Role Reversals

[kentuck]

Good morning all good Republicans!

Has the Democratic Party become the Party of tax cuts and lower taxes for everyone? Has the Republican Party become the Party of big-government spending? If we look at the numbers in recent years, we might think so? It is the Democrats that have balanced the budget. It is the Republicans that have spent us into oblivious decline.

Is this a permanent change or just a temporary necessity? Since the Roosevelts of the last century, Democrats have believed that government has a major role to play in making better the lives of the common citizens. The Social Security program was revolutionary. It was socialism at its finest.

Some might suggest that this would not be the first time the Parties have switched roles. Lincoln was a liberal in his day. Democrats were more conservative. After the Progressive movement about 100 years ago and after FDR, the Democratic Party became more liberal and the Republican Party became more conservative.

Are we returning to those days? This President has stated that he does not believe in programs such as WPA to help our economy. Rather, he has shown that he has more faith in taxcuts to stimulate our economy. His Party has followed him on this new path. Granted, he has mostly asked for taxcuts for the middle-class, those making less than $250K per year, which in reality, is about the bottom 97% of Americans.

Does it bother you that the Democratic Party is no longer the Party of bigger government? Because, by definition, less taxes mean less government. The argument that the SS tax cut is coming from the general fund means that money in the general fund will not be spent on some other program. Even if it were to be put into the SS fund, something else would have to be cut, because deficit spending is no longer permitted by either Party.

Look in the mirror. How does it feel to be a Republican?

[quinnox]

1. oh boy, you are going to get a lot of crap for this but

to me it is a K&R thread.

I think taxes need to be raised, lets stop living in fantasy land. This country is borrowing way too much money, time to pay the piper.

[kentuck]

2. That's my job.

[RC]

3. That's using the 'ol bean for some thing other than a hat rack.

Just when it looks like the Democrats are finally going to take over and do something positive, they switch sides. Kinda makes one wonder who's what.

[CJCRANE]

4. Obama promised tax cuts for the middle class and working Americans

in just about every campaign speech, and that's what he delivered.

The media didn't seem to notice that though and decided to go along with the teabagger narrative instead.

[LiberalAndProud]

5. To be honest it bothers me very much.

After watching this latest debacle on the Hill, I am pointedly aware that the tools afforded Obama are few. The House went to the brink with this last fight, and they were fighting against their own ideology. Given that, I don't see much hope for implementation of more progressive, more effective means of stimulating our moribund economy. Make no mistake, the defeatist Repubs will place barriers to every path if they think it will make Obama look bad. Fortunately that strategy has backfired on them so far. I hope that trend continues.

I think it's a mistake to put the greatest onus of the blame on members of our own party, with a few exceptions (cough-Nelson-cough.) I look forward to the coming general election campaign for the simple reason that we will again hear about progressive ideals that have had no prospect for success in these last several years. If nothing else, the level of national discourse will improve.

I disagree with Obama on many things. His education policies positively reek, for example. His new free trade deals are horrendous. Even so, his handling of the economy has been stymied by the naysayers thus far. I can't fault him or his fellow Dems for using the only tools at their disposal to try to get things moving again.

[kentuck]

6. It bothers me...

....that some Democrats think it will be easy to put this tax back on the workers after it has been taken off? I don't see the economy growing so dramatically that no one will notice? I do not have the confidence that some folks have in tax cuts in general and the deficits they create, no matter who they are for.

Without taxes for programs that are needed, I do not see a bright future for progressives in the Democratic Party. Taxes are how we redistribute the wealth in our nation. That is the only power that we have. If we give that up, we have given up the fight. We have given up our Party as we know it.

Perhaps government is too big?

[LiberalAndProud]

7. I share your concern. And we are robbed of the most sound defense

of the FICA/Medicare programs that we had. But it seems to me that the only alternative was to do nothing. People are being mercilessly squeezed between depressed wages and inflationary costs of living. Any relief is welcome.

I hope ... I mean I *really* hope that when Obama gets a second term, the teabaggers will be shown the door and we can honestly talk about the extreme under-taxation of the very well-to-do. If we can accomplish that in tandem with restoring payroll contributions to previously sustainable levels, there is still hope. If they can navigate a sound tax policy, regulatory policy and monetary policy that truly encourages micro business, there may yet be economic recovery. So much depends on getting more sane people on the Hill. I am weary of the inmates who are running the asylum.

We are such a long way away from being able to implement truly transformational policy, that I don't look for truly transformational politicians any more. We *must* find a way to elevate the discourse from the continual, hate-fomenting name calling (socialist, fascist, commipinko) and start talking about how we can move toward a truly just society. For all his faults, Obama does that in a stunning way. It is no small thing in these days.

Barring all of that hope, there is little recourse. We have been heading toward a neo-feudalistic society for a while. Perhaps the momentum is irreversible.

