Party.

And that is a statement in itself.

[nc4bo]

11. I so hope you are wrong but I'm afraid the possibility exists. This was discussed

at length on Countdown last night using an interview with Dick Gregory and some (R) who kept evading the "How will the Bush tax cuts be paid for" if they were allowed to continue.

How WILL they be paid for became a parallel discussion on cutting entitlements to the usual suspects - us. Especially cutting Social Security benefits.

The middle class will be told to take another HUGE hit.

Nice.

[kentuck]

14. Wouldn't it be nice to know where your Party stands...?

Without having to guess how they might vote on an issue such as this? That speaks volumes.

[Dogmudgeon]

12. And we will sit here. And complain. And do nothing else.

Far from being a knock on you, it's an observation, based on my 9 years here: liberals and progressives are utterly inert. They won't even pick up the phone and call their elected Representatives/ Senators/ etc.

It also explains why elected Democrats are so easy to intimidate. No one will back them up, so they figure, why should they do anything more than they have to?

If you, or anybody else, draws their line in the sand (and for some, it's ten or more lines-in-the-sand per week, plus the occasional call for a general strike or Revolution), it will be much more than most people here do at all.

Want Democrats who will fight? Throw the first punch. The Conservatives have a number of techniques that can be easily adapted for Liberal use, like packing school boards, setting up official-looking Citizen's Commissions, schmmozing media personages, and filing barratrous lawsuits (with just enough meat to retain standing and avoid frivolity).

All we have now are anarchists who put on radical puppet shows and rich kids from enviro groups who chain themselves to the entrance to Apple Computer in protest of the iPod using mercury in their batteries. Maybe if five million lawsuits hit the 5th and 11th Circuit courts in the space of 8 weeks, with nobody willing to settle or be bound into a class action, there might be some a little official celerity shown.

How about a few school boards that BAN "abstinence sex education"? Or, if "all alternative theories must be taught", getting Theosophical evolutionary theory taught? Maybe a few Sunday-morning church protests?

Instead of burning draft cards, burn lease and mortgage papers. (Fakes are okay. The Cons fake it all the time. It's for the cameras.)

Online is for support, organization, and planning. With online "activism", you might as well post a kitteh with the subtitle "I can haz Democracy?"

--d!

[kentuck]

16. Why do they think we sent them up there?

to be Republicans?

[MadHound]

19. Oh, some Dems do more than sit and complain

Some actually support these kind of actions because, after all, the people instigating these actions have a D behind their name. These people will contort themselves and their beliefs into all sorts of knots in order to justify any action take by a Dem.

[walldude]

27. I disagree... When liberals get pissed enough we turn out in the millions

problem is if a million liberals show up to demonstrate against something the press will spend all it's time talking about the 300 conservative counter protesters... You can "pack the school boards" all you want, you aren't going to get anywhere until the press stops acting like a stenographer for the government.

[JoeyT]

54. Lol Wut?

"They won't even pick up the phone and call their elected Representatives/Senators/etc."

We practically harassed our representatives to death during the fight for HCR. Even the people that had Republican reps pestered the hell out of them. Letters to the editor in favor of it flooded newspapers. Donations to politicians that were fighting for it went through the roof. The left fought for health care reform.

And that worked out really well for us. It gave them the political cover they needed to gut the bill of most of the useful provisions and pander to the right, who still hate their guts, and still didn't vote for it.

[Autumn]

92. I am sorry you are like that, I call and write letters

to mine all the time. I have even encountered them in public places and gone up and talked to them. I have had their back. I have donated to them and I vote in every election. It's past fucking time they have my back.

[kentuck]

17. Biden is speaking about this very subject at this moment.

It is somewhat encouraging. I still have hope.

[CoffeeCat]

21. The Dems WANT to extend the Bush tax cuts...

The good ol' kabuki theater players, brought to use by the Capitol Hill thespians, want
us to believe that it is mainly Republicans spearheading the "extend-the-Bush-tax
cuts" effort.

