Skip to main content

View Diary: Obama accuses 'some Republicans in Congress' of holding middle-class tax cuts hostage (49 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  We can dabble in semantics.. (0+ / 0-)

    .. or have an honest discussion..

    There is no hostage-taking. This fiscal cliff is a bi-partisan, can-kicking, and we've caught up to the can, again.

    What the President is asking,, is to raise taxes on those making over $250K, before offering any, meaningful  spending cuts. Like, let's get that done now, and we'll talk cuts down the road.

    And honestly.. what will that raise in revenue ? Next year's deficit would go from ~$1,300,000,000,000 down to $1,200,000,000,000.. assuming taking $1,000,000,000,000 out of private circulation will not slow the economy ? That's not even a speed-bump for the debt racing to infinity.

    How about a "clean bill", with (real) spending cuts first.. prove that the feds can do that, THEN go for tax increases ? Or a "clean bill" with no tax increases, then focus on cuts ?

    There's a very clear set of historical records on how; "tax now, cut later" ends up.

    •  R U Lost? (10+ / 0-)

      This is not the place for RW talking points.

      Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a Republican. But I repeat myself. Harry Truman

      by ratcityreprobate on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 07:52:36 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  You want spending cuts first ? Am I reading this (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ratcityreprobate, Laconic Lib, eps62

      correctly? Spending cuts first then the tax issue?  

      Follow PA Keystone Liberals on Twitter: @KeystoneLibs

      by wishingwell on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 08:01:13 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  No.. what I want is both , now... (0+ / 0-)

        I'm just pointing out that making a "hostage standoff" over tax-increases that won't make a bit of difference re: deficit/debt, is a lot off fuss over nothing. And that a "hostage" reference is just as valid re: spending-cuts.. that have to happen.. no matter which "side" you're on..

    •  There is also a very clear set of historical (4+ / 0-)

      records on how "Cut taxes on the rich" ends up. It's called "financial collapse".

      It didn't work. Therefore it will be allowed to expire.

      Note to Boehner and McConnell: "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows." --Bob Dylan-- -7.25, -6.21

      by Tim DeLaney on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 08:03:01 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I don't see it that way (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      democrattotheend, Laconic Lib, eps62

      he is asking to let the tax cuts expire on incomes over 250...but to preserve them on everyone's income before that

      Keeping in mind that these tax cuts were set for only ten years, when written, to not hurt the deficit as much. They were supposed to expire in 2010 but Obama allowed extension.
      Let them die their natural death but help income people need to live on (first 250K) remain exempt because we are still struggling economically need to preserve folk's spending power.

      •  This is the semantics... (0+ / 0-)

        People and businesses have been planning/functioning under these tax rates for a dozen years.. decade old businesses, and workers, some nearing 40 years old, have known nothing other than the current rates. In reality, it's not an expiration, it would be new tax-rates.

        But that aside,, if it's about a struggling economy, why raise ANY tax rates (wasn't that Obama's reason for extending them?).. especially rates that would generate a meaningless amount of revenue, against +trillion deficits, and 16+ trillion in debt ? We'd need something along the lines of letting ALL the tax-cuts expire times TEN, and pretend the economy would still grow, just to cut the deficit in half... and the debt (and its interest) still grows by hundres of billions.

        •  Republicans insist we deal with deficit now (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          eps62

          They want to do so by slashing Medicaid (Romney...by 1/3rd plus...making it a block grant). Talk of cutting food stamps too.
          Economists say we shouldn't deal with deficit as primary importance in recession so I agree it's not optimal to raise taxes but
          to me it's worse to cut the very safety net that the most vulnerable are in fact lying in.
          They will crash to the ground
          some will die.
          I know some of those personally. Medicaid keeps people alive. Slashing it people die

          better let higher income tax cuts expire.

          The semantics matter ...maybe not to you...but when you say "raise them" people feel acted upon exclusively when really they get their first 1/4 million (enough, say, to live off of) at low rate as well. Other people don't know the history. Making these cuts permanant was not intended BECAUSE it raises the deficit too much.

          We should get unemployment down before even dealing with deficit. Obama as it is has cut the RATE of increase as far as I know though that is widely not know. He's not been profligate. yet suddenly because a Dems in office? Reps worry about the deficit.

          Again...better to raise taxes back up on incomes over 250 a few percentage points than make the poor go humgry and have kids die...which the REpublicans seem to prefer.

          Your economic argument is sound but on the other end of financial solvency, the bad economy makes poor working people even closer to the bone. Don't turn on heat so they can afford food. Gratetful kids get healthcare  via Medicaid, maybe helps with prescriptions. Looks like those who don't want tax to go up/tax cut on higher part of their income to go up are fine with that. We need spending decrease (cuts to poor and most vulnerable) or revenue increase. It is said you can't get enough revenue from closing loopholes alone.

          it is wrong to insist on dealing with the deficit now...as Republicans are and thus is our realtiy...and oppose raising taxes on top income above a certain level/ending tax cuts, IMO. IT puts all the pain of balancing the deficit...which again Republicans are suddenly interested in...on the backs of the most vulnerable.
          It is wrong.
          Don't understand your 40 year olds not knowing any other tax rate...they only worked since age 30?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site