Why were the tax cuts to the wealthy notchallenged by the Democrats,

[KlatooBNikto]

more vigorously?

It is bad enough that the supply side snake oil roped us all in during the Reagan era without showing a single evidence that it ever worked. Now W comes around fine turing that snake oil, so the tax cuts are disproporationately skewed toward the wealthy.Each time he asks for a tax cut, every Democrat joins in the cheerleading as though it is a proven remedy for our economy. Whatever happened to the idea of a critical debate?

[QC]

1. Most powerful Democrats are wealthy.

So it's in their interest to cut taxes for their own class.

[Warpy]

7. Exactly, which is why they're not putting up much of a fight

to end electronic voting and force a legitimate and transparent system.

It's a win-win situation for them. If Democrats win more seats, they get more power. If pubbies win those seats, their taxes on their considerable wealth will go down.

And to hell with the people who put them into office.

[indepat]

9. You've hit the nail on the head: so wealth, like power, must corrupt

absolutely.

[MichiganVote]

2. Because they all make big $$ when they retire from gov. too

[sandnsea]

3. The battle went on for months

It's how we got a 10% bracket and refundable child tax credit. And most Democrats didn't vote for the final tax cut, or any of the subsequent tax cuts.

After the first tax cut, the attention was always on the war.

On edit: And obviously people prefer to believe shit. Side note, on a CSpan program, Arianna said that Kerry voted for the bankruptcy bill. See how much shit there is out there?

[KlatooBNikto]

6. I was referring to their acceptance of the basic premise of the supply

side tax cuts as an incentive for growth.That was not proven by Reagan and obviously even less proven by W. Despite this lousy track record, our Democrats keep behaving as though that is a panacea that cannot be challenged on its own merits.

[sandnsea]

15. Since when?

Investment in infrastructure and targeted tax cuts is the basic premise of Democratic economics.

[bvar22]

19. The Reagan "supply side" economics combined with...

...tax cuts for the RICH added two new terms to our language:

Downsizing

and

Jobless Recovery

I am amazed that these people could sell this same old bullshit again.
It proves that you can fool 1/2 of the people ALL of the Time, and for the rest....there is DIEBOLD.

[K-W]

26. Yep, because the secret of it all is this.

When you give money to the owners, they use it to consolidate industry and invest in more production, and considering that generally the economy slows because of overproduction, this is a horrible idea.

The problem is that people arent buying products and the solution is to decrease the number of jobs and up production.... golly gee what a plan.

[K-W]

24. What are you talking about?

First off, supply side cuts do in fact provide incentive for growth, the problem with them is what parts of the economy they grow and the nature of the cuts.

But the more important point is that Democrats dont accept that basic premise, certainly some democrats do, but the democratic party platform still advocates social spending and a more progressive tax structure.

[hfojvt]

21. the 10% bracket was part of the original proposal

the refundable credit was a Democrat idea. Thank you for pointing out how flat WRONG the OP is. Daschle et. al. were on TV complaining that the tax cut gave a lexus to the rich and a muffler to the middle class. Gore attacked the idea in the debates as well. In the end almost NO house democrats who voted for it (Dennis Moore from Kansas being an exception) only about 14 senate Democrats voted for it. Would the public have supported a filibuster? I doubt it. The Republicans did not pay in 2002 for the new deficits and the vanished surplus.
For the 2003 tax cuts, again, almost NO house Democrats voted for it. In the Senate, Democrats worked hard to make it a smaller tax cut and it finally passed 51-50 with Cheney breaking the tie.

[sandnsea]

29. The 10% tax

Was proposed to be phased in at a later time, Democrats got it put in during the original tax cut. Other than that, I agree with you. Some people buy this supply side tax cut nonsense, but most Democrats don't. Unless money goes into the pockets of working people.

