Skip to main content

View Diary: Grand or otherwise, there's no bargaining with these Republicans (283 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  What? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Onomastic, SoCalSal

    Obama didn't campaign on raising everyone's taxes.  That's what will happen if the Bush tax cuts expire.

    •  I think I'll live (5+ / 0-)

      by paying $15 more a month.

      This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

      by DisNoir36 on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 03:42:42 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah, but it's not about what (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Williston Barrett

        each individual may have to pay.  Increasing taxes is a bad idea in an economy in recovery.

        •  Great Red talking point! Hey, the only "recovery" (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          DuzT

          is happening amongst those rich folks. the financialists and CEOs and MIC types. Must not "tax" them, now should we?

          (Of course there's a lot of ordinary schmucks down the economic mix that have done what people here have often done with adversity and screw jobs by the Haves: buckle down and make new stuff and opportunities and all that, so they can pay taxes to fund the next fucking bailout and the next stupid imperial war, for the gain of people who show their loyalty by setting up accounts in the Caymans and moving "jobs" offshore and having nice little Pieds a terre in Cannes or Dubai... )

          "Is that all there is?" Peggy Lee.

          by jm214 on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 04:46:03 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Why is it a red talking point to insist (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Pluto

            that middle-class families enjoy a tax cut?  Why is it red to believe the economy is stimulated when people spend the extra money they didn't have to pay in taxes?

            •  If the Bush tax cuts expire, (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Eric Nelson, DuzT, divineorder

              then the Democrats can come back in the new Congress with bills that cut taxes for everyone making under $250,000/year.  That frames the issue in a way that's good for us and puts the Republicans in a box.  They either vote for it or get wrapped even further in the mantle of the rich.

              Besides which, where's the evidence that people spend the extra money they didn't have to pay in taxes?  How do you know that they're not paying down debt or, if wealthy, putting it in tax shelters?

              •  But ... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Eric Nelson
                If the Bush tax cuts expire, (1+ / 0-)
                then the Democrats can come back in the new Congress with bills that cut taxes for everyone making under $250,000/year.
                the Bush tax cuts already cut taxes for those making under $250,000/year.  Why should we raise taxes on everyone just to cut taxes for those already enjoying a tax break?

                Why not maintain the tax cuts and raise taxes on the wealthy?

                Besides which, where's the evidence that people spend the extra money they didn't have to pay in taxes?  How do you know that they're not paying down debt or, if wealthy, putting it in tax shelters?
                Well, if you're asking this, then why do you think we should cut taxes on anyone?
                •  And how do you propose raising taxes on the (6+ / 0-)

                  wealthy?  What do you propose Democrats to do get Republicans to agree to this?

                  Do you honestly think that Republicans are willing to negotiate on this?  

                  They've made it very clear that they are not going to go for raising taxes on the wealthy.  

                  The only way that I can see to make it happen is to let the Bush tax cuts expire on 1/1/12 and two days later, on 1/3/12, when the new House and Senate sessions start, for Democrats to introduce a bill into the House (where all revenue bills must originate) to lower taxes on the first $250,000/year of income back to the current rates.  That boxes in Republicans, which is the only way that I see to get them to do anything.  The bill could even include a rebate of all the increased taxes that people will have to pay between 1/1/12 and the date the new bill is signed into law.

                  •  Why do you suppose Republicans would (0+ / 0-)

                    be more willing to lower taxes on the middle class after the Bush tax cuts expire than they would be to raise taxes on the wealthy before they expire?

                    They've made it very clear that they are not going to go for raising taxes on the wealthy.
                    I've heard Boehner is softening (that didn't sound right, I know).  My jury's still out on this.
                    The only way that I can see to make it happen is to let the Bush tax cuts expire on 1/1/12 and two days later, on 1/3/12, when the new House and Senate sessions start, for Democrats to introduce a bill into the House (where all revenue bills must originate) to lower taxes on the first $250,000/year of income back to the current rates.  That boxes in Republicans, which is the only way that I see to get them to do anything.  The bill could even include a rebate of all the increased taxes that people will have to pay between 1/1/12 and the date the new bill is signed into law.
                    How does this strategy box them in more than does the threat of everyone's taxes going up?
                    •  They're bound by their Norquist Pledge. (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      slinkerwink, Eric Nelson

                      They would be breaking their pledge to the almighty Grover if they voted against a tax cut. Logically it makes no sense whatsoever, just like the pledge, but if they vote for the higher taxes for the rich now they're breaking their pledge, but in 2013 its a new Congress with a new baseline for them to cut from.

                    •  They might not be more willing to lower (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Eric Nelson

                      taxes on the middle class after the Bush tax cuts expire, but it puts a lot more political pressure on them to do so.   And if they don't, it's clearly on them, which lays the groundwork for an even better electoral outcome in 2014. Otherwise they can hold the middle class tax cuts hostage in order to preserve the tax cuts on the wealthy.

                      And I'm still wondering what you propose as a way to get Republicans to agree to middle class tax cuts and upper class tax increases.

                •  Heh. (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  fou, divineorder

                  Neither of the bills -- raising taxes on high earners VS lowering taxes on middle class -- will even be proposed in the Republican House.

                  Anything requiring legislation is probably off the table for the long haul.


                  A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five. -- Groucho Marx

                  by Pluto on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 05:30:23 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Because letting the Bush tax cuts expire first.. (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  fou, Aunt Martha

                  ..is leverage to then advocate for tax cuts for income below $250k.
                  The GOP will never go along with allowing Clinton era top marginal tax rates to be re-established. Grover Norquist and all

                  And this way the republicans are now in the position of holding tax cuts for the vast majority of people 99%  hostage in order to secure tax cuts for the rich , a lousy unwinnable position to have to defend.

                  Especially after the powerful #OWS awareness that swept the country that wealth disparity in the US is increasing at an alarming rate

                  •  I'm not so sure about this. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Eric Nelson

                    Republicans don't care about people making less than $250,000/year.  They're not going to suddenly find the will to lower taxes on such people after they've been raised.

                    I think it's smart to use the threat of the Bush tax cuts expiring to corner Republicans.  Democrats can claim that Republicans are willing to raise taxes on everyone if they can't lower taxes on the very rich.

                    •  If the repubicans refuse to pass cuts for 99%.. (5+ / 0-)

                      ..of the people with median income they'll pay dearly in 2014.

                      What's ironic is according to Grover Norquists Law/Oath the republicans are oath bound to pass tax cuts for middle income.
                      I think this approach will work. If they don't have the will, they pay at the polls big time. Actually after having been exposed as the party willing to deny tax cuts for the middle class unless the rich get more, they lose either way imo

                      •  Yeah, this is true. Good points. (0+ / 0-)

                        I just think it'd be better to use both the threat of taxes going up and the threat of Republican election losses to avoid automatic cuts and get something through sooner rather than later.

                        One of the nice things about Obama being term limited is that Republicans have little upside in being the party of "Stop Obama."  They're going to have to play ball.

        •  Really it would be better for the economy (0+ / 0-)

          to simply extend the sub-$250,000 rates for just another five years.

    •  The taxes will go back to Clinton era tax rates (3+ / 0-)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site