The Democrats’ Tax Dilemma

The Democrats are between Barack and a hard place during this election season. Many of them are likely to lose their jobs and if the Republicans gain the majority in one chamber then Obama will essentially be cut off at the knees. For years Democrats have been strong proponents for tax increases. While they claim that tax increases are on the rich they eventually end up taxing many more people, particularly those in the middle class.

Democrats like Obama preached about targeted tax cuts for the middle class. Remember, it was he who said that 95% of us would not see a tax increase. That has gone by the wayside as taxes have risen and will continue to rise. In 2011 we are set for a huge tax increase when the tax cuts that George Bush pushed through expire.

Now for years the Democrats have told us that these were tax cuts for the rich. In any debate the Democrats will frame the argument in those terms. The tax cuts were for George Bush’s rich friends. Tax cuts do not stimulate the economy and you have to find a way to pay for the money the government “lost” as if government actually has any money. Taxpayers have money that government extorts.

So we find ourselves in the middle of a heated election season and Democrats are running for cover. They are trying to convince the people back home that they were looking out for their best interests. Despite voting for things that the majority of Americans opposed, Democrats are running as if they fulfilled the will of the people. Funny, when the polls indicated that the American public had stopped supporting the war effort the Democrats said we needed to end the war (and they made up stories about being tricked into voting for it) because it was the will of the people. These same Democrats ignored the will of the people when they pushed through the Socialist agenda of Barack Hussein Obama (mmm, mmm, mmm).

In any event, the Bush tax cuts are causing heartburn for Democrats. Democrats will tell you that tax cuts hurt the economy and they will raise taxes every chance they get. It is how they feed the ever growing beast that is government. But now that the economy is in the dumper and is not recovering they are worried about raising taxes. They realize that allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire will result in a tax increase. Many of them have had to admit that this is not the smartest thing to do because it will stifle an already stagnant economy. They say we need the tax cuts to help STIMULATE the economy. Got that? Tax cuts stimulate the economy.

But why worry? The Bush tax cuts were only for the rich, at least that is what the Democrats have told us for nearly a decade. If the tax cuts were only for the rich and the Democrats were discussing raising taxes on the rich anyway, why does it matter? Those evil rich people can afford a tax increase so just let the Bush tax cuts expire. According to Democrat mythology the only people who will be affected are the rich because tax cuts were only for Bush’s rich friends.

Therein lies one of the problems for Democrats. The Bush tax cuts helped the middle class the most. That’s right, no matter what your liberal friends and the Democrat politicians have been telling you, the Bush tax cuts provided the greatest benefit for the middle class. If the Democrats allow the tax cuts to expire the middle class will get socked the hardest.

Therein lies a few more problems. Since Democrats are talking about only letting the tax cuts for the rich expire and extending the tax cuts for the middle class, they are admitting that the Bush tax cuts affected the middle class. In order to save their rear ends they have had to admit that tax cuts stimulate the economy and that the middle class received tax cuts from George Bush.

And it gets trickier. Barack Obama is not receptive to the idea of extending the tax cuts. He wants to end them especially for the rich. But in doing so he will be admitting that Bush gave the middle class tax cuts and that Obama just extended them. This will go against everything Obama has said about Bush and tax cuts as Obama is one of the loudest voices in proclaiming that Bush gave tax cuts to the rich.

And maybe even trickier. If Obama decides not to extend the tax cuts for the middle class January 2011 will provide a rude awakening to many middle class people who have been duped by Democrats into believing that the Bush tax cuts were for the rich. This is a potential disaster for Democrats. They have bamboozled a lot of people about tax cuts for the rich so much so that many people in the middle class who actually benefited from tax cuts do not know or understand that they were helped.

If Obama allows the tax cuts on them to expire a lot of people will have less money in their paychecks and when they go to their HR department to ask why and are informed that the tax cuts expired so their rate went up the little light bulb will go on and they will realize that they actually benefited from the Bush tax cuts after all. They will know that they were lied to by Democrats who harped on the same lie for a decade and they will know that Obama lied because he raised their taxes.