[whistle]

4. Democrats and republicans both received the full benefits of...

...Bush's tax cuts, but to be fair, there were democrats on the hill asking for amendments to give lower incomes households a larger portion of the proposed tax cuts and I know that my cut by that action went up $1.42. :sarcasm:

[KlatooBNikto]

8. I guess you can buy half a gallon of gas for that.How lucky can you get?

[whistle]

25. Oh I'm just delighted and my local property taxes only went up...

....$500.00!!!

:banghead: :rant:

[jedr]

5. where the hell is our leadership, period!

[tubbacheez]

10. Insufficient vigor is a weak complaint.

No, I don't like the current situation any more than you do. But I find it bad form to throw general criticisms that some people are "not being good enough".

There are many forces that affect the outcome of events. While many are within our control, many others are not.

Yes, failure can be due to insufficient effort. But that doesn't imply that insufficient effort was the actual cause of failure.







To paraphrase my friend's mother-in-law...

Why aren't you richer than you are?
Couldn't you have tried harder in school?
Why aren't you as strong as that guy over there?
Would it have killed you to floss your teeth more often?
Why didn't you try harder to get promoted at work?
How come your cooking doesn't taste better?
Can't you stop making mistakes?

Goodness, I have to stop. I'm getting unproductively stressed out just remembering all this.



Anyway, that was my point.

[KlatooBNikto]

11. This is a snake oil ( Remember Bush Senior called it Voodoo Economics).

That has been a festering sore on our economic life for many years.As a party we have an obligation to challenge the very basis of this snake oil and yet have failed to do so.It is not an individual failure I am talking about.If it was, you may have a point.

[tubbacheez]

12. Oh, there are serious problems even on a group level.

And I'm not saying everything is fine the way it was.

Dems had been experiencing serious internal problems as a group, including lack of organization and lack of leadership, plus an ongoing inability to solve those problems.

And I'm sure some very valid criticism could be leveled at certain individuals for specific actions or decisions they made.



I do think, though, that it's far more productive to criticize the proactive actions and decisions than to criticize the failing to meet some arbitrary benchmark.

I agree the wealthy and powerful have managed to escape the spotlight and gain some serious benefits.

I disagree with any supposition that this situation is due to a deficiency of vigor. Like I posted, there can be many factors contributing to it.

I do agree that we have an obligation to encourage more effective action. Defining what will be more effective is the subject of much debate... and additional vigor or effort is only one idea.

[bvar22]

23. meeting "arbitrary benchmarks" ?

You mean like supporting and voting for legislation that helps Labor, the Middle Class, and the Poor?

....too much to expect from modern Democrats who have expanded Big Tent to represent the interests of the Rich, the Investor Class, and the CEO's.

The Party SHOULD stand for something. That is NOT too much to expect.

[tubbacheez]

27. Nope. The OP simply said there wasn't enough vigor.

Who gets to define how much vigor is sufficient to avoid this particular criticism?




I do agree the party should stand for something. And that something should be defined in the party platform.

I would completely support holding the Dem pols to specific goals and milestones... like the passage of certain bills or the blocking of certain judicial appointments.




But the original post complained that the tax cuts were not challenged vigorously enough.

Who gets to define the appropriate level of vigor? The last person unsatisfied? The first person satisfied? Me? You? The OP?

[Just Me]

28. Usually, the right-wing power-mongers impose such bullshit.

Just sayin' :shrug:

The right-wing uses "perfection" (and misrepresentations and LIES) to defeat opponents.

It's true,...ya' know.

[tubbacheez]

30. Too many people, RW and elsewhere, use that kind of thinking.

My friend's mother-in-law is a great example. And she's a lifetime Democrat, too.


My point is more that it's unproductive... even counterproductive... to bash someone for not meeting an ill-defined standard.

And yeah, the Repubs love to bash us that way. No matter how cool of a candidate we put up, they'll find a imperfection.

They'll find some place where he didn't measure up to somebody's expectations and amplify it to mega-proportions.





I don't want to do that to ourselves internally.

