For Democrats, it's time to fish or cut bait...

[kentuck]

I could have said that in a more explicit way but the meaning is the same.

The time is near. The Democrats must make a decision on extending or not extending the Bush taxcuts. They know, as well as you and I, that extending the taxcuts will do nothing to help the economy. For God's sake, we have tried trickle-down for thirty years and look where it has gotten us.

But it is not about whether taxcuts for the wealthy work or not. They don't. But the issue is whether the Democrats will fold and get in bed with the radical Republicans.

I wish I had more confidence in the Democratic Party to do what is right but I don't. They will make it a choice between continuing the middle class taxcuts or no taxcuts at all. There is no other option, they will say. I call bullshit.

The House and the Senate can vote to extend the middle class taxcuts without bringing up taxcuts for the wealthy. They don't even have to mention those taxcuts. But, they will, because they want to and because they are playing games with you and I and average Democrats.

[Catshrink]

1. I hope you're wrong but I fear you're right.

[Jackpine Radical]

2. Tax cuts for the rich will obviously hurt the economy,

not merely fail to help it, because the rich will invest their money in nonproductive ways (at least as regards the US economy) while depriving the government of needed income to deal with the many impending crises. The lower classes will mostly spend their tax savings, pushing the money back into the economy.

What we are about to see is a giant litmus test of political intentions. Any Dem who votes for tax cuts for the rich is a false friend of the working people. And we had damn well better be keeping score.

[egoclothes]

18. Amnesia sets in quickly.

[Enthusiast]

41. What do you mean by this?

Clarify.

[lunatica]

3. They're literally protecting their own tax cuts

Way too many of our so-called representatives are too rich to represent us. They're protecting their self-interest, unlike those who vote for them.

[ProSense]

8. I don't think it has anything to do with how rich they are

It's flawed thinking or selling out to corporate interest. Here is Senator Kerry's position:

It makes perfect sense to protect tax cuts for the middle class Americans who bore the brunt of the Wall Street meltdown and are still digging their way out from under the recession. We should also look at every tax proposal that actually encourages investment in American businesses and would result in job creation and innovation. I look forward to working with President Obama and my colleagues on the Senate Finance Committee to ensure that priority number one remains protecting the middle class.

[kentuck]

11. I disagree ProSense.

There are now 216 millionaires in the House. They are not representative of the American people. The wealthy have not been investing in America. They have taken their taxcuts, their wealth, and their jobs overseas. That is a fact.

[ProSense]

13. I don't agree. Here is why

Alan Grayson was (still is until January) one of the richest members in the House. It has nothing to do with their wealth.

You can best believe that any member elected to Congress will eventually end up wealthy, part of the package is exposure and opportunity.

[kentuck]

14. We cannot assume the exception is the rule.

Alan Grayson and a few others may vote with the people. There is no evidence that the majority of millionaires in the House would do the same.

[ProSense]

15. You cannot assume generalized statements are facts

Harkin, Pelosi and some other progressives are in fact rich. That does not mean they cannot represent the people's interests.

[kentuck]

17. Just to be on the safe side....

Perhaps we should vote against all millionaires?

[ProSense]

20. Take your pick

Among wealthiest:

Ron Wyden (D-Ore)
Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)
Ted Kaufman (D-Del)
Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)
Tom Harkin (D-Iowa)
Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ)

Among poorest:

Mark Pryor (D-Ark)
Max Baucus (D-Mont)


Lack of wealth is not an indicator that someone is logical or principled.

source

[kentuck]

21. Back to the taxcuts...

is what we were talking about.

[Jackpine Radical]

28. For every 10 Ben Nelsons, there is a Grayson.

For every 1,000 Ken lays there is a Warren Buffett.

[Jackpine Radical]

27. Funny-I hadn't noticed Feingold's pile of wealth.

[ProSense]

31. Well,

Bernie Sanders has a higher net worth than Feingold and both are higher than Mark Pryor's and Jim DeMint's.

It's still a personal choice, but the opportunity is there. It's the same opportunity anyone with a six-figure income (salaries in the range of $180,000 to $220,000) has plus the additional exposure.

Again, the point is that a person's wealth has nothing to do with his/her being principled.

[ProSense]

4. They can have a vote on just the middle-class tax cuts

it will likely fail in the Senate because of Democrats like Senator Bayh.

That's the reality.

