General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsCALL CONGRESS RIGHT FUCKING NOW!11!!1!!
Seriously.
Senate Dems balk at ending Bush-era tax rates on wealthy without a deficit deal
By Alexander Bolton
The Hill
A growing number of Senate Democrats are signaling they are not prepared to raise taxes on anyone in the weak economy unless Congress approves a grand bargain to reduce the deficit.
At least seven Democratic senators have declined to rule out supporting a temporary extension of the Bush-era income tax rates, breaking with party leaders who have called for letting the rates expire for people earning more than $1 million per year.
That gives Senate Republicans a chance to push a temporary extension similar to the deal Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) struck with President Obama in December of 2010.
Democrats running for reelection, such as Sens. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), have declined to endorse their leaderships call for a tax increase on wealthy families.
The rest: http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/233389-senate-dems-balk-at-ending-bush-tax-rates-for-wealthy
Turbineguy
(37,427 posts)but would not increasing taxes by definition reduce the deficit?
Samantha
(9,314 posts)the Bush* tax cuts.
Sam
kentuck
(111,111 posts)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.
Samantha
(9,314 posts)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
RC
(25,592 posts)They are DLC Republicans. We cannot just assume the (D) by the name means they are Democrats, or even somewhere around the Center anymore.
Samantha
(9,314 posts)side of the aisle. New Dems, Blue Dogs, Third Way....
Sam
Huey P. Long
(1,932 posts)Samantha
(9,314 posts)Huey P. Long
(1,932 posts)as starting point. Believe me, no offense to you meant!
Samantha
(9,314 posts)Talk to you later.
Sam
dreampunk
(88 posts)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.
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)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.
Maraya1969
(22,527 posts)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
turtlerescue1
(1,013 posts)Paka
(2,760 posts)WI_DEM
(33,497 posts)spanone
(135,958 posts)sinkingfeeling
(51,501 posts)take Alice Walton's call on the subject directly.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)What does it take to get these clowns to listen and ACTUALLY HEAR?
JHB
(37,166 posts)orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)You can tell who's trying to ingratiate themselves with the 1% ,and who cares about " anyone ".
wordpix
(18,652 posts)or you won't get your campaign bribes."
BumRushDaShow
(130,142 posts)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.
bluedigger
(17,091 posts)BumRushDaShow
(130,142 posts)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.
bluedigger
(17,091 posts)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 ____.
no_hypocrisy
(46,330 posts)Freddie Stubbs
(29,853 posts)They are elected to represent their respective states. Sometimes those states are not very blue, and Senators need be flexible.
MessiahRp
(5,405 posts)To me that part is a no-brainer.
Freddie Stubbs
(29,853 posts)a tax hike.
theaocp
(4,252 posts)It's NOT a tax hike.
MightyOkie
(68 posts)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.
theaocp
(4,252 posts)Change the conversation and you win the argument. You're conceding before the argument has begun. Try harder.
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)While $250,000 a year doesn't put you into the category of the super wealthy, it most certainly puts you into a fairly elite club: the 2%.
MightyOkie
(68 posts)...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.
Blanks
(4,835 posts)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.
Freddie Stubbs
(29,853 posts)a tax hike.
theaocp
(4,252 posts)Why would you do that? Change the conversation.
MightyOkie
(68 posts)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.
theaocp
(4,252 posts)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.
kentuck
(111,111 posts)How much would their taxes go up, say at $25,000 ??
99Forever
(14,524 posts)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.
still_one
(92,552 posts)FarCenter
(19,429 posts)xxqqqzme
(14,887 posts)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.
MightyOkie
(68 posts)I mean, a representative republic.
theaocp
(4,252 posts)Please and thanks.
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)People who just vote or write comments on the internet do not qualify.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)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.
emulatorloo
(44,276 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)Swede Atlanta
(3,596 posts)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?
Swede Atlanta
(3,596 posts)kentuck
(111,111 posts)But they can pass a tax break for the working middle class as soon as the new Congress comes in, if they want to? They are playing games.
MightyOkie
(68 posts)That's where I am lost in this.
bullwinkle428
(20,631 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Whose side are they on?
