Do we need to let the Bush Taxcuts expire completely? Your opinion, please.

[tcaudilllg]

I argue yes, because their expiration will collapse the deficit. It would be very, very good political sense in that it would eliminate the Tea Party's key argument, that the deficit is getting dangerously wide. Without this argument, they are like to dissolve into their composite factions.

Collapsing the deficit would be a very, very good idea that would leave conservatives without a talking point. The end of 2012 is a long, long way away after all.

Obama argues that the Republicans are holding the unemployed hostage, alleging that they will cut off unemployment benefit renewals if he doesn't deal. I don't think they are ready to do that... McConnell signaled that there was no debate about extending unemployment benefits, only about how to pay for it.

The risk of economic relapse is minimal. The same arguments were made in 1994, when taxes were raised to the point they are set to return to, and look what happened there. There is no conclusive historical evidence for offered rationale for extending the cuts.

[Deep13]

1. Yes. Never should have been enacted.

War is expensive.

[BlueJac]

2. Yes

[Echotrail]

3. Yes.

The president and GOP are playing a dangerous game.

The tax breaks are tacked directly on to the national debt. They will break us.

[pleah]

4. Yes. n/t

[NV Whino]

5. Yes

Economically, it is the only sensible recourse.

As for extending unemployment, it shouldn't be attached to the tax break extension at all. Let the tax extensions lapse. Then extend unemployment compensation. Then reinstitute a small tax break for the middle classes if needed.

[KansDem]

Of course...

[xchrom]

6. Didn't we have a surplus in 00? And aren't those

The tax rates they are set to return to?

Weren't dems mostly in favor of those taxes in 94?

[mikekohr]

14. The biggest surplus' in history, Clinton balanced 5 budgets and produced 4 surplus'

?


WHY DO REPUBLICAN ECONOMIC PRINCIPLES EXPAND THE NATIONAL DEBT?
-The answer is simple mathematics. Reduced revenue + increased spending ='s increased debt-

?

(click to enlarge)
http://cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm

The two biggest promises of "Trickle Down Economics" are it's greatest failings. Proponents of "Trickle Down Economics” claim that tax cuts, skewed to the rich, will create jobs and increase tax revenues. The graph above disproves the latter claim. Job creation plummets under "Trickle Down Economics (see http://bureaucountydems.blogspot.com/p/job-growth.html )and nine of the last ten recessions have occurred under Republican leadership (see http://bureaucountydems.blogspot.com/p/history-of-recessions.html ).

Two things are certain to grow when a Republican is in the White House, unemployment and the National Debt.


By contrast, "Bubble Up" economnic priciples practiced by Democratic Administrations put people to work, rev up the economy, and balance the Nation's ledger books. Every time. No exceptions.

[TheFarseer]

7. my personal unpopular opinion:

We need most of the tax cuts to expire, including all reductions to tax brackets and scaling back the credits associated with having kids like EIC and Child Tax Credit. I'd much rather fund food stamps and subsidized housing than just give people money that they can spend on cigarettes or vodka or gambling if they want. I wouldn't mind replacing part of that with a higher credit for child care to allow people to work and not have every dime go to daycare. I think people in general are not opposed to higher taxes to pay off the debt. They are opposed to higher taxes and the government pissing away the money.

[frazzled]

8. Dean Baker says it's not a big deal

The conclusion: "So, progressives should not be happy about giving more money to the richest people in the country, but it is not the end of the world either. The key focus should be on getting the stimulus needed to boost the economy."

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/12/07/in_defense_of_giving_money_to_rich_people/

Call me two years from now, when the economy is better, and we'll have this discussion again. In the meantime, progressives should not be getting their panties in a twist about spending and deficits.

[tcaudilllg]

19. Economy has nothing to do with it.

Jobs have to do with it, and corporate America doesn't see a good reason to hire in this age where competition is weak and the entire population can be satisfied with outputs from only 90% of the workforce. Productivity is being translated directly into lost jobs.

Psychological egoism -- the spirit of entrepreneurship and enlightened self-interest -- has taken a fall in favor of ethical egoism, the spirit of destructive self-aggrandizement. With the innovative spirit hampered by the oligarchic barons, there is little hope for job recovery.

[mikekohr]

20. DING! DING! DING!

The tax cuts if left to expire would dramatically reduce the yearly deficit, but ending the extension of UI would be devastating to people out of work and would crimp the pace of the current recovery.

[tcaudilllg]

25. The Repubs won't let it happen.

There would be enough defections due to the possibility of voter outrage. Besides, voters don't really pay attention to what goes on in Washington.

[kentuck]

31. If Obama signed it...

Yes.

[tcaudilllg]

32. Prove it.

[kentuck]

40. ??

[tcaudilllg]

47. You can't prove that the Repubs wouldn't extend unemployment benefits... it's just a hypothesis.

[Goldstein1984]

9. Yes

Pay for war as we go.
Reinstitute a draft so everyone has a stake in the war.
Watch these wars end.

[NorthCarolina]

10. Yes. nt

[Recursion]

11. I'd be for killing the entire tax cut package, in the abstract (nt)

[slackmaster]

12. FUCK NO

:hi:

[Hawkeye-X]

13. Yes.

That way, the Dems have the upper hand reminding the American people who the obstructionist are.

And then the Repubs would have to concede nearly everything back to the Dems and take a heavy beating.