Think about that. Does that even make one iota of sense? We have majorities in
the House and Senate and we have the White House.

Please.

I will scream--if I have to endure one more round of our Democrats feigning weakness and suggesting
that they were, once more, overcome by the magical iron will of the Republicans!

"Oh dear Lawd in heaven...help me! Legislatin' is just so complicated and hard. I've been overcome by
John Bohner's tan!"

Democrats and Republicans are in bed with corporations and the wealthy. Corporations bought off our politicians
long ago. Corporations and the wealthy want their goddamn money! So, they will get those Bush
tax cuts because that's what the Corporations and the top 2 percent want.

Neocon, corporatist Dems and Republicans are in their back-rooms right now--lapping up martinis--as they figure
out which Dems are safe enough in their districts to vote for the Bush tax cuts. Some will have to do it,
because it's what the corporations demand. It's just a matter of minimizing the damage and keeping those
career politicians in office.

So, yeah. We'll get Congressional kabuki theater. A few choice Dems will rage against the machine and make
Progressives feel as if there is someone looking out for their interests! Then, we'll have a couple of handpicked
Dems--will give "we the people" the speech about how this just needs to be done--to help the economy (just as the OP said).
These will be well-liked, well-received Dems who are safe in their districts.

Gotta put a good face on the Fascism if the chump U.S citizens are gonna fall for it!

Then, we'll have many other Dems who will act weak, depressed and upset about another surprise Republican
victory that came out of nowhere and caused them to lose control of their minds and free will.

For the love of Pete--are we really and truly going to stand around and believe one more round of this?

[MrMickeysMom]

53. "...are we really and truly going to stand around ?"

Of this outcome, I think two possibilities will exist.

1) we don't stand around, but actually lie down and have ourselves shackled to being debt slaves, grateful for our bread and circuses each night.

2) we stand up and commence getting ourselves bloodied in the 2nd American Revolution.

I'm doubting that it's the first, because we haven't been bludgeoned properly yet. Also, we're too fat and stupidly distracted by our electronic devices. When all that's gone away and we live to see our children hate us for not trying hard enough, then we'll commence with a number 2!

Yeah, I'm just a little bit critical over things tonight...

[girl gone mad]

22. And brace yourself for a VAT tax..

because that's how the Obama administration plans on increasing revenue.

[area51]

25. I hope not. n/t

[amandabeech]

55. But only after the rape of Social Security. n/t

[EC]

23. No they'll just let all of them expire before they'll

continue cuts for the upper 2%...the only thing they will be auguing about in congress is rather to continue them for the middle class or not...if the repubs won't vote for that, they'll be held up as against the middle-class. The polling says that pushing through the upper 2% is a loser. So worse case would be just letting them run out...and going back to tax cuts for middle class in new year...

[LatteLibertine]

24. I hope you're wrong

Last I heard they might extend them for only the middle class. Guess we will see. If they do keep them in place for the most wealthy, they're going to have a much harder time in November.

[HughBeaumont]

26. They'll expire.

This is our "inch", albeit ONE, still an inch. They're not going to completely fuck us. The TMTR is the lowest it's been in 75 years and all it's resulted in is a massive unemployment crater and a canyon of debt. These tax cuts will not continue. It's a loser move. You cannot give these thieves absolute power.

[EFerrari]

28. Why do you think the party is in disarray, kentuck?

[kentuck]

30. This is an issue the Democrats should be taking advantage of...

instead of letting the Repubs paint the as big tax increasers.

It was the Republicans that voted to increase these taxes. They put it into law in 2001. It wasn't the Democrats. It was voted by reconciliation to expire at the end of 2010.

Basically, the Democrats don't have to anything. The Republican bill will expire and raise taxes on all Americans. It is the Repubicans that voted to raise taxes in 2001 but decided to postpone it until 2011, after they had robbed us all blind.

The Democrats are in "disarray" because they cannot come up with a simple explanation to the people of what happened and why it is a Republican "tax increase".