Certainly not yours or mine.
erpowers
(9,350 posts)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, theres 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.
frylock
(34,825 posts)errr uhhh....
ProfessionalLeftist
(4,982 posts)Comrade_McKenzie
(2,526 posts)Freddie Stubbs
(29,853 posts)AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)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.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)How would you like the Koch brothers nominating Ruth Bader Ginsburg's replacement?
kentuck
(111,111 posts)it is starting to sound more and more like judicial blackmail. It really leaves a bad taste in my mouth. How much can we continue to surrender?
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)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.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)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?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Manchin, McCaskill, Ben Nelson, Bill Nelson, Pryor (voted against health care reform), Tester and Webb.
Tools!
Let the tax cuts expire automatically.
kentuck
(111,111 posts)Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)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.
Doc Holliday
(719 posts)"...he is absolutely standing up for principal."
I'd much rather he stood up for principle instead.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)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.
RC
(25,592 posts)They are lining up at the same feeding trough as the Republicans. We have to get rid of Citizens United.
steve2470
(37,457 posts)ok going to email him now.
boxman15
(1,033 posts)Blue Dogs are just as bad as Republicans in my book. At least we know where the GOP stands.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)to him or herself knew would happen.
When do we stop pretending? When?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=146626
kentuck
(111,111 posts)It was the plan all along.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)when Obama and the Dems caved the last go round.
Skittles
(153,321 posts)pansypoo53219
(21,016 posts)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!
MineralMan
(146,356 posts)is really offensive to people who know or love someone with developmental disabilities. Please don't use that expression here on DU. Thanks.
Kaleva
(36,409 posts)steve2470
(37,457 posts)The other posters have explained why. Thanks.
Ms. Toad
(34,137 posts)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.
FloridaJudy
(9,465 posts)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.
RC
(25,592 posts)Please find another word.
FloridaJudy
(9,465 posts)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.
RC
(25,592 posts)I'm sure some are still living.
UnrepentantLiberal
(11,700 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)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.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)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.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)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
deutsey
(20,166 posts)Fucking idiots.
Samantha
(9,314 posts)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
salib
(2,116 posts)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.
patrice
(47,992 posts)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.
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)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?
patrice
(47,992 posts)kentuck
(111,111 posts)Please tell me it isn't true?
The Democrats are now the Party that believes taxcuts are the way to stimulate the economy?
Please tell me they are not playing us all for fools?
And they will wait until after the election and after everyone has made their decision to break the news to us?
Barack Obama could fix this today. No deals. No letting the Bush taxcuts expire if you will give us X and Y... Just give us your word.
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)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.
kentuck
(111,111 posts)But there are much better ways to stimulate the economy other than taxcuts for the wealthy.
Basically, the deal is, you will definitely get the taxcuts continued if the Repubs win and you probably will get them extended if the Democrats win. A distinction without a difference, some might say?
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)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?
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)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.
kentuck
(111,111 posts)to cut programs that people need so they can give taxcuts to the wealthy.
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)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.
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)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.
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)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.
kentuck
(111,111 posts)the repubs are using the deficit as an excuse to cut state and government spending, creating less jobs and less growth. Unless you can convince the voters that deficits don't matter, we have to raise the taxes to cut the deficits in order to stop the games being played by the Republicans, which is tearing down our economy and our institutions.
kentuck
(111,111 posts)..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.
aquart
(69,014 posts)Which was completely predictable.
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)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.
librechik
(30,678 posts)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!
msongs
(67,509 posts)Cigar11
(549 posts)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.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Crunchy Frog
(26,724 posts)and the Democrats never seem to. It's why I'm becoming completely disillusioned with politics.
Flint Stone
(29 posts)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....
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)Or something.
Enjoy your stay.
Flint Stone
(29 posts)I just know that the time for phone calls is over. You'll figure that out some day too.
kentuck
(111,111 posts)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?
Flint Stone
(29 posts)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......
Samantha
(9,314 posts)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
kentuck
(111,111 posts)You may be right.
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)dawg
(10,626 posts)They do not have enough votes to extend the cuts.