[Ozymanithrax]

15. Their expiration will not collapse the deficit, only reduce it...

To collapse the deficit would take large spending cuts also. With Republicans in charge of the house, you can take a guess where those will come from, but you are not allowed to use Defense.

The Tea Party was also for lower taxes, but since they were just the Republicans in tricorner hats it makes no real sense to talk about them as if they are different. In fact, they have been almost silent since the election.

If there was no debate about extending unemployment, then why hold it and everything else hostage for tax cuts? Republicans don't give a fuck about the poor or unemployed because Conservatives believe the poor and unemployed are poor and unemployed because they want to be. Their poor and unemployed constituents will vote Republican no matter what the party does.

You are right about relapse. Expiring the Tax Cuts adds only a little toward a chance of relapse because it will take money away from the poor and middle class that spend that money in the economy. There are a lot of other factors that contribute to that scenario as the Irish, Greeks, and Brits will attest.

[MadBadger]

16. Letting anything else besides the tax cuts for the wealthy expire would be political suicide

"Dems Raise Taxes"

That is all you would hear going into the 2012 election.

[tcaudilllg]

22. You'd hear this too - "Dems cut the deficit".

Not something the Republican Party has ever done.

[MadBadger]

27. No you wouldnt. I can promise you that.

The Dems would try to say it, but would be drown out by the "Dems Raised Taxes" story because thats the one that sells. People are immediately effected by their taxes being raised (even if its to pre-Bush Levels).

[tcaudilllg]

29. What's the damage? Obama gets re-elected like Clinton, and then Dems don't take the House back.

Not that they are on track to anyway.

[MadBadger]

46. The damage is The Republicans again control all three houses

[tcaudilllg]

49. Well then who gives a damn about the welfare of a stupid nation?

[slackmaster]

35. More like "Democrats presided over one of the largest tax increases in US history"

You can bank on that.

[EstimatedProphet]

36. They're going to say that anyway

We already know that. It's one of those things that is common knowledge - EVERYONE KNOWS dems raise taxes, even when they cut taxes, DEMS RAISE TAXES, because EVERYONE KNOWS they do. This is no longer a factual argument; it's now religious dogma. So, since they're going to say it anyway, and since they're going to believe it when it isn't true and can be proven to be false, and since reality doesn't matter anymore - let the damn tax expire and fix some of the problems.

[Raksha]

41. We have a winner!

:toast:

[riderinthestorm]

45. +1. nt

[bahrbearian]

17. Yes, they were installed during a surplus, Now we need them because of Deficit?

[qb]

18. Emphatically yes. It'd be tough, but I'd sacrifice now in anticipation of better economic times.

[andlor]

21. Yes.

[1VaDem]

23. "A lie told often enough..."

The point is moot. People BELIEVE that the deficit is the only thing that matters and that ONLY spending cuts will save us. Forget that "saving us" dooms millions to subsistence and profound poverty, increased loss of jobs and benefits and extreme profits for the wealthiest Americans. It is the old, "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" routine and too many Americans have fallen, hook line and sinker for it. Until we can change minds and votes, we are doomed to suffer IMO.

[tcaudilllg]

28. I don't think people believe that at all.

But even if they did, how would you change their minds?

[Quezacoatl]

24. Framing of argument

I think everyone missed the boat on framing this argument. What people should have been saying is "should we let the Bush tax increases happen?"

Bush cut taxes 10 years ago but he set up a tax increase to occur in 2011.

[tcaudilllg]

30. Not a good idea. Bush is still talking... he'd remind people about what he really stands for.

[Iggo]

26. Yes.

[EstimatedProphet]

33. Yes

Let them expire, then use the revenue to hire a new WPa project. That will shrink the deficit in a hurry.

[Yupster]

34. YES

No one noticed when they were cut. No one will notice when they end.

[social_critic]

37. I'd like to see the tax cuts expire and government spending cut as well

The country needs a dose of reality, and the truth is we're in debt and our currency is in trouble. We can't afford to live the way we are as a nation, and taxing the rich isn't the complete answer. I'd like to see the tax cuts expire but at the same time the government needs to take action to fix its accounts. They should cut the federal budget by at least $500 billion, then make a firm commitment not to let it increase at all - not even with inflation. Budget funds should be shifted towards infrastructure development, and people should not be encouraged to spend - they should be encouraged to save. This is going to get REALLY tough for a while, but we would leave the country in much better shape - it'll take 20 years to get this fixed.

And I assure you, the budget cuts can be accomplished. This may require that we replace Congress wholesale, which of course requires a revolution we're not about to have. For example, Congress just approved more aid to Israel. This is a nation with a per capita GDP in excess of $20,000 per year. Therefore it's difficult to understand why we would give them a penny, when there are nations such as Haiti suffering incredible misery. And then there's the money we spend in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the wholesale waste in other areas. We really can't afford it, and it's going to ruin the country. Time to cut the budget, or else.

[EstimatedProphet]

38. Fine, cut the budget. Start with the Pantagon

End the wars that do nothing but negative things for the entire planet including ourselves, and the government budget will shrink overnight.

[Skink]

39. I'd like to see Obama try and implement a 1 percent hike for

those making more than 10 million. Then watch the public outrage.

[ClassWarrior]

42. That at least needs to be on the table. Hell, Boner said he'd vote for...

...the plan that includes the middle class if that's all there was.

NGU.

[sinkingfeeling]

43. Yes.

[snappyturtle]

44. Absolutely. nt

[ladjf]

48. In the long run it would be best for all Americans , even the top 2%.