but would not increasing taxes by definition reduce the deficit?

the Bush* tax cuts.

Sam

and the deficits cause the cuts in Medicare and other programs, and the cuts in spending cause the economy to go down, and the deficits create huge debt that is a burden for years and years, and we want to continue these deficits or these spending cuts?

The ironic part is that they will have little impact on the economy because most of the taxcuts are for the wealthy and will not be spent in our economy. It is a false reasoning by the politicians and propagandists that want the taxcuts to continue. Quite the opposite, the economy will not recover until we get rid of these taxcuts.

I was submitting another response as you were posting this. Take a look at the chart I posted below in another post.

The real kick in the belt for me is when I hear that Dems are saying they won't consider an extension unless a "Grand Bargain" is achieved in trade. The Simpson-Bowles plan had a couple of acceptable recommendations, but when one wanders further into the weeds, it is very upsetting, especially when we see some of the income tax deductions proponents of that plan would discontinue. A great example of that is the mortgage interest deduction. What thinking, rationale person would actually defend that point when looking at the state of our housing market? A driving factor to purchasing homes was promulgated in years gone by the ability to deduct mortgage interest from one's taxes. So if that is stricken, what will that do the incentive of many buyers who find buying a home just not as attractive an option.

And that recommendation on altering the way Social Security cost of living increases are awarding is another shot at the wallets of seniors.

"The plan raises taxes and cuts spending for $4 trillion in savings over the next 10 years. It cuts Social Security by raising the retirement age and reducing the payout for many workers and reducing cost-of-living adjustments. The plan also increases costs for some Medicare beneficiaries and eliminates most tax expenditures but lowers individual and corporate rates to 29 percent."

The above quoted material can be found here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/04/jamie-dimon-simpson-bowles-plan_n_1478484.html

SO THE ESSENCE OF THE ARGUMENT THESE DEMS ARE PROMULGATING IS THIS: WE WILL EXTEND THE BUSH TAX CUTS FOR THE WEALTHY AS LONG AS WE STRIKE A GRAND BARGAIN CUTTING ENTITLEMENTS AND OTHER PROGRAMS WHICH WILL ADVERSELY IMPACT THE WALLETS OF THOSE WHO MOST NEED MORE MONEY IN THEIR POCKETS.

Just how stupid do these Dems think its base is?

No Simpson-Bowles Grand Bargain; no extension of Bush* tax cuts.

Sam

side of the aisle. New Dems, Blue Dogs, Third Way....

Sam

as starting point. Believe me, no offense to you meant!

Talk to you later.

Sam

PLEASE STOP THE HAGGLING AND STOP THE BUSH TAX CUTS. NO DEALS. SIMPLY LET THEM RUN OUT! WHAT THE HECK'S GOING ON OUT THERE??

No deals, no tradeoffs, just do it.

Even if my taxes rises, and even if it is hard, it is spread throughout the year and people make adjustments accordingly.

if the increased revenue were applied to the debt
instead of being spent for other things
like DOD, which is taking a HUGE chunk of the budget.

Tester, Jon - (D - MT) Class I
724 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2644
Web Form: www.tester.senate.gov/Contact/index.cfm


Manchin, Joe, III - (D - WV) Class I
303 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3954
Web Form: www.manchin.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact-form


http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

take Alice Walton's call on the subject directly.

What does it take to get these clowns to listen and ACTUALLY HEAR?

You can tell who's trying to ingratiate themselves with the 1% ,and who cares about " anyone ".

or you won't get your campaign bribes."

and they will not have enough to override.

Hopefully the very vocal cadre of groupies on DU who parrot the "But what did he do when he had 60 votes in the Senate?" repuke talking point, will see why the nonsense that they keep uttering was never really the case. People like Blanche Lincoln and Evan Bayh are no longer in the article's cadre of conservadems but if they were, they would have done the same.

but based on recent legislative threats amplified by media, something like this may never reach his desk because of the threat itself (from past experience). And in this case, should these 7 get re-elected based on their "utterances" of support and not based on actual passed and signed legislation before the election, then someone like Bernie Sanders can filibuster the thing so that it would die in the Senate before any further action was taken. And in any case, he could filibuster the attempt at any time before or after.