All they can do is vote *against* Democratic legislation that would extend the cuts for those making less than $250K a year. And if we can't spin a vote *against* a middle-class tax cut against them, what good are we as a political party anyway?
TheKentuckian
(25,035 posts)and they aren't always the same assholes because folks are captured by different industries so the onus kind of rotates around which leaves me to believe there are really more like 35-40 assholes but most of them play hero at one time or the other. Sure, there are some that are consistently assholes but their running mates change based on the issue and in any event they will be propped up by the party rather than culled which makes messaging a fucking mess because it is hard to attack the opposition without turning on "our own" so we end up tip toeing around the opposition and trying to make hay off of nuance that you still cannot keep on message or implement.
To make matters worse, the few actual liberals always fall in line so the center of gravity goes to the cats that have to be herded and they dictate the terms and still go off the reservation and in turn the party supports them.
At this point we don't have much of a party, just a confederation of folks that are anti-Republicans for widely varying reasons generally led by folks with a high level of ideological agreement with the opposition on fiscal and martial issues in a fiscally and militarily dominant society and instead focusing on social issues that won't impact bottom lines in any serious fashion and increase our ability to wage war.
Huey P. Long
(1,932 posts)steve2470
(37,457 posts)Call them into the Oval Office alone, refuse to campaign for them, etc etc.
If he doesn't.... I don't know what to say. Sometimes President Obama needs to act somewhat like LBJ, LBJ's many faults notwithstanding.
otohara
(24,135 posts)grrr...
tularetom
(23,664 posts)LBJ, that's who.
He would have summoned these 7 spineless weasels to the oval office, grabbed them by the balls (well, most of them anyway) and told them they goddamn well better support the elimination of those tax cuts or there would be consequences. And there would be, too. The executive branch has a lot of power in the direction of government resources.
Johnson really understood how the senate worked and he knew how to get votes there. Maybe Obama should have spent another few years there before running for president. Or he needs an ally in the Senate. Somebody like LBJ.
kentuck
(111,111 posts)I wonder why they call themselves "Democrats". Democrats basically believe in a progressive income tax so they can alleviate the inequalities in our society, such as unemployment, food, housing, health, education, etc. If you forget that, we might as well fold up the tent...
freshwest
(53,661 posts)theaocp
(4,252 posts)for the extension in unemployment. I was not among them. That being said, what are those same supporters of the extension last time willing to have the Republicans hold hostage this time? Everybody's got a price ... what's yours?
patrice
(47,992 posts)the poor, who don't contribute to campaigns and don't vote, and the elderly who are mostly uninformed, and education since it's being privatized and everyone hates teachers anyway.
The military will be the squeakiest wheel this time, so cuts to the military will be the bargaining chip if they do the budget before ending the Bush Tax Cuts.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)It is the 2nd party option of, for, and by, the 1%.
?/☮ccupy
patrice
(47,992 posts)authentically empower them against Republicans, ergo, Blue Dogs and DINOs.
kentuck
(111,111 posts)The Democrats are playing with fire. Just like the Repubs with the immigration bill, many in the Democratic Party do not want to see these taxcuts extended once again. This is a deal breaker.
President Obama is working on his legacy. He may win the election by keeping this a secret until after the election, but his name will be mud if he cannot make a courageous stand. It is not a courageous act extending the Bush taxcuts. He has already said he would not extend them. Why should we not believe him?
Maybe everyone is just jumping to conclusions? The President will not permit these taxcuts to be extended again by making a deal with the Repubs. Will he??
patrice
(47,992 posts)nineteen50
(1,187 posts)steve2470
(37,457 posts)patrice
(47,992 posts)WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)Call again.
patrice
(47,992 posts)patrice
(47,992 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)But the middle clase will suffer from this. The rich won't feel it.
kentuck
(111,111 posts)can they pass another taxcut for the middle-class, if that is a problem?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)...likely to stay gop. So we will have to see.
kentuck
(111,111 posts)I think the House has a good chance at going Democratic.
mmonk
(52,589 posts)kentuck
(111,111 posts)or us and the country.
