Greg Sargent gets to the heart of the matter on the extension of the tax cuts...

[flpoljunkie]

The question remains, though, whether the White House will hold fast to Obama's demand last week that the extension of the tax cuts for the middle class remain permanent while extending the high end ones temporarily. The main sticking point is that Republicans won't allow the two categories to be extended for different durations, because that would force them to push for just an extension of the cuts for the rich later.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/11/the_morning_plum_129.html

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

1. Let them expire. Then propose reasonable tax cuts. I don't know

why this is so hard to understand.

[flpoljunkie]

2. The problem with that is Republicans will be in charge of the House in January.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

3. So? Triple fucking dare them to vote against tax cuts. It's what they do all the time. nt

[treestar]

7. Is this "brave" or just reckless?

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

8. It's neither. It's just good for the country. nt

[fasttense]

5. Yeah, the bushes middle class tax cuts were minor anyway.

Let all the tax cuts expire and push through a tax cut for the middle class. Let RepubiliCONS vote against tax cuts.

And if that doesn't work, a good portion of the deficit will be paid off without the uber wealthy tax cuts, and Obama can say he was fiscally responsible when RepubliCONS wanted to INCREASE the deficit.

[ProSense]

4. Yes

You can't want the tax cuts for the middle-class to continue and expect that there will be no compromise.

If the vote is held on just the middle-class tax cuts, Republicans will filibuster it in the Senate. Effectively, that means the tax cuts will expire.

As for compromise, what's it going to look like? It's not simply a matter of extending the tax cuts permanently or temporarily. There is also the matter of who benefits, and there may be room for compromise there.

Robert Reich: Extend the Bush Tax Cut to the Bottom 99 Percent, But Not The Top 1 Percent.

[Pirate Smile]

6. We know where this is headed (at least I think I do) - both sets of tax cuts will get temporary

extensions.

Hopefully, the economy will recover enough to go back to the Clinton tax rates for everyone - that would be best but with the beating the middle class has taken over the last decade (or thirty years) they just can't afford to go back to the Clinton tax rates right now.

It might end up working out ok if we end up saving more by not extending any of them permanently.

They might couch it as a "temporary extension" which will be followed by major "tax reform" which they have two years to study and come up with a plan.

Just my guess ...

edit to add - or they increase the $250k number to $500, $750 or $999.

[flpoljunkie]

10. The top 1% comes off very well in budget chairmen's mark-top rate of 23% of FICA only up to $190K.

The top 1% owning 40% of the nation's wealth and almost 25% of its income is just not enough money at the top for our ever increasing 'banana republic!'

[Pirate Smile]

11. That is the Deficit Commission. I was just talking about the Bush Tax Cuts.

Protecting the super rich is what proves Republicans are totally "unserious" (as Krugman would say) about actually dealing with the issues.

There aren't enough adults left in the Republican Party to actually deal with serious problems.

[TacticalPeek]

9. It's as simple as 1, 2, 3.

1. Let the current Boosh tax cuts expire per the law. The ones that ruined the economy and budget.

2. Put a new middle-class, DEFICIT REDUCTION MIDDLE CLASS TAX ACT OF 2011 on the floor and dare them to vote against it.

3. Observe their fucked state.

[glitch]

12. :) nt

[gkhouston]

13. I actually think that's the intent. If the Republicans won't vote for it, they look

like tight-fighted assholes who care nothing for the middle class and the deficit goes down even more during the next two years, so it's a win for the Dems. If they do vote for it, it's a win for the Dems, who wrote the bill. If the Republicans put up a tax cuts for all bill in the new Congress, Dems in the Senate can block it, saying we can't afford it and pointing back to some of the Draconian options suggested by the Catfood Commission as evidence that the deficit is serious. And since a lot of those suggestions were made by Republicans, they can hardly say they were set up, now can they?