The Democrats are in a tough spot. There is only one choice that will provide the least amount of damage and that is extending the cuts for all Americans. The problem with that is their base, the morons who believe that tax cuts were only for the rich, will be forced to admit that the Democrats either lied or extended tax cuts for the rich. The Democrats would love to just allow the cuts for the rich to expire but by their own words they admit that doing so will not help the economy (tax cuts stimulate and the rich pay the most taxes).

The Democrats are really in a bad way on this issue. They are debating tax cuts vs allowing them to expire and they are conflicted. They are always conflicted in an election year because during election years Democrats pretend to be moderates who are in favor of tax cuts and reigning in spending. Once they get elected or reelected they go right back to tax and spend. If this were not an election year the issue would not matter and even though no harm will be done until 2011 Democrats must act now to keep the increases from coming. This is why they are having the debate in the first place.

As for Obama, I think he would be fairly happy to see his majority go away. He has gotten a lot of his agenda through and it is unlikely that it will be repealed until we are rid of him (he can veto any legislation). The only thing Republicans can do is not fund any of it. The power of the purse is still in the realm of Congress. I think Obama would be happy having Republicans in the majority.

What? How could that be? Obama is floundering and he will not be reelected in 2012 if things stay as they are. Democrats and their agenda will not fix the economy and this will spell disaster for Obama. He knows that Bill Clinton was in a similar spot when he was in his first term but once Republicans took over they straightened things out. Balanced budgets, the imaginary surplus, welfare reform, and many other items were part of the Republican agenda that Clinton was forced to go along with and for which he later took credit. This helped him get reelected.

Obama is looking at a similar situation. He might figure having Republicans in to clean things up will make him look good and if they screw things up even worse (unlikely) he will have them to blame and if there is one thing this guy is good at it is the blame game. Either way he will be on more sound footing when asking people to give him four more years.

As for his party, they are running from him and backing an extension of tax cuts.

That just about says it all…

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog

Gunline

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

20 Responses to “The Democrats’ Tax Dilemma”

  1. Blake says:

    Many in the middle class who voted for hiz puniness will have a shock if these tax cuts expire, because it is a long list, and they will be taxed on several fronts.
    They say we get the government we deserve, and if this is true, we must have certainly been very bad, for this is what we get- and it sucks like a wind tunnel.

  2. Adam says:

    First of all Democrats have said the tax cuts overwhelmingly benefited the rich, not that they were only for the rich. Don’t confuse those two things because they are not the same. The NY Times and the CBO backed this idea up a few years ago:

    Based on an exhaustive analysis of tax records and census data, the study reinforced the sense that while Mr. Bush’s tax cuts reduced rates for people at every income level, they offered the biggest benefits by far to people at the very top — especially the top 1 percent of income earners.

    Second, we understand tax cuts stimulate. That’s why a huge chunk of the stimulus package was tax cuts. What we understand and your side ignores is that tax cuts don’t stimulate as much as spending does and they drive up the deficit the same if not more so than spending. Tax cuts just don’t address the problem the way your side pretends they do.

    What I can’t understand is how you ignore the position of the administration on this.
    Obama and Congress is calling for cutting taxes even more than the Bush tax cuts on those making under $250,000 or so. The rollback he wants would only affect those making over $250,000. You can see the breakdown from the WSJ right here.

    Also more here from the article:

    Democrats are aiming to push legislation extending Bush-era middle-class tax cuts ahead of midterm elections. But with Republicans and several Democrats advocating a similar extension for high-earners, too, prospects for passage before November balloting appear uncertain.

    The GOP would love to fight the extension until the tax cuts expire and then blame the Democrats for it. That seems to be how they handle themselves lately.

    “He knows that Bill Clinton was in a similar spot when he was in his first term but once Republicans took over they straightened things out.”

    This is similar to blaming the Dems for taking office in Jan 2007 only to somehow cause the Dec 2007 meltdown. The truth is the causes for the 90’s successes and the late 2000’s failures started in the years long before they occurred with players from both parties invovled. There’s no sense in re-writing history to try and take credit away from some involved and give more credit than is deserved of others.

    • Blake says:

      Actually, the Dems DID cause the meltdown- you just refuse, like so many liberals, to recognize this.
      Barney Frank, and his counterpart in the Senate, Chris Dodd, have ALL said, from 2001 (first video on youtube) til 2007, the SAME THING- “Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are FUNDAMENTALLY SOUND”- all lies, but what do you expect from them?
      You can also, (if you have the stones to watch it)see videos of Bush, McCain, AND even Bubba Clinton ALL saying the Democrats are responsible for the bubble.
      Seek and ye shall find.