I know that there are many on DU who thrive on Armageddon-speak but given whatever the chances are in the various congressional races, the strategies will be decided near or after the election, including the option of a pocket veto if something like that did get past Harry Reid. I.e., tax changes can be revised with the new congress depending on its makeup.

And the President may have used it effectively a few times, so far. His amazing non veto record may very well be due to the astoundingly unproductive congress currently "legislating". He hasn't had much to veto.

I don't know anything about Armageddon - I'm a heathen. I do know that it's much too soon to predict what might occur with a new Congress and President ____.

They are elected to represent their respective states. Sometimes those states are not very blue, and Senators need be flexible.

To me that part is a no-brainer.

a tax hike.

It's NOT a tax hike.

People who never paid the higher tax before might have a different opinion. Thinking in particular about those "rich" people that first became rich after 2001/2003.

Change the conversation and you win the argument. You're conceding before the argument has begun. Try harder.

...and tax policy. I know this sounds a bit kooky, but I just can't bring myself to complain that people who make way more than me and already pay more in taxes than me should pay even more or that what they already pay is unfair. Are their cheats and frauds? Yep. But I have to think that the overwhelming majority of the "rich" are everyday Americans just trying to live their lives. Still, your general point is understood.

That would appear to be entrepreneurs. One of the reasons to bump up the income tax is so that the 'job creators' will spend more on things that are deductible i.e. more employees, newer vehicles, updated office equipment etc. Just to get out of paying more in taxes.

If we are just increasing the income tax on someone drawing a salary of over a quarter of a million dollars a year; they aren't really job creators anyway. They can tighten their belts a little.

The percentage of their personal budget that goes toward transportation is smaller for this group than it is for the poor, and when the price of gas goes up a little; the poor have to tighten their belts. Increasing the out of pocket expenses for the more successful is only fair.

The Bush tax cuts need to expire. Their continued existence isn't stimulating the economy nearly as much as letting them expire will stimulate the economy.

a tax hike.

Why would you do that? Change the conversation.

Conceding an argument? Changing the conversation? This is quite simple: If on June 30, 2012, you are paying 35% tax, then on July 1, 2012, you are paying 39%. That's an increase. Period. End of sentence. End of conversation. Now, if your point is that this process/analysis is conceding to the "right wing", rather than conceding to 1st grade math, I can't help you.

Since it seems that the prevailing issue in this thread is that the Bush tax cuts merely temporarily altered enacted tax rates, hence there is no increase as ending the cuts would merely restore those original rates. Unfortunately, for those who never paid the higher original rate to begin with (which was sort of my point) for whatever reason, unless they have their handy-dandy DeLorean with the optional flux capacitor and time traveled, they will pay for the FIRST TIME any restored original rate. Now, you can try harder next time rather than being a smart ass.

I choose otherwise. Giving Grover Norquist the red meat he wants by calling it an increase is unfortunate. All that and you want to end the conversation there, too. I don't like giving in to these goons so easily. Sorry you do. Why not call me a smart ass again? Maybe you'll feel better.

Well, those Senators "flexibility" is why so many of us see them as the worthless sellouts they are.

Next up, you'll tell me how important it is for me to support every "Democrat," despite how badly they screw us once elected.

Go ahead, I need a laugh.

the ENTIRE country. And the 'supporters' requiring a response are probably withholding envelopes until they know the outcome. These tax cuts were a horrible idea in the face of the pretzeldent's two wars. There is no reason to continue to compound the horrible policy.

I mean, a representative republic.

Please and thanks.

People who just vote or write comments on the internet do not qualify.

states if the Bush tax cuts were allowed to expire? How many people would actually even be impacted in these seven states. This is a ruse.

