Will you be willing to see all tax cuts expire rather than giving any cuts to the rich? nt

[mfcorey1]

[RoccoR5955]

1. YES!

As long as the rich pay more. That's the main thing that bothers me.

[Ganja Ninja]

2. Yes.

[leveymg]

3. Yes, even though I benefit from the middle-class and small business cuts

[indepat]

66. Yes, hell yes, but they don't care what you or I think

;)

[Little Star]

4. yes

[notadmblnd]

5. yes.

the current tax cut only made a $5 difference in most paychecks anyway.

[newfie11]

6. yes n/t

[xchrom]

7. sure. -- we'll see how it plays out.

we're 'living in interesting times'.

[Crazy Dave]

8. Hell yes!

We should go back to the same tax rates we had under Bill Clinton.

Back then I made $15k more a year than I do now.

My health insurance premiums for the entire family were $2.5k less per year than what I currently pay for myself alone.

Get me back to where I was ten years ago and I can afford to pay the taxes plus some.

[handmade34]

9. a resounding YES

I remember when the tax cuts were implemented... people got a few hundreds dollars but ended up paying more in their everyday life because of others cuts in social programs... no one I know benefitted significantly from the tax cuts

It is about everyone doing what we can to get us back on track

[katsy]

10. Yes.

[dmosh42]

11. Yes, but it won't be an option..

Failure to put up a bill will be used by the Repukes as a tax increase by the Dems. Just stick by the exception of the top money people to any continuation of the Bush tax cuts.

[Klukie]

12. Yes

Let them all expire

[HereSince1628]

13. Compared to ending the Great Society and pulverizing the New Deal?

I think it's a matter of perspective.

[Dawgs]

14. Abso-fucking-lutely!!!!!!!!!

And, I don't care what it means politically.

[GoCubsGo]

15. Yes.

For most of us, that tax cut wasn't all that much to begin with.

[Betty]

16. as long as the repugs get blamed for it.

though they are great at deflecting any responsibility.

[doc03]

17. Of course, and the good part of it is it would almost eliminate

the $4 trillion deficit reduction the cat food commission wants. One problem it would send the economy into a
another Great Depression.

[mmonk]

18. Yes. Then they couldn't keep making their case we must

defund social security, medicare, social services, education, etc.. They couldn't keep saying "big government" was to blame. They couldn't keep saying it is all about spending. They have no clothes. Haven't you noticed?

[Oilwellian]

19. Yes, it's the right thing to do anyway

Our children and grandchildren's futures depend on paying down this debt.

[vi5]

20. Yes. A thousand times yes.

[timtom]

21. Absolutely!

Yes!

[TomClash]

22. I hope all the people who said "yes"

realize that their federal taxes will INCREASE.

That's President Obama's dilemma. He can't keep middle class taxes at their current rate unless he accepts the Republican demand for preserving the current tax rate above $250,000.

[Chorophyll]

26. I think we get that.

I think most of us understand that in order to make things work, we all have to contribute. (Most of us on DU, anyway.)

[TomClash]

38. I'm skeptical

And even if you are right that DU members support higher taxes, I doubt the voters agree.

[HillbillyBob]

27. For most of us it is about the price of a gallon or two of gas

That won't break us, loss of my ssd would be devastating.
I had to lose literally everything before I got help.
The dems should have kept that public option in so that when I am doing well I can earn a few bucks w/out losing medicaid/medicare. I would not have had to live on the street for 2 yrs if there were such in place.

Americans are like a bunch of spoiled 4 yrs olds who don't get their way, I mean really how much would 4 5$ hurt to fix the economy?
Most other countries do pay higher taxes and get a good bit for it.
The godam pukes have been bitchin that government does not work then proceed to cut the legs out to prove it. I say we start cutting down pukes.
Im so sick of their whining and bitching and their sedition and traitorous acts.

[TomClash]

34. For a family with taxable income of $60,000/year

. . . eliminating those tax cuts amounts to $1,800 per year or $150 a month. Several deductions would also expire.

I'm not arguing against higher taxes. I'd love to see the capital gains/dividend tax rates increase to the highest income tax rate and rates over $250,000 increase to Clinton era levels. I also agree that you have to pay taxes to have a government that works.

But increasing middle class taxes right now is economically foolhardy and a political disaster. How do you get job growth with higher taxes that lead to a decline in aggregate demand? You don't. If the President follows the consensus DU course of action. I predict we'll get Sarah Palin or someone worse as President in 2012.