    • Blake says:

      Let’s get something straight- see if you can understand THIS- Noone has EVER gotten a job from a poor person- it is the richer people who can afford to hire people, and when you tax them onerously, they are LESS inclined to hire more people.
      Thus, if you want more jobs, you tax the rich less, not more.
      You libbies feel that profits are bad- but it is profits that cause job growth- these rich people do not HOARD their wealth- they know, unlike progressives, that idle money benefits no one, and the idea of growing your money, increasing jobs, and thus increasing profits, is a good thing.
      If rich people (like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett) wish to give their money away, that is called charity, and is to be applauded- if the government takes it, it is called taxation, and, since the government is incompetent, this taxation would be distributed incompetently.
      John Stossel once challenged anyone to come up with ANYTHING that the government does better than private industry, with $1,000 at stake.
      So far, he hasn’t had to pay a dime.

  3. Big Dog says:

    Adam, you are too funny. The Democrats always frame it as tax cuts for the rich. They never say how much the middle class was helped. Now, if you want real numbers then look at the treasury. The middle class benefited the MOST. Certainly high earners had higher dollar numbers because it is a percentage of a higher income but the middle class received a higher percentage cut.

    The reality is that tax cuts are better than spending when the spending is taxpayer money because it does nothing but run up debt. A tax cut for all people allows them to keep more of their money which they spend. That kind of spending is what stimulates, not government spending money we do not have. This is what you and your side fails to understand.

    And you miss the point of the post. No matter what Dems do they are in a tough spot. Yes, they always called it tax cuts for the rich. They do not mention middle class because that would not benefit them politically.

    No, the GOP would be happy to extend the cuts if they are extended for all. What you fail to realize is that the rich will clamp down on their money if they are forced to pay more and it will hurt the economy even more.

    The rich are holding quite a bit of cash in reserve, so much so that the progressives want to tax them on what they hold to force them to spend it.

    How Communist of them. The rich can control things very easily by spending or not spending. The uncertainty is keeping them from spending and it is hurting the economy.

    Take more of their money and see what happens.

    So remember, government spending does not stimulate. Private spending does. People have more of their own money to spend if we cut their taxes.

    As for who is to blame for what. You never had a problem giving Clinton credit for all that took place. As soon as I point out that Republicans in Congress saved his ass (the things I mentioned were not in the works for years) you want to credit everyone.

    Yes, Democrats were in charge from 2007 and things went bad. It is their fault and their responsibility.

    And if you don’t like that then call your leader and tell him to quit blaming Bush. You guys want it one way. Blame it all on Republicans when it is bad (and they have their share of the blame) and credit Democrats with all the good things. Then pass the blame when you are wrong.

    Not going to do it that way.

    • Adam says:

      “And you miss the point of the post. No matter what Dems do they are in a tough spot.”

      And you are ignoring reality. You’re talking about a tough spot as if any Democrat is calling for increasing taxes on middle class Americans. They’re not. You know they’re not. The GOP doesn’t care about across the board cuts. They just want Democrats to fail.

      • Big Dog says:

        Once again you make claims you cannot support. Dems are calling for tax increases by not extending the tax cuts.

        The GOP cares about tax cuts and the Dems have already failed.

        • Adam says:

          “Dems are calling for tax increases by not extending the tax cuts.”

          Based on what?

        • Adam says:

          The Democrats plan is to extend the Bush tax cuts for those families making less than $250,000 or individuals less than $200,000 and let the the richest Americans essentially return to what they were paying in the late 90’s.

          Look for the GOP to block any attempt to pass this part of the Democrats agenda. They want all the tax cuts to expire so they can run on the idea that the Democrats raised taxes on every one.

          • Big Dog says:

            No, some Democrats plan to extend the tax cuts that affected mostly the middle class. Others do not want to do so. And the popular line of thought is that they are only doing it because it is an election year. Regardless of where they fall all of them have stated that any extension would be temporary. In other words, they will raise them now or raise them later.