[kentuck]

6. Sometimes you have to lay your cards on the table..

And say right up front, any Senator that votes against these middle class taxcuts will have to answer to their constituency in the next election. Go ahead and do something foolish and you will pay a high price. We dare you.

[ProSense]

10. Agree.

If they expire, so be it.

[Jackpine Radical]

29. There is less harm to come from letting them all expire

than from continuing them for the rich.

Especially if the extra income gives the government the courage to take other steps to help the people at or near the absolute bottom. The tax cust for the middle class never did amount to that much anyway. It was a token payment that Bush gave them to justify the major handouts to the rich.

[Catshrink]

12. Isn't Bayh retiring?

[sweetapogee]

43. they

only need 50 votes to pass this in the US Senate. Right now there are 57 Democrats, 41 Republicans and two independents who caucus with the Democrats. Take out Bayh and there is still enough dems to pass this bill. We only need 50 votes, we have a potential 59 votes even without any pukes voting with dems.

[mmonk]

5. They have been cutting bait for powerful interests for too long

and even with the betrayal from those interests, their habit seems unbreakable.

[DCKit]

7. We say "Radical (R)s" they say "Conservative, Family Values, Fiscally Responsible (R)s"

We can't both be right.

What a conundrum.

[kentuck]

9. By their fruit they shall be known.

You can call a horse's tail a leg but that doesn't make it so.

[Uben]

16. It's so much more complicated than that

Everything has consequences, and the president has to weigh what will happen if they are passed or not.

The middle-class cuts need to be extended. They are essential to our economic recovery. Failure to do so would be a set back and could throw us back into recession. Given that, the tax cuts for the 2% are the bargaining tool. We all know extending those cuts would only serve to raise the debt, but is keeping the debt down more important than bolstering the economy? The president will be remembered more for the economic conditions of the U.S. rather than the debt the tax cuts will incur.

My guess? All cuts will be extended for two years. This will aid continuing economic recovery.

Come election time 2012, the dems had rather say the pukes were responsible for the weathy's tax cuts and the dems were responsible for the middle class cuts. Let's just make sure the vote to renew them comes in the summer of 2012!

[kentuck]

19. I don't think it's that's complicated.

It's a dare by the Republican Party. Either give us what we want or the middle class will get nothing. Please don't throw me in that briar patch.

[Uben]

22. I beg to differ....

The economic recovery of the United States of America could hinge on this decision. Giving in to the pukes on the 2% tax cuts will only raise the debt. Renewal of the middle class cuts will extend the recovery efforts. What do you want for the summer of 2012, a healthy economy or a lower national debt? This is what the WH strategists are looking at. IF the tax cuts for the 2% are not extended, we cannot use that against them in 2012.

[kentuck]

24. Some would argue that fixing the deficit might help the economy more?

at least, from an international viewpoint.

[Jackpine Radical]

30. They would be right if "fixing the deficit" means

getting out of our stupid ME wars, pulling half the troops home from Europe & Japan, and letting the tax cuts for the wealthy expire, and using the proceeds to put Americans to work building a new 21st century infrastructure, so that "expenditures" become investments in our children's future.

[Uben]

33. Being a fiscally conservative democrat.....

....I had rather see all tax cuts expire and efforts made to start repaying the debt. But, timing is everything, and that's not gonna help today's economy.
I would guess he's gonna make a deal to extend the cuts for all, opting to help dems in the 2012 elections and keeping the economy on the rise. For how long, I don't know. A year, two years?

[TheKentuckian]

37. I truly doubt it. The economic activity is minimal from any of these tax cuts

Y'all are playing right along with the drown the pig in the bathtub bullshit.

We're already at 300 billion as the service on the debt and are essentially going to get nothing from this multi-trillion dollar "investment" which means there will be less to do the things we really need like put people to work and at minimum get our infrastructure to code.

However, reducing the debt is more beneficial than that piddling Starbucks money most get from these tax cuts, even if it is a less than impactive way to use the resources.

The bottom bracket, I can see since we are talking muscle at best and probably bone but most of this shit is 2 and 3 percent and absolutely nothing that would determine if we recover or not.

The activity has almost no multiplier effect and is far too small to fill the hole.

You cannot look at the condition of our sewers, bridges, water mains, roads, electrical grid, and how far we are behind other first world nations along with the unemployment, debt, and foreclosure issues we have and consider these tax cuts prudent.