[kentuck]

8. Sometimes I think people have been programmed over the years....

to depend on credit cards and tax cuts, rather than wage increases, and have become dependent on those to put more money in their pockets, rather than demanding wage increases from their employers.

I cannot imagine a Democratic Party that can help the people without raising taxes. And the middle class have traditionally paid a large proportion of the taxes in this country. When we say we are going to exempt those making less than $250K per year, we are surrendering that which makes us a Party of the People. Just my opinion.

[LiberalAndProud]

10. I wonder how we can demand wage increases when there are

literally hundreds (thousands?) of people standing in line behind us waiting for the same job. My family-owned business shuttered the doors last year. I have yet to realize the full financial ramifications. Closing the doors doesn't stop the bleeding. That scenario has been repeated over and over and over since the manufactured financial crisis. That is simply reality.

I think we can start talking about raising taxes on the median money-makers only after the wealthy begin to pay their fair share. Reagan won the tax argument. I know that we are under taxed. You know that we are under taxed. We are also under served. Wasn't it Dick Gephardt who stood up for tax increases in the Democratic primaries way back when? I wasn't surprised that he never got the chance to run for President. Were you?

Every time I have this conversation, a tug-of-war image comes to mind. Our side is being pulled closer and closer to the abyss. For a little while, I will settle for not losing any more ground.

[kentuck]

11. You are correct that it is difficult to ask for raises when economy is bad...

It does go back to Reagan, doesn't it?

How could we spend $15 trillion dollars and get so little for it?

It was a massive transfer of wealth in the last 30 years or so and the only weapon left for the people is the tax policy that is passed by Congress. If we forget that, we are doomed to return to some very hard times. What are we willing to give up for our tax cuts?

[LiberalAndProud]

13. Sadly, I think we are about to find out.

CONGRESS people! Thoughtful people in CONGRESS!

I know, I didn't say progressive people. Incrementallism, you know.

[emulatorloo]

9. False Equivalency. Democrats have always advocated for tax relief for working Americans

Republicans have always argued for tax relief for the wealthiest Americans, while attempting to pretend their proposals are for everybody.

Now you are trying to pretend that the Democrats are arguing the same thing.

You fail to note that the Democrats proposed a "millionaire tax" to pay for this which the Republicans rejected.

And then you have the audacity to tell all DU'ers who are in favor of tax relief for working Americans that they are Republicans. I understand that it is a rhetorical device. But you have to realize that it feeds directly into the simplistic counterproductive and divisive Flamebait wars going on in GD.

You are one of my favorite posters at DU. I expect more from you.

[kentuck]

12. I appreciate your comments..

... but we have to look at the results. Yes, some of our politicians talk a good game but somehow the wealthy always get their taxcuts and we, the people, end up holding the bag.

I don't agree that Democrats have "always advocated" for tax relief for working Americans. I'm trying to think of examples, other than this FICA tax cut?

Yes, "the Democrats proposed a "millionaire tax" to pay for this which the Republicans rejected" but how hard did they fight for it, really?

Everybody likes tax cuts. They are like Santa Claus and apple pie. But taxcuts do not pay for themselves. You must sacrifice something when you get your tax cut. What are you willing to give up? Obviously, we cannot run deficits higher and higher and not expect some sort of consequence.

Do you want programs to help people or do you want tax cuts.? You can't have both.

[emulatorloo]

14. Let me put it another way which may be clearer (I'm BACK!)

Last edited Fri Dec 23, 2011, 08:00 PM - Edit history (3)

Democrats have long argued that the tax system should be fair and equitable.

They argue that under the current system, middle class and working Americans are paying more than their fair share while the wealthy pay way less than their fair share.

I have more to write but must run out now.

YEA! Back now, it seems like I measure my life these days by where the next wifi hotspot is.

Then there is the question about the stimulative effect of tax cuts.

Republicans say that tax cuts for the wealthy stimulate the economy as the wealthy's money will either trickle down or the wealthy will use the money to create jobs.

Democrats argue no, the rich just hang on to their money and invest it. Per Democrats, if the purpose of a tax cut is stimulative, give tax cut to stimulate the economy, put the money in the hands of the people who need it and will spend it on goods and services.

Now you can argue with economists as to whether or not tax cuts are stimulative but it is clear to most people that Democrats and Republicans have very different views about tax policy.

I believe that the rich should pay more in taxes. I believe working Americans are paying more than their fair share and the burden is inequitable. As to economic stimulus, I agree that working Americans are more likely to plow their money right back into the economy.

That does not make me a Republican, that makes me a Democrat.

I can also recognize what this Tax Holiday is about too - it is a temporary way to get some tax relief for working Americans in the face of a Congress that has so far refused to tax the rich at a higher rate, despite pressure on Republicans from their constituents, despite various ways in which Democrats in congress have tried to get the Republicans to raise taxes on the wealthy.