The wealthy are not going to spend more, invest more, hire more or anything else simply because they are paying a little more in taxes.

These DINO candidates are a disgrace to the Democratic party. I would prefer to have an R sitting in those seats because at least then everyone knows they are on the other side. If you aren't with us you are against us. Didn't W teach us that?

That's where I am lost in this.

Whose side are they on?

Certainly not yours or mine.

“I was in the middle of the negotiation in December of ’10 with the vice president over extending the current tax rates for two years. The argument the president made in agreeing to do that two years ago was that the economy needed it,” McConnell said at a recent press conference. “The growth rate is actually slower than it was in December of ’10.”

“If the economy is even slower, there’s even more incentive to extend all the rates,” the aide said.


If you extended tax cuts based on the premise that the extension was needed to make the economy better and the economy got worse does that (the fact that the economy got worse) not defeat your argument.

errr uhhh....

If we do that, the Repubs will start acting even more brazenly than they already have. To stay home on Election Day.....is to show weakness. They're kinda like the schoolyard bully; if you do nothing to defend yourself then they'll always screw with you. But if you stand up and say, "No, I won't stand for this crap anymore", and fight back, then we will have a chance to make things rights.

How would you like the Koch brothers nominating Ruth Bader Ginsburg's replacement?

The Republicans will get us there by pushing us off a cliff.

The slow slide at least buys us some time.

The only argument in favor of the off-the-cliff approach is that conditions could quickly become so intolerable that a massive uprising would result. I'm not persuaded of either the accuracy or the desirability of that prediction. For one thing, down there at the bottom of the cliff you won't find many resources to fight the oppressors with.

But I am certainly not gonna call Congress to ask them to extend the Bush tax cuts for those making less than $1,000,000.

Maybe if you drop 3 zeros off of that number, but a million dollar threshhold is, or will be, just another huge betrayal of the working class. And some Democrats won't even support that?

Manchin, McCaskill, Ben Nelson, Bill Nelson, Pryor (voted against health care reform), Tester and Webb.

Tools!

Let the tax cuts expire automatically.

Bill Clinton who had TWO TERMS given to him by a grateful public did veto a budget bill shutting down the Government. The public steadily blamed Newt the toad and the Regressive Rethugs for it. In the end, the Rethugs caved like the spoiled little bastards they are.

Why is it that nobody remembers the time when strength got us what being liked did not? I mean, seriously. For a minute now, just one minute. Bill Clinton vetoed how many welfare overhaul bills the repugs sent? He told them he would, and he did. Until they addressed his concerns and set the program up to perform as HE was willing to accept.

President Obama on the other hand, refuses to break out the rubber stamp and slam it down leaving a big red box with the word "VETO" and then sign that he is absolutely standing up for principal.

President Clinton may be a tad too moderate for my tastes. But at least we had someone who would FIGHT for us. Now we have a more LIBERAL president, who rolls over gives up at the first sign that someone may say something mean about him.

If you want to know who was more dangerous to the Rethugs, Clinton, or Obama. Look at it this way. By this point in his administration, President Clinton was already under investigation for Whitewater. A six year boondoggle that wasted something like sixty million dollars to prove that Clinton didn't do anything wrong. Not even a process crime was brought against him or the Administration. Unlike that f***** bas**** Bush where Scooter got busted for lying to investigators.

"...he is absolutely standing up for principal."

I'd much rather he stood up for principle instead.

Small Minded Racist people are going to vote Republican. Then the Leadership tries to figure out what we can do to get the small minded racist morons to vote for us. Nuts. Well we can made the rich richer, that always makes the small minded morons happy.

Guess what guys, they are going to vote Republican. They would vote Republican if Adolph Hitler was the nominee. Especially if Hitler was the nominee.

They are lining up at the same feeding trough as the Republicans. We have to get rid of Citizens United.

ok going to email him now.