[HughBeaumont]

32. Except how can they logically DO that (paint them as increasers)?

The 2011 Sunset was built into the Tax Cut. These were not permanent tax cuts, a fact which seems to slip the minds of the Punditocracy. This was a Republican-created document. Democrats aren't increasing ANYTHING, Republicans ARE. It's a hands-off action.

[kentuck]

35. Exactly as you said.

It is the Repubs that are increasing taxes.

[HughBeaumont]

40. I'm just wanting to see if they're going to actually display any kind of backbone

against these schmucks.

Don't care whether it's the popular thing to do - STAND for something. This country is effing BROKE. Letting these assholes continually off the hook for this debt is NOT going to fix anything. Republicans are proven and consummate failures.

[EFerrari]

38. Thanks. I was wondering if I'd missed something else. n/t

[BootinUp]

29. Obama will not sign an extension for tax cuts

for those over 250K.

bookmark it.

[Hansel]

42. I think you are right because they are unsustainable.

The economics of it don't really give him a choice. Someone has to stand up and be the adult here.

He needs to start framing this as the responsibility that those who have the resources have to the war on terrorism and win over the country with that argument. It's a 3 cent tax on every dollar after $250,000 net income. The wealthy can certainly afford that. Politicians don't seem to have a problem tacking on 3 cent to our state's sales tax for the middle and lower class to pay every time they want a new playground/stadium. It should be that hard to sell.

[BeachBaby]

31. After seeing "Capitalism: A Love Story", I'm beginning to think that the Democratic Party is a sham.

The first hint was watching Pelosi - in 2006 - all dreamy-eyed with Bush. It didn't rest well with me.

By and large, they all say what they need to say, in order to get votes; but once they're in, all bets are off.

[kentuck]

36. Here an excellent exerpt for those that have not seen it. Watch it.

http://define.com/

[BeachBaby]

39. LOL.

He (the owner of that domain) and I have been in email contact. :)

[readmoreoften]

85. It is.

I realized that while I was on strike and saw their distain for labor. I really have lost any respect I had for any of them. I'm voting for my local Dem congressman, but that's it. Maybe a few other local dems who really are the "lesser evils". But I won't vote for Obama in 2012. No way. It's like voting for Hitler or Petain. I'm not voting for fascists and I'm not voting for cowards who do their bidding or who apologize for them or who try to work with them. This is the weakest excuse for "change" I've could've even imagined. I expected him to fake it for awhile and then screw us over. I had no idea it'd be an up front and immediate screwing as soon as the oath was sworn.

I have no interest in national electoral politics because no one represents me or the interests of anyone I know. If I want America to hear my voice, I'll protest in the streets, thanks.

[leeroysphitz]

34. They will do exactly what they are getting paid to do. n/t

[Morning Dew]

37. "I never got a job from a poor man."

They can't create jobs when they're so heavily taxed, don'tcha know?


So, my question is, with those cuts currently in place ,

Where are the rutting jobs now?

[TheKentuckian]

41. Sounds dead on target because otherwise Democrats would just let the cuts expire

then if they wanted to wet the beaks of the lower 98% they'd then fight that battle and stick the Republicans with opposing tax cuts for working class people.

As an aside, its time to drop the "middle class" rhetoric and go to the more inclusive working class. The middle class is on its death bed.

The thing should be allowed to die and the money from the lower 98% into infrastructure to create some jobs and keep the country from falling down on our heads and keep us competitive rather than piss it away a pizza's worth of money a week that few even notice.

It sounds good but it's a lame use of valuable resources to keep ANY of the tax cuts.

[Better Believe It]

44. The Democratic Party leaders aren't stupid. They understand what they are doing.and who pays them

the big bucks.

[Poboy]

46. ttt

[spanone]

47. that really might be the last straw...i too will wait and see

[glitch]

49. If so they will concede the deficit bs > requiring cuts to social security. IOW they are captured.

Game over. I hope you're wrong.

