Skip to main content

View Diary: Daily Kos Elections Morning Digest: After California primaries, we update five race ratings (159 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  So When Does Obama Announce That He Supports.... (0+ / 0-)

    ....extending the Bush tax cuts for two more years?  Hard to imagine that's not his game plan if the economy does not improve in the next couple months, and even if it does, "the economy will be to fragile to risk any tax increases".  Bill Clinton's comments may or may not have been an intentional trial balloon, but it should soften us for what seems like an inevitable capitulation as the economy still can't get any traction.  

    I get the feeling it gets announced before or during the Democratic convention, because Obama knows he'll get killed in debates when Romney comes at him with "and the President plans to raise taxes in this economy", and will want to get out in front of that.

    I see no scenario at all where millionaires will be paying 39.6% income tax rates on January 1, 2013.  That was the case three months ago and seems even more certain today.

    •  Umm never. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      judyms9, Odysseus

      He fought hard to end the cuts for the wealthy in 2010 before he was cut off at the knees by 50 some odd Democratic assholes in the House.  Why on Earth would you expect him to do a 180?  Ending the cuts for the wealthy is extremely popular.

      •  He had a chance to do that in 2010, but nobody (0+ / 0-)

        seemed to care enough to actually do it.

        Dems found themselves in a real bind after the elections, leading to that lame-duck capitulation.

        A really smart move would be to introduce a bill that makes permanent the middle class tax cuts -- maybe even bumps them a scoonch -- and makes permanent some or all of the payroll tax cut, while extending the upper limit for social security and increasing taxes on the wealthy.

        Rationale?
        Payroll tax burden on middle class earners more than offsets higher rates for high earners (well, up to a pont), especially since most middle-class income is in the form of wages.
        This isn't even a matter of making the system more progressive -- just tipping from regressive to even or better.
        And -- give the real job creators a little money to work with.

        Wouldn't pass the current congress, but sure beats making vague promises that nobody trusts.

        LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

        by dinotrac on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 07:29:34 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  De-coupling has been introduced several times (0+ / 0-)

          Senate filibusters, can't pass the House.

          "What do you mean "conspiracy"? Does that mean it's someone's imaginings and that the actual polls hovered right around the result?" - petral

          by conspiracy on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 07:33:46 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Passing is not required. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            edrie

            See FDR between 1932-1934.
            Also see 1934 midterm elections and compare to 2010.

            Concrete action that fails is still concrete action.
            Saying "We'll get around to it" isn't.

            LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

            by dinotrac on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 08:04:17 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Because The Prospect Of Raising Taxes..... (0+ / 0-)

        ....in a slumping economy is likely to be easy for Romney to exploit.  Particularly not knowing where the economy is going in the home stretch of the campaign, I suspect the Obama campaign gets ahead of the issue in the summer by calling for another two-year tax cut extension.  It will also be calculated to draw in more Wall Street campaign contributions.  Plouffe thinks he'll be outspent at this point, so expect them to whatever it takes to get back on Wall Street's good side.

        •  I doubt it (0+ / 0-)

          Their reaction to Bill Clinton (and indeed his own people) going off-message suggests there is no such plan.

          "What do you mean "conspiracy"? Does that mean it's someone's imaginings and that the actual polls hovered right around the result?" - petral

          by conspiracy on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 07:49:24 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  The debate is worth having (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Odysseus, itskevin

      The retort to Romney is that they are holding tax-cuts for the rich hostage at the expense of those for everybody else. And it is also crucial to their arguments on the deficit. Clinton is his own man, take it or leave it.

      "What do you mean "conspiracy"? Does that mean it's someone's imaginings and that the actual polls hovered right around the result?" - petral

      by conspiracy on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 07:17:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  November 7 (0+ / 0-)

      “The country tried everything Romney says, and it brought the economy to the brink of collapse”

      by Paleo on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 07:34:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site