Blue Dogs are just as bad as Republicans in my book. At least we know where the GOP stands.

to him or herself knew would happen.

When do we stop pretending? When?


http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=146626

It was the plan all along.

when Obama and the Dems caved the last go round.

TEN FUCKING YEARS and NO JOBS. where's ytthe jobs? they said it would take away UNCERTAINTY. POPPYCOCK! this is the biggest thing STRANGLING THE ECONOMY.

i want ALL the bush taxes killed. ALL OF THEM!

is really offensive to people who know or love someone with developmental disabilities. Please don't use that expression here on DU. Thanks.

The other posters have explained why. Thanks.

It is hurtful to them, and the people who love them.

I'm sure you can come up with some really creative substitute insult without much trouble.

To those with developmental disabilities, their families and their friends. There are so many synonyms in English for jerks: please pick a more suitable one.

Or jerks will do just fine, for that matter.

Please find another word.

You saw a "soda jerk"? They don't exist any more. They've gone the way of the ice man and the long distance operator.

I'm sure some are still living.

There are many of us who either have developmental disabilities, mental illnesses or have family that do.

My son has autism and I volunteer with a local chapter of an advocacy organization on their behalf. They are some of the best and nicest people I know.

If you wouldn't start a sentence with "N***ers! or "F*gs!" then you shouldn't use this slur either.

This post should have been hidden as disruptive, but it wasn't. So here's the disruption you requested and the jury failed to identify.

really, really, pinky-promise expire this time. We were told it was brilliant maneuvering by Obama to set this up. We were told after Obama extended them the last time, that would be the last time. I just can't believe this could possibly happen. Not after all of those assurances.

but yeah, a whole boatload of DUers essentially called this scenario when it went down 2 years ago.

So yeah, "told ya so" applies dammit

Fucking idiots.

Take a look at this chart:



posted here:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/05/the-chart-that-should-accompany-every-discussion-of-deficits/238786/

At this link, right above the chart posted here is another chart which clearly explains all the factors driving the deficit. Fallows calls the chart, "The Chart Which Should Accompany Every Discussion of Deficits."

The Bush* tax cuts only extend token help to the middle class; it greatly benefits the wealthiest of Americans. This is what we should be saying to those Dems who posture their position as protecting the interests of their constituents. They are protecting simply the wealthy, not the common man.

Sam

Call and remind them if you way. However, they do not get elected because of the people. It is money, at least from what they likely calculate.

Besides, even if they are removed/replaced they have already been promised a cushy life by those they truly represent.

This is not likely to enfluence these bluedogs.

Instead get busy putting people in that can still be enfluenced by We the People.

ain't waggin' the dog here, what with the Bush-tax-cut stuff Pelosi has been pulling off in the House and all.

I will humbly accept correction if I'm wrong here.

I mean, we have the neo-con's in our own party. I mean, come on. If we can't agree as Democrats, as a principal of the Democratic Party, that we do not support giving billions of dollars that our Government needs to do what we the people need it to do, that what can we agree on? What principal do we have left to distinguish ourselves from the RW's?

are a relatively inefficient stimulative tactic, compared to,for example, direct transfer payments to the poor and middle class (like unemployment insurance). IOW, you don't get nearly as much stimulus bang for your buck with tax cuts as you do with transfer payments or a jobs program where the governmetn hires citizens and pays them to work.

There are technical reasons having to do with the velocity of money and the multiplier effect why tax cuts stimulate but why they do not do so as efficiently as the alternatives mentioned in my preceding paragrah.

NPR was talking to a Union Rep, and explaining for all of us who turned in on our drive home after work, that Union's led to the great Middle Class of the past. At that time, roughly a third of the money flowed to the very rich. Now, it's about half of all the money goes to the very rich.

So the argument is they spend it, and hire people. Ten years later, with all the money they've been making, who has been hired? A Gardener that they want to deport. A maid they want to deport. And more lawyers who work around the clock to make sure the very rich don't pay any taxes.

