So, folks want the President to effectively allow taxes to be raised for middle-class families

[bigtree]

. . . to avoid extending the tax cuts for the wealthy?

If Congress fails to isolate the middle-class tax cuts and reject the tax cuts for the wealthy - if Congress decides to continue them both - folks would rather the President vetoed it and let all the cuts expire?

Is it really a good idea to effectively raise taxes on the middle-class in the period before the next presidential election? I can already hear the campaign against that.

Didn't he promise not to allow their taxes to be raised?

[de novo]

1. You have accepted the repub frame.

The Dems need to be forceful and loud about extending the cuts for the middle-class. They need to be shouting the repubs want to sacrifice the middle-class for the rich. The Dems need to harp on the deficits.

They need to own this frame.

[bigtree]

4. I think you overestimate the President's influence

He will likely get a bill extending both.

And also, the 'republican frame' is exactly the what critics here are promoting. The line goes that Obama is capitulating on behalf of wealthy taxpayers. The White House assertion is that they are for middle-class tax cuts, first and foremost. That's always their first assertion. Then they go on to explain their many objections to continuing the cuts for the wealthy indefinitely.

The WH wants permanent middle-class tax cuts and to phase out the cuts for the wealthy. That's the proper frame, but you won't find that from critics here.

[de novo]

5. Didn't he also promise to let the bush tax cuts expire?

We'll just have to rename them the Bush/Obama tax cuts for the wealthy. And,them use the deficit to gut social programs.

[bigtree]

10. try and imagine what's more important to middle-class families

I saw pollster Greenspan on teevee today and he hadn't polled on the question of what the public would favor if it meant both or none at all. Most of what I imagine are the ads bashing the President for his broken promise to not allow middle-class taxes to be raised. Maybe he can parse all of that. I don't think so.

[de novo]

12. When the deficits are used as the excuse to gut social programs,

we will see what turns out to be most important.

[pnwmom]

25. No, he didn't. He wants to continue the cuts for the middle class.

He never promised to let all the tax cuts expire.

[de novo]

29. Oh, I guess he didn't use the word promise, but he sure as hell campaigned

on ending the bush tax cuts for the wealthy.

It was part of his tax reform plan.

[pnwmom]

33. And he's still saying he wants to end them.

But not the middle class cuts.

[Zhade]

22. You guys need to make up your fucking mind.

Either he's influential and "the most progressive president since FDR" (*snort*), or he's not. You don't get to have it both ways.

[pnwmom]

24. Shouting won't solve the problem. You didn't answer the question.

If Congress passed the bill temporarily extending all the tax cuts, should Obama sign it?

[de novo]

27. Hell no.

[MannyGoldstein]

2. Go away

Seriously.

18 years of capitulation and triangulation and here we are. You may like the status quo, but I don't.

[bigtree]

3. go away?

Manny, now I really have heard it all today.

[pnwmom]

26. After you. n/t

[Ganja Ninja]

32. +1

[Tatiana]

6. First and foremost, I would like the President to draw a line in the sand.

Middle class tax cuts only.

Let Reid introduce the bill in the Senate.

Again, you are buying into the Republican argument that we can't have one without the other. Separate the two. Call their bluff. Force Republicans to vote against middle class tax cuts and you will have a winning issue in 2012 with a record of all the Republicants who voted against the bill.

Stop being afraid of the bullies.

[de novo]

7. Exactly. The Dems act like losers. Like they are the permanent

minority, weakling party.

[bigtree]

9. I'm not buying any argument at all. I'm looking at the make-up of our legislature

. . . and concluding that the President is likely going to get a bill extending both. I'll be surprised if he doesn't, no matter what stance he takes. But, it's just a long shot to imagine Congress won't extend the cuts for the wealthy, if they manage to extend any at all.

Stop assuming folks with different perspectives are 'afraid'. I don't see any virtue in the President effectively raising rates on middle-class families with his veto (almost surely bound to be overridden) if Congress does what I expect; not before this next election.

[butterfly77]

34. Let them all expire as intended..

and use this for leverage with the repubs for other issues we want. Tax cutting is their main issue.

[OHdem10]

8. Times change things. He made the promise before he knew

he would face a Republican House with Blue Dogs and DLCers
many of whom want the Taxes on Rich raised. Before he
knew he would have a Senate with increased number of Republicans
and Some Blue Dogs and DLCers who wish to continue the
taxcuts for the rich.

[grahamhgreen]

11. YES! It's not a tax break - it's borrowing money I don't have now, to pay back even more, later.

Bad plan.

[grahamhgreen]

13. The unemployed don't get a tax cut, why should anyone else.

[Warpy]

14. Taxes aren't being raised, they're being restored.

You need to get that one right, first.

Second, middle class families with children will feel a little pain. I inherited being middle class for the first time in my life and my taxes will be going up from the last 4 years. However, that's OK. This country simply cannot afford continuing the giveaway to plutocrats. I will be quite willing to forgo the Bush tax cuts myself to prevent this country from sinking into bankruptcy. The IMF is not kind to countries that bankrupt.