[BlueCheese]

99. It needs to be framed properly.

I think it has to made extremely clear to the public who fought for extending the middle-class tax cuts and who fought against it.

It should be possible to either get only the middle-class cuts extended or to get the blame for failing to do so to fall on Republicans, where it rightly belongs.

[TomClash]

104. I couldn't agree more nt

[wizstars]

39. WHY NOT??

We pass a bill in the lame-duck session to make the middle-class cuts permanent, let the high end rate cuts die. The Repugs don't have the votes in the House to stop it, and if they filibuster in the Senate, we beat them over the head with how they blocked tax relief for middle-class families. If they try to revise them once they take over the House, Obama vetoes it as a budget-buster. They don't have enough votes to override. Voila, tax relief for middle-class, (some) tax justice for the millionaires.

am I missing something here?

[BzaDem]

43. They will blame the President for the middle class tax increase, not the Senate Republicans.

Most people don't even know which party controls Congress, let alone the nuances of the filibuster. They tune it all out, and then vote out the President if they don't like what happened.

[GOTV]

78. They didn't blame Clinton over the government shutdown. They blamed the Republicans.

[wizstars]

120. ??? There wouldn't be a middle-class tax increase.

First step in the process I suggested was "make the middle-class tax cuts permanent."

[TomClash]

46. Yes, you are missing something

It is November 12th and Congress is not in session. Let's say Nancy, who is a lame duck Speaker, calls the House back today, gets legislation drafted by Monday, rams it through several committees, whips the members into voting for making the middle class cuts permanent, gets a quorum and then a floor vote without significant amendments and sends the bill to the Senate, all in less than a month before they go out again. Now that's a Herculean task, even for her.

Now what? Now it goes to the Senate, where it will sit in committee. But let's say they speed it through every committee immediately. It will never get to the floor because it will never get 60 votes. It will be effectively filibustered.

Then in the next Congress the Republicans vote to preserve across the board tax cuts and send it to the President. Tell me what you gained. Answer? Nothing, except Nancy Pelosi just pissed off her members for nothing.

[jeff47]

61. That's actually the best possible result

We WANT the republicans to filibuster it. Roll out the cots. Make a nice, gigantic spectacle of the Republican party increasing everyone's taxes because the Democrats won't give more money to Wall Street.

The cable news thrives on spectacle. Give them one.

[TomClash]

68. But there won't be a spectacle because the Republicans will pass a bill

cutting everyone's taxes in the first few months of the new Congress. There won't be a "spectacle."

Plus, I only gave you a very broad sketch of how hard it is to pass a bill in a lame duck session. It's even harder than that. There won't even be 218 votes in the House for this bill. How many of the 60 or so members who lost their seats and are out looking for a new job are going to want to come back for a lame duck session to vote on a bill that will never pass the Senate for the very constituents who just voted them out? None. And there are 6 or 7 seats still undecided - how many of those members are gong to abandon their recounts - for which they have to raise money - to go to DC to vote for this? None.

[jeff47]

88. Only if we don't pass a bill now

The Republicans know a bill that only cuts taxes on the top 2% is politically untenable. Which is why they need it attached to the middle class tax cuts.

"There won't even be 218 votes in the House for this bill. How many of the 60 or so members who lost their seats and are out looking for a new job are going to want to come back for a lame duck session to vote on a bill that will never pass the Senate for the very constituents who just voted them out?"

That depends on how lucrative they want their upcoming lobbyist careers to be. Not showing up isn't going to help you with the Democrats who are left, and Republicans will never talk to you. So they still have incentive.

"And there are 6 or 7 seats still undecided - how many of those members are gong to abandon their recounts"

Why, exactly, would going to DC for a half-day force them to abandon their recounts?

[TomClash]

89. As I've outlined . . .

. . . you're not going to pass a bill in a lame duck session no matter what you or Keith Olbermann or Chris Hayes or some Poli Sci professor says. So your first point, though basically correct, doesn't matter.


Very few of the members who just lost will have a lucrative lobbying career. Their party just lost the House. No one hires a lobbyist to lobby the House minority.

Work a recount or two and you'll find out why "exactly." You're essentially still in campaign mode because you've got to raise money. You don't get from California (where two contested races are) to DC "in a half day." I'm sure these members whose job hangs in the balance are not really interested in getting back for a lame duck, useless vote.