Think about that, half the money goes to the very rich. HALF. The rest of us are struggling to survive. But Lord no we can't tell that SOB sitting on HALF the money this nation made this year to cough up a little. THAT would be bad for the economy.

Tell me again why having more than eight percent unemployed, millions of empty houses, are all good for the rich economy?

Yet the Clinton economic policy led to a booming economy, and budget surplus' instead of deficit. But that was bad because the rich paid more right?

its fiscal responsibility to spend to create jobs - deficits be damned - when the private sector is not creating jobs.

I merely wanted to point out that tax cuts tend to stimulate the economy but much less efficiently than a jobs program or direct transfer payments to the needy do.

IOW, the deficit is not a problem. Period, end of story.

to cut programs that people need so they can give taxcuts to the wealthy.

whether to extend the tax cuts or let them expire is, imo, a 'red herring' when the question is how best to stimulate the economy.

When the private sector is not creating enough jobs, the government must create them, deficits be damned. Standard macroeconomics 101.

Which means that the rich need to pony up their fair share of HALF OF ALL THE MONEY in the country.

HALF.

The richest few collect half of the money. They obviously aren't hiring with that money, therefor the Government must take some, and hire some. Painfully obvious 101.

base, deficit and debt are all distractions from what must be done to get the economy moving again, imo.

Marginal tax rates (and inheritance taxes also) must be adjusted upward on the wealthiest of our citizens, there is no question. But the time to do that is when the economy\GDP is growing at 3-4% per year, not when it is doing its current dead cat bounce.

Having the tax cut issue around allows those responsible (Congress) to shirk their duty to do what logic and history say must be done, create jobs through government public works programs.

..and continue to give the Repubs the excuse to cut Social Security and Medicare and everything else under the sun. We desperately need to get out of this cycle or the Democratic Party will continue to exist only for the purpose of appointing Supreme Court Justices.

Which was completely predictable.

be something to it. To wit, to the extent that continued lower taxes for the wealthiest allow for ever greater concentrations of wealth, that may be what has contributed to damaging our economy.

When the private sector will not hire citizens, the government must. The marginal tax rate issue is thus, imo, something of a red herring, at least when the question of how best to stimulate the economy is at hand.

I'm about to let go the edge of this cliff I'm clinging to. The Blue Dogs are standing on my last nerve!


AAAAAAAARRRRRRGGHHHHH

Oh and have a nice summer vacation, traitors in the Senate!

The GOP will do ANYTHING to stop The President ... ANYTHING!

The Democratic Congress; especially those who are up for re-election will show NO BALLS to look like they will help The President.

At this rate, The GOP will get their America back.

If so, I how they get the exact same America they left The President in 2008.

and the Democrats never seem to. It's why I'm becoming completely disillusioned with politics.

A million calls, ten billion calls, it isn't going to matter. Unless you're a campaign contributor, crony capitalist friend, or wall street (lower case intentional) executive they really don't give a rats ass what you think. These guys don't work for us, and clearly don't need your vote anymore since they've rigged that too.....

But you go right ahead and call if it makes you feel better....

Or something.

Enjoy your stay.

I just know that the time for phone calls is over. You'll figure that out some day too.

Will Pitt has been following these events very closely for at least the last 11 years, I know for a fact. Do you know something we don't know?

I have two eyes, two ears, a brain, and have lived here for 48 years. That makes me an expert on American Democracy as it is applied to our peasant population.

Again, if you think phone calls have an impact on our democracy, go have fun. I know better......

is to change the subject ASAP from the immigration issue. The Republicans were outmaneuvered and they don't want to dwell on that issue any longer than necessary. So just throw out some red meat to get the Democratic base ticked off and talking about another hot-button issue.

President Obama already said unequivocally he would not sign legislation to extend the Bush* tax cuts any longer. So the Republicans would have to override his veto which would give us some time to develop a strategy. Just my thoughts ....

Sam

You may be right.