[mmonk]

56. .

[whatchamacallit]

58. I've drawn a dozen lines in the sand

and the democrats crossed them all. At this point it would be more surprising if they didn't do the wrong thing.

[olegramps]

59. If Obama allows this to happen, would you support someone else in 2012 for president?

How many failures can the working class endure before abandoning this administration. Health Care Reform and Financial Reform are both losers. Then we have the attacks on the Teachers' Unions as the scapegoat for under achievement of kids from broken homes and no parental guidance along with his Cat Food Commission and host of appointments of incompetent assholes. And the wars go on and on bankrupting the nation.

[kentuck]

60. If Obama did not veto such a bill...?

Yes, he would lose my support. I actually do not know where he stands on this issue or the Social Security issue.

I think we are in a situation where our few friends in the Senate and the House will have to keep the President honest or the President will have to keep the majority of loose Democrats honest with his veto pen. One or the other will have to happen. If they vote together to extend the taxcuts or to cut Social Security, what reason would we have to support either one??

[WI_DEM]

61. I'm book marking this because I think you're wrong (again).

[kentuck]

62. I hope I am wrong.

How confident are you?

[femrap]

63. Not if this happens.....

http://gonzalolira.blogspot.com/2010/08/how-hyperinflation-will-happen.html


But it will probably happen after the election....maybe.

[kentuck]

64. ?

...

[Jamastiene]

65. Credit where credit is due.

It looks like you called it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9025198

You were right.

[kentuck]

67. They haven't done it yet.

I hope they see the error of their ways.

[BeHereNow]

66. Hell, they all benefit from the Bush Plutocracy Tax cuts!

As IF they are going to repeal anything that would
hurt their self interests.
They are all among the wealthiest people in the country
and they don't give a damn about us.
This should be clear to everyone by now.

BHN

[dkf]

68. The top 3% do 25% of the spending. Who will take up this slack?

[kentuck]

69. Got a link for that stat?

Where did you get that? Can we guess?

[dkf]

70. Pelosi's economist Mark Zandi

"Normally, I would firmly agree that raising taxes on people who make over $250,000 a year would not make a meaningful difference in the way they spend money. But I worry that these aren't normal times and that even this income group may be sensitive," Zandi said, noting that the top 3 percent of households account for a quarter of all personal spending. "With 9.5 percent unemployment - which is clearly going to move higher - raising taxes is a gamble that is unnecessary," he said...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9025198

[kentuck]

71. Does he speak for anyone other than Mark Zandi?

I wonder?

[dkf]

72. It's a statistic for goodness sakes.

[kentuck]

73. It's a quote from Mark Zandi...

It may be true. It may not be true.

[dkf]

75. Here is another stat... The top 5% are responsible for 37% of consumer outlays.

According to new research from Moody’s Analytics, the top 5% of Americans by income account for 37% of all consumer outlays. Outlays include consumer spending, interest payments on installment debt and transfer payments.

By contrast, the bottom 80% by income account for 39.5% of all consumer outlays.

http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2010/08/05/us-economy-is-increasingly-tied-to-the-rich/

[kentuck]

76. Do we need anymore proof that too much wealth is in the hands of too few?

Thanks for the stat!

[dkf]

78. Yes it is a huge problem and destabilizes the economy as zandi mentions.

But that also means raising taxes on the big spenders could be too much of a shock. If they don't spend money who will? The middle and lower income individuals are paying down debt and trying to save which is smart but which hurts the economy.

There aren't enough frivolous spenders to keep us afloat.

[Hannah Bell]

74. government spending & transfers to people who actually need the money.

it's shameful that 3% do 25% of the consumer spending & 5% do nearly 40% of it.

[kentuck]

77. That speaks volumes, doesn't it?

Shameful.

[dkf]

79. The top earners had a negative savings rate. It's not normally that exaggerated.

Lower and middle incomers were saving and paying down debt, not buying stuff. Ironically the rich might be more efficient spenders in this type of economy.