Few, if any even consider the possibility that the tax cuts are generally affecting the economy negatively.
I honestly think folks are just greedy and would rather have a few hundred dollars than a functioning economy.

[eridani]

36. I'm willing to give up my tax cut--very small, so no big deal

I mean, jeebus--most people don't even know that Obama gave them a tax cut. The reason is that the amounts are so piddling that they never made any difference in people's lives.

[sweetapogee]

40. the only

thing that will matter come election time 2012 will be the economy. Arguing tax cuts in an economy that is still in the shit can two years from now will fall on deaf ears. Dems, if they are interested in winning next time had better pull out all the stops and get the economy humming or they will get hammered (again, sorry to say). Don't forget, we still have the senate and the presidency.

If the economy isn't showing significant improvement Jan 1, 2012 then look forward to another electoral bloodbath. Hard to say and hard to acknowledge but the economy is like a battleship, in order to change direction it is necessary for the captain to give the order for a direction change miles before the ship actually begins to respond to the change. We are running out of time and spending too much time on things that will not help improve the economy.

There are 21 dem senators up for re-election 2012 and some of them are in real trouble. I give the example of my sen. Bob Casey Jr (D-PA) who has to be looking at the results of the last election and no doubt scratching his head, trying to figure out how to vote this congress and my guess is he is looking at the fact that toomey a conservative won. I will be watching very closely how Casey votes but my guess is he will moderate at least on economic matters.

I could be wrong but I don't think blaming the house pukes in 2012 for a still awful economy (if that is what we have then) will work any better for us than it worked for them last time. Our dem leadership in DC has to get creative and start putting forth ideas that will work. Time is not our friend on this one. One has to admit that it was somewhat shrewd of shrub to enact a tax code that expired two years after he left office. We should learn from this and do what ever it takes to avoid this question coming up again in two years so put me down in the camp that says whatever solution we end up with make it last more than 2 years.

[donco6]

23. They will extend all the cuts "in exchange" for one or two domestic issues.

And maybe START ratification. But that's it.

[Hello_Kitty]

35. The GOP will hold UI extension hostage and the Dems will cave. eom

[kentuck]

25. Basically, I think it is very anti-Democratic Party to vote to extend these taxcuts...

...for the wealthy. They are not going to help the economy, we know from experience.

It's time to call the bluff of the Republicans. IF they refuse to vote for taxcuts for the middle class, it is not the fault of the Democrats. That is an argument we must be willing to defend. We cannot keep running with our tails between our legs.

[dkofos]

26. If they were smart (IF) they would extend the tax cut up to $250k.

They could then say they cut taxes for EVERYONE.

Above that they should drop back to Clinton era or even Reagan era tax rates.

But they won't. They will play politics.

[jotsy]

32. Well Mr. Tuck, I believe that ship has sailed.

There's a reason Tweety is the avatar, I am a quirky bird with an odd view.

I see politics as theater, not governance, I long for the latter and see my society drained by the former. Both parties serve the same interests, just look different doing it. Before I get a bunch of poison penned rotten tomatoes hurling let me confess, I do see a difference between the parties I'll explain this way. If I were crossing the path of a loose junk yard dog looking upon me as lunch, a democrat would at least try to make it look as though he or she would intervene whereas I would expect the republican to grab a front row seat and some popcorn to cheer on my assailant in comfort.

Early in '07, Nancy Pelosi did a CNN interview w/ Larry King fresh into her tenure as Speaker; don't remember who the right winger was. At some contentious point, she blurted out about how all the people had been 'working' with the rebutticans were now calling her and wanting to meet with her and 'work' with her. This did not impress me, and I was less impressed when Larry King failed to ask if that meant she was already being approached by special interests. "Do you not have the good sense to see when you are being courted?" was actually how I posed the question from the confines and comfort of my own couch at the time.

I want everyone to think about how much money gets spent, across the board, to secure the business of a fraction of a fraction of us. Entire cable stations with huge budgets whose only purpose is to talk to the 'investor' class. How many hold the view that a select few are more relevant than others and who's doing the sorting? Aren't those good questions to ask? It should dawn on them that such views might lie in contrast to the spirit of what is democratic, which I define as political and social equality via my dictionary. I stand opposed to what ever entity, regardless of branding, stands in the way of that. The entire existential infrastructure we are accustom to is being exposed as or has been converted into pretty much a sham and it didn't happen without an indifferent electorate who all took an oath to serve a public interest.