[GOTV]

77. Aren't taxes a budget issue? Pass in reconciliation.

[TomClash]

90. It increases the deficit

it can't be done in reconciliation for that reason alone.

[U4ikLefty]

119. Ending the Tax Cuts will decrease the deficit.

[TomClash]

131. My bad

But you'd never get a concurrent resolution through before hte new congress.

[mmonk]

129. What increases the deficit, a lame duck session of congress?

Letting the cuts expire will reduce the deficits (at least in real world economics).

[wizstars]

122. Repugs filibuster, and the next headline is:

"Republicans block middle-class tax relief, deficit reduction"

[GOTV]

42. I realize that and OF COURSE I ABSOLUTELY WOULD ACCEPT HIGHER TAXES ...

... it's positively immoral to leave this kind of debt for our kids to pay. This debt is our responsibility and I would say you are anti-American if you live in the upper 50% of the American economic pie and aren't willing to shoulder more burden to pay this debt down.

[Chorophyll]

23. Yes.

On top of everything else that's falling apart, we're still mired in TWO wars. Cutting taxes during wartime was absolutely unheard-of until Dubya came along. This is why we're freaking bankrupt.

[no_hypocrisy]

24. Yes

[Scuba]

25. Yes, of course.

[Bandit]

28. Of course

We did just fine before they were in place and we will do just fine if they are gone..Our country would be way better off if they were gone.

[ileus]

29. No

It's not a victory to raise their taxes....it'll be a defeat to anyone in any tax bracket below them who must suffer a tax increase just to make us feel better.

[NC_Nurse]

30. yes.

[Pholus]

31. Ye. If they're cutting social security and medicare, then it's not the right time for tax cuts.

Consistent messaging is important.

[druidity33]

32. Yes. K&R. nt.

[wizstars]

33. YES!!!

Sorry I can't find any bigger letters.
YES!!!
YES!!!
YES!!!
YES!!!
YES!!!
YES!!!

[MatthewStLouis]

35. Yes. But Democrats have to FIGHT for a middle class tax cut!

They can't just sit on their hands. They have to show their stripes, show us who they represent, show us they are willing to be Democrats and not just republicorps-lite.

[T Wolf]

36. The rich are getting a tax cut - on their income up to $250k. It's only on the millions above that

amount that will revert to the higher (still obscenely-low that it is) levels of pre-Shrub.

But to answer the question - YES, absolutely. The spare change the cuts gave me are peanuts, though I would be willing to give up more to cut the rich off at the knees.

[JVS]

56. this is how it should always be framed

every penny someone making 20k sees in a tax cut is also seen by everyone richer

[JackRiddler]

37. So is this the new talking point?

[stray cat]

40. I would pay the extra 1500 to prevent cuts effecting my job but I would hate to get hit with both

[raccoon]

41. Yes. nt

[Ragrum]

44. Yes!

[BlueJac]

45. Yes

[HopeHoops]

47. Yes.

[RainDog]

48. yes

these tax cuts resulted in NEGATIVE job growth.

they are harmful to our society. if someone cannot understand why these tax cuts must not be continued, they're simply refusing to face reality.

republicans have already noted they are not interested in reality. I thought democrats wanted to be on the side of reality - but, maybe not.

[Stardust]

49. Yes

[csziggy]

50. Yes!

[rurallib]

51. yes, yes and yes!

[Scruffy1]

52. Yes

[sfwriter]

53. YES

[Jensen]

54. Yes!!

[Rectangle]

55. F*** Yeah!!!! n/t

[COLGATE4]

57. ABSOLUTELY!!

[TheKentuckian]

58. I want them all gone except the bottom bracket because it is the right thing to do

I then want those resources reinvested in our people and failing infrastructure. If we can't do that then reducing the debt will allow us more room to maneuver in the future.

I consider these tax cuts a complete failure for the economy short, medium, and long term.

We all know they are a drag on the economy and help spur the wealth and income disparity but some would rather have Starbucks float than heal our nation.

[The Uncola]

59. Without hesitation...

... the piddling "tax cut" I get is: NOTHING. End 'em all, yesterday.

[LatteLibertine]

60. Absolutely, yes

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

62. I've been yelling this since this debate started. The problem is that Obama/The Dems

have lost the message. Let these particular tax cuts expire!