            The Dems could extend them with no problem. Barry could sign an EO. That is how he leads… Or are you worried it would be a LIE like the no federal funding for abortion EO. Now that was a lie that you ignored…

            In any event, Democrats are not happy about extending the tax cuts for anyone.

            And as for your assertion that Limbaugh lied about 9% unemployment for two years. He did not say that. He said we have not had 9% unemployment for 2 years since the 1930s. The wording might suggest that this is what he meant but he did not come out and say it. In fact, all the sites attacking him on it claim that he suggested it. In any event, he did not state it as a current fact. The way he stated it is a true statement even if it gave the impression he was talking about current conditions. So while I appreciate your assertion that his listeners are too stupid to check these things I would suggest that stating that he said it as a fact rather than portraying it as a suggestion or that it could be inferred from what he said is dishonest though I would not say people who failed to also point out that what he said is a true statement are the stupid ones. They are merely partisan hacks who need someone to hate, to rationalize, to marginalize, and to attack. Keep going after him and foccus there. By the time you realize who the real leaders are you will have been clobbered by them…

            Of course, the UE rate will be above 9% for 2 years in 9 or 10 months.

  4. TeaPartyPatriot says:

    Adam what do the democrats do for this country other than put us all in the poorhouse quicker?

  5. Adam says:

    “No, some Democrats plan to extend the tax cuts that affected mostly the middle class. Others do not want to do so. And the popular line of thought is that they are only doing it because it is an election year.”

    “In any event, Democrats are not happy about extending the tax cuts for anyone.”

    This is absolute nonsense that has been debunked by PolitiFact already:

    Pence is right that every tax bracket will go up if the law is not extended. Still, we think the claim that Democrats don’t want to extend the law is inaccurate. While the legislative drafting is still in process, the Democratic majority in Congress has made clear that it plans to extend tax cuts for all but the top couple percentage points of the income distribution. So it’s highly misleading for him to say that Democrats actually want to see all the bill’s cuts expire.

    “And as for your assertion that Limbaugh lied about 9% unemployment for two years. He did not say that. He said we have not had 9% unemployment for 2 years since the 1930s.”

    Reading back over his quote and reading news from the White House I agree. I’ll give Rush the family man the benefit of the doubt on this one and withdraw my assertion of a lie.

    But let me say that what I find so disingenuous about this defense of Limbaugh is he just so happened to have been parroting a new GOP talking point that we also saw John Boehner lying about recently.

    It’s possible that Boehner was attempting to make a statement more in the context of Limbaugh’s but he certainly was not correct in what he said.

    • Big Dog says:

      Here is where the problem lies, you claim that it has been debunked by Politifact. How is that true? I stated that some Dems want to extend and some do not. Politifact says they THINK that the claim is inaccurate but have no facts to back that up. They claim that the Democrat majority wants it. Am I to believe that EVERY Democrat wants that? There have been more than a few who do not want to see them extended. So how does that debunk my claim that some want them extended and some do not? How is it debunked when they THINK something but have no proof since the legislation has not been drafted?

      I am not defending Limbaugh. I am refuting your claim that he lied. I am using the same tactics you use when Obama changes what he says. You all claim that we must go by their words. OK, then Limbaugh did not say what you claimed. It is not a defense of him. Boehner said what he did but was he making use of two years as in 2009 and 2010 even though it did not consume all of either year? I do not know but I know that Obama and his peeps said we would only get that high without the stimulus and I know his peeps are saying it will go up before it goes down. His peeps have said well into next year so it is not a big stretch.

      Now, did these folks mean the underemployed rate or are they also counting those who have dropped out. The unemployment rate is much higher than the official rate that is reported and has been so for a while.

      No defense, just asking how anyone can deny that this is not going as we were told and why it is this is considered a lie but the claims that the GOP offered no solutions and that they are only the party of no go unchallenged. Why do you allow the lies of Obama and his peeps to go unchallenged but pounce on Limbaugh and Boehner? I understand partisan but are you that blind?

      • Adam says:

        “I stated that some Dems want to extend and some do not.”

        Feel free to locate these Democrats for me. Obama, Pelosi and Reid all clearly are against letting all tax cuts expire and want to extend the tax cuts for most Americans.

        “Politifact says they THINK that the claim is inaccurate but have no facts to back that up.”

