Skip to main content

View Diary: Who won? (54 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Pleading in the alternative. (0+ / 0-)

    IANAL, but letting all of the Bush tax cuts expire and then presenting a new bill cutting taxes on those earning less than $250,000 at 12:01 pm on January 3 would have allowed the President to keep the promise he has been making to the American people since 2007. Instead, we have an 80% overage in that long-touted amount. That outcome is worse than if nothing at all had been done.

    A waist is a terrible thing to mind.

    by edg on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 09:51:38 AM PST

    •  Yup,... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      The GOP got tax cuts on 99% of Americans made permanent, something they couldn't do when they controlled all three branches of the government for four years, and the white house for eight years.

      They also expempted 50% of the top 2% from tax increases, and got a permanent redcution on cap gains and the estate tax from the Clinton era rates.'

      Finally, the GOP got over 200 Dems in the two houses of congress to vote that the George W. Bush tax cuts were a policy worth continuing and making permament - after 12 years of being against the whole thing.

      And, Dems think the fact that the GOP had to concede that they didn't have the political power to lower marginal rates again on the top 1% is a loss for the GOP?  They're out there right now telling their donors that the Dems put a gun to their heads, and what were they going to do?

      This. Was. A. Big. Dem. Loss.


      •  the permanency of the cuts are really an (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        illusion; they can be changed by another law or agreement in the future.  Also cap gains and estate taxes did go up v. the Bush rates so that can also be looked at as a positive not a negative.

        My view from your analysis is how it looks vis-a-vis previous Democratic or REpublican positions.  That should not be the measuring stick.  For instance, you claim the GOP won because 99% of Americans got permanent tax cuts.  I think, at this point, in our history, the tax cuts for those under $250,000 needed to be extended for at least a year.  So for the sake of all those people,  its a good thing.  i could care less if it constitutes something the GOP wanted.  I am interested in progress.  This is slow progress but progress nonetheless.

        For me, as I said below, the extension of unemployment benefits immediately was big.  I cannot imagine what a terrible holiday season it was for such people waiting to see if they'd get a check in January.  Combined with some of the other things, its slightly better than not getting a deal.

      •  What "12 years against the whole thing?" (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cheforacle, joemarkowitz

        The Democrats, lead by Al Gore during the campaign and Congress afterwards, supported a smaller, bottom-up tax cut than Bush's, but they still supported a tax cut.  They didn't support the cuts for the people at the top, but the tax cuts that got extended in this deal map closely to the Democratic tax cut bill from 2001.

        And, of course, Obama ran on keeping the middle-class tax cuts in both 2008 and 2012.  The notion that the reversion of the bottom 98% of Bush's tax cuts is something the Democrats supported, until this deal, just isn't true.

        Art is the handmaid of human good.

        by joe from Lowell on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 02:10:00 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site