Why? Even the middle class tax cuts included amount to a hill of beans; those at the top get MORE of a tax break, the middle- and working-classes get a much smaller piece of the tax cut pie.

Let these Bush tax cuts expire; or, renegotiate the middle class portion by widening that portion and calling it the "Obama tax cuts!"

That's how you win an argument.

If we can't allow them all to expire, then there needs to be some negotiating such that the middle class gets a higher proportion of the cut than the upper-income strata.

[Iggo]

63. YES!!!

[bvar22]

64. Without hesitation. That would be the PATRIOTIC thing to do!

:patriot:

[bemildred]

65. Bring it. nt

[ladjf]

67. Yes. The Clinton era tax rates would be better for America in general. nt

[Kweli4Real]

69. Forgive my political tone deafness, but ...

Why can't Democratic Senator "X" and Democratic House Representative "Y", sit down, like today, and write a Bill extending/instituting tax cuts for everyone earning less than $250K, then coordinate with the Whitehouse.

The coordinated message:

Whitehouse (everyday until no longer necessary): "Public ... I hear your voice on deficits. That is why I will not sign any bill that extends the Bush tax cuts to the wealthy because it will add "X" to the deficit this year and "X+" over the next ten years. If Congress cannot pass a Bill that protects the cuts for the 95% of the people that earn less than $250K, I will honor you message and allow ALL of the tax cuts to expire.

It would be a shame if Republicans continue to be true to their word and refuse to agree to a Democrat proposed compromise that protect the 95% of american households, in order to extend benefits to the wealthiest 5%. However, I understand that House and Senate Democrats, have drafted and are prepared to propose a bill that re-institutes the Bush Tax cuts for the 95% of Americans, while eliminating those cuts that would have added "X" to the budget this year and "X+" over the next 10 years." (You can find them at: www.AllforAmerica.com.)"

Each Democratic in the House and Senate (everyday until no longer necessary): "Public ... We hear your voice on deficits. It is clear that the Whitehouse is resolute that it will not allow any bill through that will further explode the deficit. Unfortunately, the Republicans are equally resolute; they refuse to agree to a Democrat proposed compromise that protect the 95% of american households, in order to extend benefits to the wealthiest 5%.

Therefore, in anticipation of the Bush tax cuts expiring, I have signed off on and support Senate/House Bill XXXXX. (You can find them at: www.AllforAmerica.com.) This bill will re-institute the Bush Tax cuts for the 95% of Americans, while eliminating those cuts that would have added "X" to the budget this year and "X+" over the next 10 years."

Wouldn't this approach cast Democrats in a positive light while putting republican obstructionism on display?

[Hell Hath No Fury]

70. Yes.

As a member of the working poor who most benefits from these tax breaks, I say let them all expire. The country needs the fucking money.

[mstinamotorcity]

71. yes

the hell i would!!!!

[frylock]

72. yes

[ceile]

73. Totally!

Only adds up to about $15-20 per month as it is.

[LynneSin]

74. double plus yes!

:D

[RedSpartan]

75. In a word...

Hellfuckingyeah!

[gratuitous]

76. Yes

Some people don't regard the payment of taxes as the Greatest Evil Ever Visited Upon Mankind. We're often reminded that freedom isn't free, especially when someone is trying to justify all those people we send around the planet to kill and die in our name. We might as well pay as we go.

[stranger81]

79. Given the relative size of these two cuts, yes.

The middle class tax cut is a pittance compared to the tax cut the repugs are insisting the ultra-rich get. It's like saying no one else in the room can have a can of beer until I get 3 kegs all to myself.

[librechik]

80. yes. It will be about 200 dollars a year, for me and my under $40,000/yr

Bring it On!

[Hansel]

81. Yes.

What I would prefer, however, is for the Dems to offer middle class tax cuts in an entirely separate bill and stop framing this as either extending or not extending the Bush tax cuts.

Let the Bush tax cut bill die either way.

[Desertrose]

82. Yes.

[arbusto_baboso]

83. Abso-fucking-lutely!

[closeupready]

84. Absolutely.

n/t

[uponit7771]

85. Yes, thin in another proposal give the middle class a tax cut and exclude the rich.

[bigmonkey]

86. Of course! n/t

[Joanne98]

87. YES!

[TwilightGardener]

91. No, I liked the original plan, and think we should stick to it.

[GentryDixon]

92. Yes.

Absolutely.