mmonk
(52,589 posts)kentuck
(111,111 posts)And there is only one person that can relieve the weariness. That is President Barack Obama. Unfortunately, Barack Obama is not an expert on economics. He listens to the experts. Because he is a pragmatist. He will do what they say will work. If they tell him that if the taxcuts are permitted to expire, it could throw the economy into another recession, then he will keep the taxcuts in place. He will not do what his heart tells him is the right thing to do. He will do the political thing that he thinks will work. However, he will not make his decision until after the election. I would like to have his decision today, before the election. But I am only one voter.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)revolution breeze
(879 posts)Last edited Tue Jun 19, 2012, 08:56 PM - Edit history (1)
Phones are busy. I e-mailed her office, as well as David Vitter's (like that is going to do any good).
Skittles
(153,321 posts)they just don't want to raise taxes on THEMSELVES
ErikJ
(6,335 posts)My fingers are getting itchy.
lonestarnot
(77,097 posts)Who are the other two?
geekd
(20 posts)I have been saying this ever since I joined this forum and every single person has called me crazy and unreasonable.... VOTE OUT EVERY SINGLE INCUMBENT!!!!! LET THE PEOPLE TAKE THE POWER BACK!!!! GATHER AROUND CONGRESS ON ELECTION NIGHT AND LET THEM KNOW WHO REALLY RUNS THIS COUNTRY!!! or lets just give it away to whoever has the savvy to talk us out of it....
ErikJ
(6,335 posts)Its late and I'm too tired to remember why right now.hahaha Something like flushing out all the Progressives out so the RW can install all new T-Bagger toadies. They got the money and machinery for that.
last I heard, you generally get fired for leaving a job undone before vacation. which is exactly what the entire body of congress did. remember the mpaa chairman calling out congressman for the taking of kickbacks. i could be crazy it was hard to garner anything else out of what he said. FLUSH EVERYONE OUT!!! everyone is invited to the party!! the party of accountability..... lemme guess, they got software for that huh???
patrice
(47,992 posts)empirical analysis developed through concrete local grassroots' relationships is what is needed, not scatter-shot kill-'em-all-let-god-sort-'em-out "strategy".
geekd
(20 posts)This sends a message to anyone who decides to go on vacation and leave a job undone. Last I heard that gets you fired in the real world. concrete local grassroots sounds great for politics, I am sold. But in practice, not just theory it does not always work out like that. and its bullshit that the default vote is usually the incumbent, call it ignorant human behavior. We are a creature of habit and ignorance alike, imagine that. they need to understand "they are here for us", not us for "their paycheck and vacation home"!!!! last I heard they were called "public servants". so why do they get away with giving tax breaks to entities that have no business getting them, and not being able to manage out our tax money into budgets. does politic science include 4 function math in it?? we send a message this year because the economy isn't getting any better.
Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)so much for the T-Party's accusations of Democrats being socialists...
I hate to say it, but I guess the Democratic party really is nothing more than the lesser of two evils.
eridani
(51,907 posts)14062527768
14064529586
14065867647
14064495462
14067824717
14062573974
14063658836
1406728-193
1202-248594
13043437144
13042848681
13042623039
Free faxes!
http://faxzero.com/
http://www.gotfreefax.com/
Email, for obvious reasons, is restricted to constituents. Phones and faxes are not. For critical issues, consider adding faxes to your activist arsenal. Sometimes staff will ask your address when you call. If you dont live in Oregon, explain that you are calling or faxing because of Medicare privatization.
A note on free faxes: they must be from a valid email address. When you send a fax, they send it first to your email address and give you a link to click on. Only clicking the link you got by email will send the fax. Limit 2 per day, no more than 3 pages. For $10/month you can send more faxes and more pages. If you want to ramp up your activities as an online activist, and can afford it, this would be a good investment.
steve2470
(37,457 posts)rightwinger77
(9 posts)The only way out of this mess is to go back to Clinton era tax levels on all Americans. Also ending all subsidies and tax deductions. I work two job's and already get royally fucked over, but it has to be done.
markpkessinger
(8,409 posts)Kindly read, mark, and inwardly digest Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz!