I disagree with your thesis, and your facts are somewhat faulty. It depends on whose proposal you're talking about. I believe that Obama himself is in favor of extending all tax cuts for a year to delay the proposal to a more convenient time to make an informed decision, but there are Democrats who want (and have proposed legislation) to extend it only for the middle class, to the point where some Republicans are proposing new legislation to block this called the Tax Hike Prevention Act. Senator Boehner, the Republican minority leader, said that he WOULD support it if necessary. Also, the impact would be highly negative. In 2020, tax revenue would account for 19.6% of GDP without billionaire aid, 20% without it; a generally insignificant difference. All you're doing is making people hand over their money. And billionaires are much more liberal businessmen with their checkbooks (the same checkbook, I might add, that signs paychecks) when they have good pay, and bright minds work when they get paid well.
Your article has few elaborations. For example: "The legislative catch (for the Republicans), of course, is that the proposal doesn’t include any relief for those who make more than $250,000 a year…oh, wait. It does. If this law were implemented, everyone would get tax relief: including the billionaires." Which law? The one they want to extend, or a new one? You make it sound like our President has proposed legislation...is this so? Implemented implies a new law.
"The majority of Americans identify themselves as “middle class.” Irrelevant, what matters is how many Americans ARE middle class. I consider myself middle class. You wouldn't.
"It does not, however, make sense to give identical (or additional) tax relief to people who are not struggling to pay their bills, not struggling to stay employed, and not struggling to buy their sixth house on the shores of Maui." It's definitely not additional help. I don't know, though, if the assistance is "identical," but I can promise you from a dollar figure it will almost certainly not be. I think that the "billionaire tax" (which applies to many people who are hardly millionaires and run small businesses) get about 1% less of assistance or so...but my understanding is that it is more or less identical.
"For months, [Obama] and his proxies have let Republicans propose change, after change, after change– without any response or debate from the Democratic side." You must be kidding me? I'm annoyed that the opposite is not true. I'm personally embarrassed at my party's comparatively weak enthusiasm in proposing original legislation, although the bit that has come out is rather good. There is a very small bill whose name I am forgetting...
Also, no move will help the Democrats. The biased news is now working a bit against the Democrats (for once) but I quickly expect the tables to turn again once Republicans are in power.
Sandey Fields - 14 years ago
Yesl IF the Democrats actually hold firm and publicize the TRUTH and don't stop talking about what's really in the bill.! If they don't, I would definitely want to reconsider this yes vote.
Eric - 14 years ago
If the Republican spin machine can suppress this knowledge or deny its existence with outright fabrications, it's doubtful that the electorate will budge very far from its tried-and-true knee-jerk reaction.
I disagree with your thesis, and your facts are somewhat faulty. It depends on whose proposal you're talking about. I believe that Obama himself is in favor of extending all tax cuts for a year to delay the proposal to a more convenient time to make an informed decision, but there are Democrats who want (and have proposed legislation) to extend it only for the middle class, to the point where some Republicans are proposing new legislation to block this called the Tax Hike Prevention Act. Senator Boehner, the Republican minority leader, said that he WOULD support it if necessary. Also, the impact would be highly negative. In 2020, tax revenue would account for 19.6% of GDP without billionaire aid, 20% without it; a generally insignificant difference. All you're doing is making people hand over their money. And billionaires are much more liberal businessmen with their checkbooks (the same checkbook, I might add, that signs paychecks) when they have good pay, and bright minds work when they get paid well.
Your article has few elaborations. For example: "The legislative catch (for the Republicans), of course, is that the proposal doesn’t include any relief for those who make more than $250,000 a year…oh, wait. It does. If this law were implemented, everyone would get tax relief: including the billionaires." Which law? The one they want to extend, or a new one? You make it sound like our President has proposed legislation...is this so? Implemented implies a new law.
"The majority of Americans identify themselves as “middle class.” Irrelevant, what matters is how many Americans ARE middle class. I consider myself middle class. You wouldn't.
"It does not, however, make sense to give identical (or additional) tax relief to people who are not struggling to pay their bills, not struggling to stay employed, and not struggling to buy their sixth house on the shores of Maui." It's definitely not additional help. I don't know, though, if the assistance is "identical," but I can promise you from a dollar figure it will almost certainly not be. I think that the "billionaire tax" (which applies to many people who are hardly millionaires and run small businesses) get about 1% less of assistance or so...but my understanding is that it is more or less identical.
"For months, [Obama] and his proxies have let Republicans propose change, after change, after change– without any response or debate from the Democratic side." You must be kidding me? I'm annoyed that the opposite is not true. I'm personally embarrassed at my party's comparatively weak enthusiasm in proposing original legislation, although the bit that has come out is rather good. There is a very small bill whose name I am forgetting...
Also, no move will help the Democrats. The biased news is now working a bit against the Democrats (for once) but I quickly expect the tables to turn again once Republicans are in power.
Yesl IF the Democrats actually hold firm and publicize the TRUTH and don't stop talking about what's really in the bill.! If they don't, I would definitely want to reconsider this yes vote.
If the Republican spin machine can suppress this knowledge or deny its existence with outright fabrications, it's doubtful that the electorate will budge very far from its tried-and-true knee-jerk reaction.