To those of you who support the tax cut deal:

[cali]

Here's the problem, as I see it. Those tax cuts will be voted in permanently. And what that means is very clear; the decimation of social security, collapsing infrastructure, the end of many social programs. cutbacks in food stamps, welfare, etc.

Yes, I want to extend UI, and tax cuts for the working poor and the modestly middle class, but in the long run these tax cuts are beyond disastrous.

[FrenchieCat]

1. The current deal isn't permanent...

so if you are talking about in 2 years......then, we'll have to have that argument
at a time when the economy might be more secure, and therefore it might be more
reasonable at that time asking folks to tighten their belt,
because right now, many currently don't even have a belt.

So true, in a long run, these tax cuts are disastrous....but for two more years?
I think we would survive.

[cali]

3. Oh, come on. who controls the House?

And it's exceedingly unlikely we'll be able to take it back in 2012. The picture for Senate dems- many, many more are up for re-election than repubs- is not too bright.

Not to mention that Obama could well be defeated in 2012.

The odds are, that if this tax cut for millionaires and billionaires passes, it will become permanent.

[FrenchieCat]

5. If the tax cuts expire on the middle class,

yes, Obama could be defeated.

As for you last sentence, I don't quite understand what you are saying,
and need to rephrase it so that I can respond.

[PassingFair]

7. The tax cuts expire. Then they propose a NEW tax cut, strictly for those

making under $250,000.

What's not to like?

[FrenchieCat]

15. What if they don't propose that? Republicans will be running the house....

they can do what they want, and they can just not bring it up....
and of course, unfortunately, they have the media to help them.

Do you really think that somehow all of the sudden,
Americans will start getting the truth on what
is going on? Hell, even when Republicans do nasty ass shit,
even Democrats blame Obama. So why would that change,
and why would the general public start believing that its all
the fault of the Republicans? :shrug:

[PassingFair]

19. I would rather pay more taxes than defund our country to DEATH.

And Americans will not get the truth with
this administration's kabuki theater staring
Bill Clinton.

We are being screwed.

[Hannah Bell]

28. and they dare the pubs not to vote for it, or reveal their real agenda to all.

that's good politics (esp since dems will still have senate).

go on offense: create situations that put the pubs in the position of voting against "the little guy".

as it is, pubs are constantly maneuvering dems into that position, then dems get to throw up their hands & say,

"what could we do? we don't want to hurt the little guy. it's unfortunate we have to blow Bucky McBigBucks to get there, but we're willing to pay that price."

[cali]

8. the phrasing is fine.

and Obama may well be defeated even if this passes. You do realize that, I trust. My point was made in the OP. Maybe you should be listening to Bernie. He's saying it better than I ever could.

[JDPriestly]

13. This tax issue should have been raised in the Senate before

November's election. It is too late to help Obama now.

This tax cut should be allowed to expire. Then Democrats should fight for a middle class cut in 2012. Whoever the Democratic candidate is will then win.

Have you listened to Bernie Sanders today?

I suggest you listen to him before deciding how you stand on these cuts.

[bigtree]

6. It'll be an election issue. If you feel your point is supported, why wouldn't it prevail

. . . among politicians in an election year? We hold the Senate. Why wouldn't they be pressured to filibuster another extension, especially with the President posturing against them in his re-election bid as he's promised?

[cali]

12. the new senate is more republican and

they could pick up enough dem support to pass legislation extending it. Sadly, at this point, I don't trust Obama to veto it.

[bigtree]

18. well, trust is another issue. I won't argue your trust in the President.

I'm arguing the point as if he was sincere. In that case, the election year should find the President advantaging his campaign of every opposition he can rail against from republicans. The House provides a ready resource of that opposition. The Senate will also assume their familiar role of batting down republican nonsense. That's not going to benefit republicans as much as it will Democrats because of the oppositions' desire to see most of the appropriation bills passed as Democrats are. We've got the last say on anything advanced, both in the Senate and in the White House. It stands to reason that the President will act with a more partisan bent as the election draws near and republicans won't pitch him anything that he can easily hit. That points to many more vetoes, much more gridlock, and not anything like his bipartisan rhetoric might suggest to some.

[calimary]

4. The only problem with that argument is - it wouldn't be for a mere two more years.

The new House of Reps next year will see to that. Do NOT give them an inch. They'll take a lightyear. And STILL insist it isn't enough.

