Do you think it is OK to extend the Bush taxcuts under some circumstances?

[kentuck]

For example, if they can be used as a negotiating tool to keep Social Security and Medicare intact?

Or if it means we keep taxcuts for those making less than $250,000 per year?

Or if it means we extend unemployment benefits for those that are the most needy?

Or if it means we might threaten the fragile recovery if the taxes are allowed to expire?

Are we so against the Bush taxcuts that we could not support extending them under any circumstances?

It is true the taxuts drive up the deficits and then the Repubs use the deficit as a hammer to hit the President over the head with.

Should we not prepare ourselves for another extension of the Bush taxcuts?

Would you be opposed?

[The Magistrate]

1. They Must Go, Sir

Somewhere a line has to be drawn, and held...

[Mojeoux]

2. Well, only for the neediest Millionaires! nt

[TheKentuckian]

3. Nope, they are too big a chunk of the problem

[Warren Stupidity]

4. The cuts at the top need to go.

My expectation is that Fierce Advocate will yet again be bringin' a spork to a gunfight.

[TBF]

5. They need to go. A new plan could enact breaks for folks

making under 75K or whatever, but we are losing way too much revenue at the top.

[Chipper Chat]

6. No

Nein.
No way Hose-say.

[Fumesucker]

7. I think it's a done deal already..

I'm resigned to the fact that the Bush tax cuts are going to be extended, I think the chances of it not happening are close enough to zero as makes no practical difference.

[kentuck]

8. Are you OK with that?

No big deal?

[Fumesucker]

20. I said I was resigned..

That's what you say when something's about to happen that you really rather wish wouldn't.

[eShirl]

9. millionaires need to stop whining and pay up

[mod mom]

10. NO!

[Bluebear]

11. No

[WinkyDink]

12. Your title asks one question, and your post ends by asking the opposite. To the former: NO.

[Cosmocat]

13. No - it is putrid policy ...

Our top tax rates, not to mention the cuts in the rates on dividends, are at all time lows.

Historically, the top rate has been as high as in the 90s. For most of the period from early in the 1900s until 1980, it averaged about 85%.

NOW, I DO think at that time, that it was time to drop the rate, but Reagen had it dropped down to like 34% or something like that.

Clinton had it bumped up to 38.5%, and with the .com boom we have our best economy and federal budget in our lives.

I think that is the sweet spot, along with bumping up the dividend rate.

What people just don't get, and it is simple common sense, is that our wealth has been "redistributed" so disproportionately to the top that it no longer is part of the "real" economy. You have far too much real wealth just being swapped around in the speculative markets, and not enough "trickling up."

It gets reframed negatively as "wealth redistribution" but the fact is, since these people don't magically create jobs with it, they need to have more of it brought back to the real economy, and government is the only means of doing it.

Our economy has changed and the distribution of wealth is such that our economy can't just magically fix itself.

The federal debt aspect is tertiary, but a bonus for the morons who push this nonsense, giving them the hammer presently to beat the president over to further cripple the economy.

Again, the sad thing is the memory of people at large is that of a gnat.

12 years ago, with a Clinton surplus looming, the 1999 election saw the right wing media, and the "liberal media" all up in arms because ... the evil gubberment was going to ... HOARD OUR MONEY ... We can't have a surplus, cause it gives government too much control and it will start buying up private business ... NOPE, we gotta start giving it back ...

[MadHound]

14. No,

The fact of the matter is that we need the money, we need the revenue. Our tax rates are at the lowest in history, and it shows. Rather than cutting SS or Medicare, it is past time for the rich to pay their fair share.

[pintobean]

15. The Obama tax cuts

The Bush tax cuts expired on 12-31-10.

[Bragi]

16. Excellent point! Obama now owns the tax cuts to the rich /nt

[SammyWinstonJack]

35. +1

:thumbsup:

[Dawgs]

17. NOT dumping ALL of them last time has only made our economy worse.

We may be at a point where we can't recover.

I'm shocked that anyone STILL doesn't see this.

[izquierdista]

18. Under one condition

We wake up one morning (like we did in 2000), and there is a budget surplus on the books. Even then, it should be adjusted every year, depending on how fast the national debt is being paid off. Remember, Bubba Clinton had it set up so that the national debt would have been paid off by 2010.

[HughBeaumont]

19. Completely opposed.

Job growth has flat-out SUCKED since their extension (mostly due to the wave of Fascist Gov layoffs and department closings). Supply Side solutions aren't going to cure Supply Side problems.