We are governed on the flat top above a tripod of administrative branches. All three of them have been so steadily and thoroughly eaten away by interests not serving the populace that our nation bears little resemblance to a self governing society.

Blah blah rant concluded. Sorry to be such a long winded wordy wench and a hot headed over the hill idealist to boot.

[kentuck]

34. I am amazed so many DUers are willing to compromise on this issue...

it's seems such an obvious ploy and political move to deceive Democratic voters, in my opinion. They act as if the Democrats will get the "credit" if they give taxcuts to the middle class. It ain't gonna happen. Take the blame for denying the taxcuts to the wealthy and be proud of it.

[lib2DaBone]

38. How will these tax cuts be paid for?

The GOP says we must pay for all spending.. so how are they going to pay for this?

[JoseGaspar]

39. Does it not strike the OP that this particular scenario has become...

... cartoonish through repetition?

"Alright (drawing a line in the sand), you had better not cross this line. OK (drawing another line in the sand), you had better not cross this one. Alrighty then, don't cross THIS one... this one... this one..."

It is by no means a stretch to think that there is no line that cannot be crossed.

Further, it is equally cartoonish to attribute this behavior to "fear" or "cowardice". There are many issues on which this administration and the Democratic Congressional delegation have been stubbornly unmovable... they just don't happen to be on the issues which would be supported by the Democratic base.

If the OP looks across the moat at the Republicans and the "Tea Party Revolt", one sees AstroTurf and simple racism, but one also sees a deep frustration in the Republican Party base. It is a frustration born of a widening chasm between that Republican base and the Party itself. The Republican leadership has long thrown red meat to the "troops", while implementing a private agenda quite distinct from the stupid slogans of Conservatism.

Why would the OP think that Democrats are immune from precisely the same dynamic?

The slogans of the mid-term elections were crystal clear: "We Democrats are not as bad as the other Party." Why would that not be the only seriously meant words of those whom the OP invites out to go "fishing"?

[kentuck]

42. Perhaps so?

But isn't repetition the only thing that has been proven effective for many years?

"We Democrats are not as bad as the other Party." Either we believe that or we do not.

"There are many issues on which this administration and the Democratic Congressional delegation have been stubbornly unmovable... they just don't happen to be on the issues which would be supported by the Democratic base."

Does that mean we are only wasting our breath and there is nothing we can do. Absolutely nothing?

[JoseGaspar]

44. Too many people have quoted Einstein...

... on this point to be worth repeating ("... to do the same thing over and over again and expect a different result...").

The truth is that the basic political alliances which created the foundations of the current two-party system were formed during the Great Depression and the New Deal. They were cemented during the unprecedented prosperity of the 1950s and 1960s, and only slightly modified by the movements of the 1960s and 1970s.

The base of the Democratic Party is and has been a base with grievances. Blue-collar workers, African-Americans, various newly immigrant constituencies, the urban poor, and a dozen so-called "interest groups" who have been left behind by the economic or social evolution of American society - these are the raw numbers of Democratic electoral power. It is true that these have been supplemented by the "voice of the suburbs", just as the Republicans have, and that there is a constituency which is committed to "competence", "clean government", "reason", and a "common vision of progress" (on DU as well as in the larger world) but this is a shrinking group... economically if not yet fully consciously. For the mass of the Democratic constituency, justice delayed is justice denied. And, how many decades has it been since real forward progress (and not the list of 297 trivialities) was achieved?

The game was changing already and the Great Recession has merely solidified that change.

"We Democrats are not as bad as the other Party." Well, how bad is that? If we were unaware, we have the testimony of the Democrats in the last election. The Republicans are monsters... this was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt and was the only basis of the last vote. What then are the Democrats? Are they "monsterish"?

Just as there was a basic agreement between the parties on the meaning of post-War prosperity, there is a basic agreement on the meaning of the current austerity. The cash which oiled the engine of prosperity has run out. It is only that the political superstructure has not got around to explaining that fact to the two constituencies which elect them... nor can they. They rue that fact every week on the Sunday talk shows...

A tide that lifts all boats makes incremental politics possible. A falling tide merely decides who will drown first.

"Does that mean we are only wasting our breath and there is nothing we can do?"

If by this, the OP refers to doing the same old things... yes, that is precisely what it means.