[jedr]

14. My point is that we are at a "tipping point" (hate that phrase!)

and I don't see anyone out there making hay with it... Rove would be all over this, the shoe being on the other foot.

[tubbacheez]

22. Exactly. They have Rove in place and working.

We need to find our version of Rove and get things started.


The Dem pols were in bed with the Repubs during the Clinton years when the tug-of-war was more evenly matched. And what did that gain them? A swift boot as soon as the Repubs gained the upper hand.

Then the Dem pols went into a confused tizzy trying to shake off the feeling they were simply exploited by jerks.

Meanwhile, the liberals and progressives were trying to make waves, but we had zero cohesion. A thousand splinter groups focused on single issues were like gnats to Rove.

Recently, the recovering Dem pols realized they're out in the cold and can't get back in until they get some clout.


Only now are they realizing they need us, though many of us realized a while ago we need them since they're the closest thing to a party capable of taking on Rove.



We need our own equivalent of Rove, but our strategy won't mirror his. He's starting from a superior position. We have a lot of catch-up to do.

[EVDebs]

13. What goes around comes around...just you wait and see eom!

[Just Me]

16. Am I still AT DU? Did Democrats fail to oppose those tax cuts?

WHAT THE F*CK?!?!?!?!

[blm]

17. They were quite vigorous. They just don't own most of the media like

the GOP does.

You do remember the GOP controlled media kept the cameras and all the talk on Chandra Levy don't you?

Please tell me the name of ONE Democrat who owns any media outlet that could be relied upon to get their views heard.

I'm really curious to know how much you rely on the corporate media when you draw your conclusions.

[Cleita]

18. Unfortunately our elected Democrats are part of the problem

because they too are wealthy with very few exceptions. They don't understand how helpful tax breaks are to the poor. It sometimes makes the difference between a better quality of life and a not so good one.

[Q]

20. Analysts Say Dems Caved to Electoral Pressures in Extending Tax Cuts

Analysts Say Dems Caved to Electoral Pressures in Extending Tax Cuts
by NewStandard Staff


Sep 29, 2004 - Both houses of Congress last week voted overwhelmingly to extend Republican-initiated tax cuts set to expire this year. Though the new legislation was billed as a "middle class" tax cut, independent researchers say the cuts will largely benefit people in the highest tax brackets. After failing to include provisions that would extend some of the tax cuts to low-income families and make up for lost revenues by closing corporate tax loopholes, most Democratic lawmakers caved to election-year pressure and voted for the bill despite vocalized reservations.

The tax cut extensions, which are estimated to further educe federal tax revenues by about $146 billion over the next ten years, breathe new life into various provisions that were set to expire or decrease next year.

Congress specifically left out a provision that would have accelerated a tax cut for low-income families by allowing more married couples to claim the earned income tax credit.
Included in the legislation was: an extension of the child tax credit, which gives families a tax credit of up to $1000 per child; an extension of tax breaks for married couples; extension of a rule that allows all taxpayers to pay ten percent taxes on the first $7,000 of their income; and a provision that exempts some high-income earners from the Alternative Minimum Tax.

Also included are $13 billion in miscellaneous tax cuts, the majority of which will go to large corporations.

Not open for debate this week were certain tax cuts specifically geared to benefit the wealthy. In what the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) called a "gimmick," Congressional leaders designed last year’s tax cut bill so that the provisions touted as "middle-class" tax cuts would expire at the end of this year. In contrast, tax cuts catering to high-income households, such as those decreasing the percentage that top earners pay and lowering the capital gains tax, will not expire for several more years.

"This was done so that Congressional leaders could then push through legislation to extend these ‘middle-class’ tax cuts shortly before the 2004 elections," CBPP, a nonprofit research organization seeking to include the needs of low income people in policy debate, wrote in a press statement. " who opposed the measures to extend these ‘middle-class’ tax cuts without paying for them would face the prospect of attack ads branding them as politicians who wanted to raise ordinary families’ taxes." --- http://newstandardnews.net/content/?action=show_item&itemid=1053