[ladjf]

21. The Bush tax cuts, although ridiculously moderate, must go.

Then some substantial increased tax rates for the rich should be put in place. nt

[raccoon]

22. Hell, no. nt

[rurallib]

23. no effing way

[Hubert Flottz]

24. The GOP's first selling point was that it was okay because we had

a surplus...so where's the surplus now?

Edit...I think it was the neocon's intent to begin with was to loot the country and in the process wreck the economy, for whatever reason. The entire Bush "Stimulus" scam was a plan to rob and further enslave the poor and the middle class and to reward the very people the GOP was politically and financially beholden to. The fact that Obama extended these cuts revealed his complicity. Not only did Obama go along with the looting and plundering, he surrounded himself with the very crew that helped to cause the crash. I don't think the cat in the White House will rescue anyone but the top 2%. We elected a centrist DLC democrat, but then Mrs' Clinton was no different, IMHO. The Media left us no other choice. The time to have done anything to reverse the damage the neocons did is long gone I'm afraid. What little chance Obama had he let slip over the cliff, IMHO. Why I can only guess and you probably wouldn't like to hear any of those guesses.

[Little Star]

25. Nope.

[Courtesy Flush]

26. Yes, but only if

Only if we see a sudden and dramatic influx of revenue that the tax cuts were supposed to trigger. If it turns out the supply-side guys were right, I'll be the first to admit I'm wrong. ... still waiting.

:popcorn:

[Chan790]

27. Almost No.

I'd only agree to keep the Bush Tax cuts if the Cap. Gains rate were raised and pinned by statute to the equivalent income-tax rate in a way that makes it impossible to change easily or painlessly later for Republicans. For example, if your income tax rate is 26%, your cap. gains rate is 26%.

That's the big fucking deal, the only thing I'd agree to extend the Bush Tax Cut for is a revenue-neutral policy change leveraged against top-earners. That's a Cap. Gains. increase, there's few other ways to get that condition met.

Otherwise, No. I didn't want the last extension and if the GOP wants the next one, they'd better be willing to pay for it dearly.

No future tax cuts without revenue neutrality. No benefits or entitlements cuts at all. Liberty and Economic Justice for all.

(People say I support Class Warfare. I've noticed it's only Class Warfare when the middle-class and working-classes want to do it to the Robber Barons; NEVER when the Robber Barons are raping and pillaging the masses.)

[LWolf]

28. No. nt

[RC]

29. NO! Under no circumstances.

"For example, if they can be used as a negotiating tool to keep Social Security and Medicare intact?"
NO! Social Security & medicare have no reason to be on the table.

"Or if it means we keep taxcuts for those making less than $250,000 per year?"
Maybe. Need details

"Or if it means we extend unemployment benefits for those that are the most needy?"
And pay for them --How?

Or if it means we might threaten the fragile recovery if the taxes are allowed to expire?"
The opposite would happen. We'd have money to spend in THIS country. To get money circulating in THIS country.

"Are we so against the Bush taxcuts that we could not support extending them under any circumstances?"
Yes. How many years does it take to see the bu$h tax cuts are a disaster?

"It is true the taxuts drive up the deficits and then the Repubs use the deficit as a hammer to hit the President over the head with."
Yes, The right-wing nutz do that so the can cut needed social programs.

"Should we not prepare ourselves for another extension of the Bush taxcuts?"
With the current crop of DINO's Blue Dogs, righ-wing nutz and a right of center corporatist for a president, most likely.

"Would you be opposed?"
Absolutely. They should have been rescinded as soon as Obama stepped in the door.

[moondust]

30. Nope.

Poster child for irresponsible government.

[Angry Dragon]

31. NO NO NO !!!!!!

They have not worked for ten years, it is time to get rid of them

Let the republicans PROVE they work.
All they do is voice the same old talking points without any facts to back up anything they say

supply and demand .......... the people are demanding jobs and the republicans are not suppling them

[SavWriter]

32. Absolutely Not

Not under any circumstances. Not in any scenario. Not no, but Hell No.

[undeterred]

33. No!

[EFerrari]

34. This is like asking someone who needs a transfusion how much blood they can donate. nt

[ClassWarrior]

36. Hell no.

NGU.

[trayfoot]

37. NO!

[jtown1123]

38. They are huge drivers of our deficit. The longer we have them, they more likely SS & Medicare will

be cut so we can still have them. They are toxic.