That Liberal Media Volume XVIII: Tax cut = Tax Increase

I wouldn't mind seeing a compromise where the top two brackets' lower rates are extended another year or two at the most, or where they are phased higher gradually. Raising those rates will have an effect on the economy, even if it is smaller than other changes would have. And if compromising on those details means that they definitely go back to pre-Bush levels within the next few years it will be worth it.

 

The idea of taxes (income) especially make people feel entitled to much more than they paid for.

I think people making less than the $30,000 figure shouldn't even pay income taxes.

It would kill a largely false notion used quite a bit in class warfare.

 

I agree. As we saw with the Clinton tax increase, it will reduce the amount we have to borrow, which will free up more capital to be invested in the private sector instead of in treasuries.

What makes you think this would be the end of it? A potentially GOP House and stronger GOP Senate will just bring this up again, and claim that Dems want to raise taxes and kill growth - details be damned. In particular, they specifically want a 2-yr extension so they can run on that during the Presidential election.

 

Not what I was referring to, but I think you knew that.

I said "definitely" on purpose. But a phase in solution would be hard to overturn. Also, after Obama ran and won with the platform of "raising" the taxes on the top two brackets, would it really be that much different if the issue reappeared in two years? By then the deficit would be an even bigger issue than it was in 2008, too.

I would actually put an expiration on the middle class extension as well, something along the lines of four to eight years. Obviously neither side wants to raise taxes on the middle class, but if debt issues are even worse at that point, it will have to be an option. Politically it would give Obama time to soften his "no new taxes on the middle class" pledge and if the party in power has to do something to address the debt by then it would help the Democrats politically if they were out of power.

 

The Democrats control the white house and both houses of congress so if Joey Joe Joe Shabadu finds that his taxes go up next year it is on the Democrats. You can play with the wording all you want and it won't change the fact that Democrats have full control over what each citizen pays to the federal government.

 

This is factually incorrect. The democrats cannot pass anything if the Republicans filibuster (or threaten to filibuster) it. They do not have a super-majority.

 

Conservatives depend upon the stupidity of people to make their case.

I mean, you ever look at a tea party rally? Doesn't seem to be many advanced degrees attending those rallys.

 

A poll sponsored by a major media organization said x% of teabaggers were old and educated, so it must be true.

 

Yeah, that's why republicans are doing everything they can to put the genie back in the bottle after Boner's momentary lapse of reason Sunday.

 

tallanvor proved it two posts above this.

 

Nope, the Democrats can use Reconciliation. If I recall thats how the Bush tax cuts where originally signed into law (although it was bipartisan).

 

There are rules to reconciliation, and I believe at this point they can't use it to extend the tax cuts before they expire.

 

And note that I was pointing out the factual error in your post, but the logical one is more striking. If 59 Democrats in the senate vote for something and 41 Republicans filibuster it and vote against it, it is most certainly not "on the Democrats" for not passing it.

 

But that's the logic they've been using for a year and a half now. Before the Mass election, it was 40 Republicans + 1 Independent/Democrat blocking the other 59 Democrats. Yet somehow, it was still the fault of the Democrats.

 

Sure it is. Democrats can set the tax rates to whatever they want. Reconciliation just needs to be used for a budget issue. Taxing is deemed a budget issue so the Democrats have enough votes to do whatever they want with the tax rate.

 

I just said that I believe they can't use reconciliation to pass tax cuts this year, so that's still factually incorrect.

But you didn't address my point, you just repeated your previous argument. Congress has 530+ members whose job it is to write and pass laws for the benefit of the country. Each of those members is an individual. To assign blame to a party is silly in the first place, but if you choose to do so, it only makes sense to blame the party that overwhelmingly voted against a proposal rather than the party that voted overwhelmingly for it.

The only time your statement holds up logically is if a democrat is assessing his or her own party's ability to pass a specific policy change. At that point you can say, "my party didn't pass it". But you're claiming it makes sense for Joe Q. Public to blame Democrats over Republicans for the lack of a tax extension, which is not rational.

 

You haven't provided a single fact, so how can I be factually incorrect. You said "I believe" and then provided no evidence. If Bush set a tax rate using reconciliation, then obviously so can Obama.

If John Q. Public doesn't like the tax rate he should blame whoever has absolute control over the tax rate, and that would be the Democrats.

 

You haven't provided any more "facts" than I have. You say they can use reconciliation, I say it's too late to use reconciliation on that this year. The Bush tax cuts were passed with reconciliation, but do you know whether that process was started before the middle of the year before they were enacted?

No, that would be congress and the President. I just explained why it doesn't make sense to separate it into parties. Just because you repeated the claim doesn't mean it makes any more sense.

 

Correct. Only one reconciliation bill can be passed in any given year.