        No facts except the campaign promises of Obama which he still stands by and the statements by Pelosi on the subject. None of this has changed.

        Furthermore Politifact explores this in another post:

        Palin, however, responded as if the Democrats intend to allow all the Bush tax cuts to expire for everyone. … But that’s not what Democrats are proposing; they want to leave tax rates untouched for people who make less. We’ve looked for a Democrat who supports letting all the Bush tax cuts expire, and we haven’t been able to find one. … In fact, a handful of Democrats in Congress have supported keeping tax rates for the wealthy lower, too.

        The Democrats are not facing any dilemma. If they can’t raise taxes for the rich they’ll extend the tax cuts for all and deal with it later. The Republicans are making a lot of noise about this a spreading a lot of misinformation.

        “OK, then Limbaugh did not say what you claimed.”

        I agree. I have no longer have reason to believe he stated what I suggested let alone lied in the process.

        “Why do you allow the lies of Obama and his peeps to go unchallenged but pounce on Limbaugh and Boehner? I understand partisan but are you that blind?”

        Call it blind, call it partisan, call it whatever you want. You’ve never been able to convince me that Obama or his “peeps” lied.

        • Big Dog says:

          Just because you have not been convinced does not mean that they have not lied. Obama lied about a mandate in insurance. He lied about raising taxes. He has lied about a lot of things when one looks at promises he broke after being elected.

          He lied about no more politics as usual, lobbyists in his regime and closing Gitmo.

          Poltifact is a partisan leftist organization.

          Looks like Hoyer thinks they will be extended only temporarily

          A lot of Democrats agree to the idea of extending the middle class cuts 9the ones that never existed) but only for a year, maybe two. In other words, they want them to expire but not now.

        • Adam says:

          “Poltifact is a partisan leftist organization.”

          Even if that were true I’d love you to show where the links I posted have strayed from the truth.

          “He has lied about a lot of things when one looks at promises he broke after being elected.”

          If every broken promise is a lie then Bush was a serial liar himself. I’m sure that’s different though right? Obama should answer for broken promises for sure but a lot goes into campaign promises that changes when faced with the reality of the job. You’d think if Obama was the liar you make him out to be you’d have much better examples.

          For instance like the Evil Partisan Leftists at Politifact do with Rush Limbaugh. But I’m sure Rush didn’t intend to mislead. Never.

  6. victoria says:

    #3 on the list of top 10 Liberal Lies:

    3. This is a tax break for the rich- This is class warfare at it’s finest. If a person earning $40,000 a year gets a 10% tax reduction and a person earning $1,000,000 per year gets a 1% tax reduction- the person earning $1,000,000 will get a much greater tax break. Tom Daschle and Richard Gephardt once stood next to a car in front of the Capital Building holding up a muffler. They made a statement that a proposed George Bush tax cut would allow the rich to buy a new car and the average American to buy a muffler. This is a strategy Democrats use on every Republican proposed tax cut. They stop everyone from getting a reduction in their taxes by using class warfare. Please note, tax reductions are not an entitlement program.

    • Big Dog says:

      It is also important to remember that while all the libs are saying that Obama had all these tax cuts, he did not. Tax credits are not tax cuts. No change in the tax rate occurs.

      Alot of what they have done is with tax credits that they call a tax cut.

      It is a shell game and a lie.

      • Blake says:

        We would not even be talking about the “Bush tax cuts” except it was the Dems that made the sunsetting of these cuts necessary, or they wouldn’t have allowed them to pass- (You forget, little padwan, the Republicans had 50 + 1 as their “majority”, hardly enough to pass most major legislation WITHOUT acceding to ridiculous Liberal demands.)

  7. Big Dog says:

    Oh, sorry Adam. Does it bother you to have Obama called a liar for breaking promises? I am just treating your leader the way you treated mine. And yes, he has lied. I wrote about one of them that even an MSM publication quoted. Said straight up that he had lied.

    One such lie was no one talking about his Senate seat replacement. His people actually did and he knew it. There are lies but yes, some of it is the change because of reality.

    He certainly bit off way more than he could chew because he is inexperienced. He also had to placate the morons who believed every word. I wonder if Peggy the moocher lost her house or if Obama paid her way and paid for her gas as well.