[Blasphemer]

93. Yes. The country is in dire straits

Expiring tax cuts should just be the tip of the iceberg. Tax hikes for the top 2% would put the new tax rates in their proper perspective.

[me b zola]

94. Yes!

[Tatiana]

95. Hell yes. Which is why we are waiting for someone to draw the line in the sand.

Obviously a significant portion of the people who need the cut the most are willing to forgo it, so that should tell our leadership something.

[stillwaiting]

97. Exactly. And that's the shared sacrifice we're willing to make. They need to stay AWAY from SS

[stillwaiting]

96. Yes nt

[JoePhilly]

98. Yes, but this is the wrong question ....

First, anyone could tell you that the folks on DU would be willing to see all the tax cuts expire.

However, most people in the middle class, including most Dems (those NOT on DU) would not. If you poll them, they would "prefer" to let the cuts for the rich expire, because that does not effect them. When the two are tied together, then the expiration impacts them negatively, and they balk.

One of the interesting things I notice in this discussion are folks on DU would would give up between $500 and $1500 a YEAR in extra taxes, but would fight to the death on any decrease in social security. I'm not equating the two, but I can envision scenarios in which say a $1000 tax break off-sets a cut in something else, if you manage your money correctly ... and before anyone screams, realize that the alternative is to not have that money to manage in the first place.

Now ... personally, I'd much rather see all the breaks expire. But I don't think that most Americans, or even most Democrats, agree. And if they expire, Obama will be blamed. The GOP will claim that Obama promised to not raise taxes on the bottom 95%, and that he LIED ... and the media will PARROT that view.

Count on it.

[mkultra]

100. no

[dkofos]

101. HELL YES

[leeroysphitz]

102. Yes.

We've got bills to pay and debt to cut. Everyone must pitch in.

[MrSlayer]

103. Yep. My position is to let the cuts expire on everyone.

I don't even want the tax cut. I'll pay more, just keep me working and get others back to work.

[StreetKnowledge]

105. Yes.

America's budget situation is so ugly that tax rises, and quite large ones, are almost inevitable in any case. Spread that pain out rather than drop it all on people at once.

[Tx4obama]

106. Let all the Bush tax cuts expire --- and then

Have Congress pass an " OBAMA TAX CUT " bill for the middle class.

I am sick of hearing the phrase 'Bush tax cuts' --- it isn't helping that people keep hearing that phrase over and over each day - it makes it sound like only the republicans want to give taxpayers tax cuts. It's a very bad out in the open subliminal message.

[lumberjack_jeff]

107. Yes. Unlike Republicans, my money is where my mouth is.

Republicans are willing to shoot the hostages? Do your worst, assholes.

[pgodbold]

108. Yes.

[Justpat]

109. Hell yes.

[quaker bill]

110. yup

[Snotcicles]

111. Yes. nt

[Kablooie]

112. YES! YES! YES!!!!

If the Bush tax cuts for the rich, which is a cause of the economic crisis, are continued, the Republicans will have won and Obama and the Democrats can say goodbye to any governance of this country for the foreseeable future.

Obama has to be as ruthless as the GOP and be willing to let the whole thing die. middle class cuts as well or he will lose all credibility as a leader.

[we can do it]

113. Yes

[WillyT]

114. Yes !!!

:kick: & R !!!

[BlueJazz]

115. Yes

[Countdown_3_2_1]

116. Yes. with a Democratic senate there will be no compromise.

any such bill will dies soon after it leaves the House.
and then we can blame the pukes for raising taxes.

[Exultant Democracy]

117. To Clinton levels? It seems like it might be a good ideal. nt

[Better Believe It]

118. Just have an up and down vote on the middle class tax cuts and let's see where politicians stand.

For or against us.

Democrats have the power to force an up and down vote without filibusters under reconciliation in this lame duck Congress.

So what's stopping them for doing that?

Wall Street?

The rich?

[laughingliberal]

124. There you go! nt

[laughingliberal]

121. Yep. nt

[Toucano]

123. Yes. n/t

[Lilith Velkor]

125. Yup.

[slipslidingaway]

126. Yes nt

[Kat45]

127. I would. n/t

[Timbuk3]

128. Yes

[lame54]

130. yes

[butterfly77]

132. Kick,kick,kick &recommended!

Yea!:kick:

[tritsofme]

133. dupe

dupe

[tritsofme]

134. If middle class tax rates rise, Obama will be a one-term president.

That's why there aren't any serious people advocating this position.