[FrenchieCat]

9. There is an election in 2012.......

The tax extension in the compromise do not expire till December 31, 2012.

We still have a majority in the senate, albeit a slim one....
even if tax cuts made permanent would have to die in the senate
via a filabuster.


In addition, Obama could veto any bill coming onto his desk for permanent tax cuts
as long as the current "patch of provisionary tax cuts" have not expire.

The timing of the expiration also makes extending permanent tax cuts a debate to have
(again, hopefully at a time when the economy will be stronger)
during election 2012.

Currently, we are pushing 9.8% unemployment, and raising
the 10% braket to 15% (which is a 50% tax increase) at the exact same time,
might as well have Democrats taking a suicide pill.

[Statistical]

23. it will only be for >2 years if Obama signs an extension. n/t

[unapatriciated]

21. Congresswoman Barbara Lee disagrees with you.

The Congressional Black Caucus held a news conference to talk about President Obama’s agreement with Republicans on tax cuts and unemployment insurance. Recntly, House Democrats voted in a party meeting to reject the package unless substantial changes are made.
http://www.c-span.org/Watch/Media/2010/12/10/HP/A/41746/Congressional+Black+Caucus+Press+Conference+on+Tax+Cuts+Unemployment+Insurance.aspx

Listen to her statement, she believes that extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy WILL hurt the poor and further erode their safety net

edited to add: I agree with Congresswoman Lee

[FrenchieCat]

24. She's my congresswoman, and I generally agree with her a lot.....

and I agree with her that the bush tax cut for the wealthy are not good for this country....
but still, she has no solution, as I strongly believe that letting all of the tax cuts expire
at this time is not a better answer at all. Folks forget that Republicans are present, and
they aren't going anywhere......and in fact, they are about to get louder......

[unapatriciated]

26. If you listened to her they indeed have an alternative solution.

If we do not try we will only have ourselves to blame for what will be disastrous.

[ljm2002]

2. Well said...

...thanks for putting it so succinctly.

It is painful to realize that not passing this bill could hurt many people, immediately and directly. But the choice is between that, or put in place a bill that will ultimately hurt many more, just as directly but not immediately.

That is not a choice we should have to make.

Amazing, isn't it, how our government can always find money for wars (they don't even put them in the budget, they just "borrow" from the SS trust fund), they can always find money to bail out the big players, but when it is time to consider money for unemployment, or education, or infrastructure, or anything that is of benefit to citizens, then it's an endless war of words and the people get crumbs.

[slackmaster]

10. End the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. De-fund the War On (some) Drugs.

:hi:

[Contrary1]

11. It shouldn't be an an/or.

The assholes in DC are running amok.

[kctim]

14. Um, no

You THINK they will be voted in permanently. And it is your OPINION that would be the decimation of social security, collapsing infrastructure, the end of social programs etc...

My Republican neighbor THINKS this deal will lead to a huge tax increase and it is his OPINION that means even more people dependent on government in order to survive. The perfect plan to make us into a European style govt and force things like universal healthcare onto all Americans.

Guess 2012 will show if the people agree with President Obama or the likes of Sanders.

[cali]

16. yes, this is my opinion.

it's also the opinion of a lot of economists and others.

[sufrommich]

17. Agreed. nt

[ExTheUnknown]

20. I believe the same was said about JFK's huge tax cuts

To this day I think JFK holds the record for the biggest. But I could be mistaken.

[Martin Eden]

22. Grover Norquist couldn't be happier

His goal to shrink government enough to drown it in a bath tub (destroying Social Security, Medicare, etc) is right on track, and President Obama is a willing or unwitting accomplice (take your pick).

The extension of these tax cuts (which will almost certainly become permanent in 2 years) will add tremendously to federal budget deficits -- the key ingredient in making progressive government programs unaffordable and ultimately extinct.

Vice President Dick Cheney infamously said "deficits don't matter" -- but he was lying, as usual. Deficits were not an unintended consequence of tax cuts & unfunded wars ... this were fully intended from the start, and part of their long term strategy.

[woo me with science]

25. THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN TIED TO UNEMPLOYMENT IN THE FIRST PLACE. NT

[Enthusiast]

27. I agree completely. nt