Restoring all the taxes to their Clinton levels is not a huge tragic thing. Most people in the bottom couple of quintiles won't notice it at all. The people in the middle and fourth quintile will notice it but generally not be terribly inconvenienced by it, not to the point of going hungry. The top quintile will notice it, especially the top 5%. They can well afford it and should never have been given a cut 10 years ago.

Remember, the choice is very stark. Either the plutocrats give up their ridiculous cuts or the country will be driven into bankruptcy. If having the rest of us restored to an earlier tax rate is the only way we can end those reckless tax cuts to plutocrats, then it will simply have to be done. We survived those tax rates before and we will do it again.

Bankrupting the country, a Grover Norquist dream, is unconscionable.

[JoseGaspar]

15. This is such a spinner...

... that you seem to be getting lift.

[nenagh]

16. So here is my question..

If the Dems vote to extend tax cuts for the rich, even for a short time, won't it then be known as the Obama tax cuts for the rich??

[krispos42]

17. It's a tax increase on unearned (investment) income...

...which is currently taxed at about half of earned income as it is. I don't think many middle-class families have sizable chunks of their annual income from unearned income unless they're retired, and if they do they're getting Social Security AND a bigger tax deduction.


Besides, the tax cuts were temporary, not permenant, and they also got a tax cut on earned income last year.

[bigtree]

18. might be hard to get that on a bumper sticker

. . . nothing as effective as 'Obama broke his promise and raised your taxes'.

[dkf]

19. If you lower the marginal tax rate for middle class families and eliminate deductions

How do you know for a fact this is a tax increase on the middle class?

[berni_mccoy]

20. Frustrating, isn't it?

[laughingliberal]

21. I think if we let things keep going as they are, there won't be a middle class to worry about.

The wealth disparity is greater now than during the Great Depression. Poverty is up. Jobs are nowhere to be seen.

And the Cat Food Commission recommends the biggest tax hit to the middle class we've seen since Bush I. In fact, Bush I's pales in comparison.

Another trillion to tax cuts for the wealthy while we lose ground every day. Great!

[neverforget]

23. The tax cuts expire because of what the 2001 Congress did, not Obama.

He failed the politics of this badly and now, we have Republicans calling this a tax increase. It's a tax increase because that's how the law was written. It's going to add 10's of billions of dollars to the debt, but that's not how it's been framed. Where is the PR offensive on this?

[TBF]

28. Have you been watching FAUX "news" again? nt

[kentuck]

30. Voters are more concerned about deficits than the taxcuts...

These taxcuts balloon the deficit.

[MadHound]

31. No, I want all the tax cuts to expire because we need the money elsewhere

Again, let me point out that tax cuts are the least effective form of economic stimuli. And since the total bill for the Bush tax cuts comes in around 4 trillion dollars/decade, the fact of the matter is that the tax cuts are a huge money waster.

Rather than extending any of the tax cuts, let them expire and take a trillion dollars of that savings and invest it in a WPA style jobs program, the most effective of economic stimuli. That jump start to the economy would more than make up for the extra taxes people would pay, it would help get the economy going on the right track, and it would, in the long run, save money and bring down our debt.

I'm more than willing to give up my tax cut money for the greater good of the people in this country, are you?

[MrSlayer]

35. No, not to avoid giving the rich more money.

Because we need higher taxes for everyone. We just do. Giving the rich the tax cuts will cost $700 billion, giving them to everyone will cost $4 trillion. If I have to pay ten or twenty dollars a week more it's not going to make much difference to me but if everyone does it, it will be a huge boon for the country. Allow the cuts to expire!

[caty]

36. Is anything

that the congress passes, that is of any consequence, going to even make it through the senate, let alone make it through a veto?

[coti]

37. Now THAT is a right-wing talking point. nt

[ItNerd4life]

38. I thought the Bush tax cuts were only for the rich, that's what everyone said

when they went into affect. Now, people say it included tax cuts for middle class? Which is it?

[spanone]

39. speculation

[Time for change]

40. It's a false choice

The lame duck Democratic Congress needs to develop legislation for a middle class tax cut without tax cuts for the wealthy. Would every Republican Senator filibuster such legislation? Why would they jeopardize their chances at reelection to continue the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy?

[B Calm]

41. Lets get one thing straight. If taxes go up, it's not because of the democrats!

They are suppose to expire because that's the way the republicans passed it ten years ago. So please use enough common sense to blame the republicans and quit repeating their spin!

[Angry Dragon]

42. I would venture a guess thast the so called "middle class"

is willing to pay more taxes to see this country once again be
the country they believe in. The middle gets pissed when they are saddled
with regressive taxes and the wealthy do not pay their fair share.
It is time to tax the more wealthy more. If one reaps more benefits
by living in this country then one should pay more for that privilege.