[Hannah Bell]

81. it is normally that exaggerated. because the top 20% has most of the money.

it's "this kind of economy" because they have most of the money: 60% of all income. bottom 80% takes 40% of all income.

chart 6: http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

"The rising concentration of income can be seen in a special New York Times analysis of an Internal Revenue Service report on income in 2004. Although overall income had grown by 27% since 1979, 33% of the gains went to the top 1%. Meanwhile, the bottom 60% were making less: about 95 cents for each dollar they made in 1979. The next 20% - those between the 60th and 80th rungs of the income ladder -- made $1.02 for each dollar they earned in 1979. Furthermore, the Times author concludes that only the top 5% made significant gains ($1.53 for each 1979 dollar). Most amazing of all, the top 0.1% -- that's one-tenth of one percent -- had more combined pre-tax income than the poorest 120 million people (Johnston, 2006)."


if you have money, you're an "efficient spender".

[dkf]

82. Normal used to be 25% of spending but it ballooned after the stock market runoff.

"What is surprising is just how much or our consumer economy is now dependent on the rich, and how that share has increased as the U.S. emerges from recession. In the third quarter of 1990, the top 5% accounted for 25% of consumer outlays. That held relatively steady until the mid-1990s, when it started inching up past 30%. It dipped in 2003 and again in 2008, but started surging in 2009 amid the greatest bull market rally in history, with the Dow Jones Industry Average rising nearly 50% in the last nine months of the year."

I saw a stat that attributed the 1st quarter recovery to increased spending by the top earners.

[Hannah Bell]

83. the quote says it's been above 25% since the mid-90s.

there is no recovery.

[dkf]

87. This expenditures number is probably inverse to the savings rates.

Earlier, while top earners made a lot they also saved a lot while the middle and lower incomes spent more than what they made. But in the first quarter that reversed with middle and lower income earners saving and top earners spending in excess of their income. This means the spending patterns of the top earners were driving the recovery as lower and middle incomes stopped spending and started saving. It also explains why the numbers started dropping again when the top earners got nervous and halted their spending after the market started gyrating again.

Because this country is top heavy, our policies towards this group may have more of an impact on the economic numbers than we would like. Make them nervous and their spending behaviours could change to our detriment.

[Hannah Bell]

90. tax them & we won't have to worry about their precious "spending patterns".

bullshit on that, they don't give a damn about affecting our "spending patterns".

[Zorra]

80. If they do that, I'm done with the Democratic Party also.

That would be something that could not be explained away or forgiven.

[Skittles]

84. oh plenty of DUers will defend it

just like they've defended all other half-assed crap

[readmoreoften]

86. They'll extend all the cuts, but throw us one little or medium-small sized bone.

Just to keep us hanging, just to prove they're not "exactly" like the Republicans. Maybe, for instance, they'll raise taxes 1% for anyone earning from 200,000-300,000. You know, tax the upper middle class. Let their billionaire criminal friends go free. Or maybe they'll keep the cuts for the hundred-thousandaires and give a 1% increase to the billionaires and then also give them a loophole. Or give an increase and let the Republicans beat them up about it and cave in the name of bipartisanship just around the election.

It'll be some bullshit, I'm sure.

[rucky]

88. I only have enough nerve capacity to worry about things that are actually happening.

not to say it won't happen - it may. but shit.

[Canuckistanian]

89. All Dems need to do is.... NOTHING

We should start a campaign that says "JUST DO NOTHING" to save the economy.

If any Dem, ANYWHERE, ANYTIME mulls the possibility of a bill to extend the tax cuts, SHOUT. THEM. DOWN.

[scheming daemons]

91. Unrec..... this is where GOP obstructionism will work out in our favor

Nothing will get done.... and Dec 31 will come... and the tax cuts... ALL of them... will expire.

[redwitch]

93. If they vote to extend the Bush tax cuts I may be done.

That would be the ultimate slap in the face.