Have the Obama tax cuts been etched in stone?

[kentuck]

Are they permanent?

Because if they are, this is no longer your grandfather's Democratic Party. Why?

Because the Democratic Party is no longer the Party of social programs but moreso the Party of tax cuts. What does that mean?

It means that the Democratic Party, even though more socially liberally, has become more fiscally conservative. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. There is no free lunch. You can have your tax cuts or you can have your social programs. You cannot have both.

The recent "fiscal cliff" debates underscores the fact that we cannot afford to continue the present spending. Even with the small increase in taxes on the wealthy, we will continue to go trillions of dollars in the red. Realistically, no matter if you're a liberal or conservative, that cannot continue. Spending cuts are coming.

Where do you think most of these cuts will take place? In defense spending? Or in education, infrastructure, R&D, people programs? Social Security and Medicare will continue to be the main targets for cuts.

So let us all enjoy our tax cuts but let us not overlook what we are giving up. The Democratic Party has changed. Do you think it is for the better?

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

1. The Constitution is not etched in stone

Tax laws change every year.

[Puzzledtraveller]

2. It's been signed sealed and delivered.

On taxes there is no more negotiation debt ceiling and cuts is all we have to look forward to so guess what that means. There will be cuts.

[unblock]

3. well, i think the democratic party is achieving the best we can get given that the power structure

is way too far to the right.

sure, ideally, we'd have medicare for all, huge infrastructure investment, more aid for the poor, far higher taxes on the rich, etc.

but given that the only politically achievable way to make the tax structure more progressive seems to be to present the change as a tax cut, we took what we could get. from here, overall, taxes should go up for everyone (especially the rich, and most especially on investment income) but that ain't happening any time soon.

in truth, taxes don't need to go up *too* much for fiscal prudence; all we really need to do is to pare back the military. but that, too, seems politically untenable these days as well.

[kentuck]

4. BTO: "we took what we could get"

You ain't seen nothing yet.

[hfojvt]

5. the worst part is that

the Democratic Party is now the party of tax cuts that favor the rich.

And just like the old Republican Party, they lie their a$$es off about that fact.

[Politicub]

9. Whatever. What is your proof?

Because what just happened was a new tax increase on the rich.

[hfojvt]

10. right here

two reports from Citizens for Tax Justice http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022130101

[Fumesucker]

6. Sandstone is a stone

As is soapstone.

Not to mention chalk.

[Enrique]

7. hopefully the 2016 election will offer a real debate

the idea that Obama/Hillary style centrism is the best Democrats can do is wrong, imo. I hope we have a candidate who clearly moves the party to the left (i.e. more in line with public opinion).

[IDoMath]

8. The Left/DP isn't "fiscally" anything.

The Left as a whole lacks a coherent economic theory. Thus we get tagged as socialists/communists/tax-n-spend whatevers because we really have no coherent economic theory to put forth.

The Right on the other hand, will tell you that the economy is a wholly organic/natural system that we can't possibly control and shouldn't try. Then they turn around and manipulate the economy at every scale they can. They preach that "greed is good" and that their people should do everything they can to get every dollar they can. (See "prosperity gospel" and calvanism.) They preach that it is good that those with more wealth should have more influence. Most of all, they go out and live their religion every day on Wall Street and the Board Rooms of America. Those that believe but don't make it to those lofty heights have a myriad of excuses for why the theory is correct but they are left out.

The Left has long focused on taking care of people and in many ways, great and small, eschewed the gathering of wealth and ignored economic theory. In a sense we abdicated that part of running the country to the right.

If the Right believes the economy is natural and uncontrollable, the Left might surmise that the economy is an artificial construct can be engineered. In fact, the whole notion of large centralized government implies the idea that large scale systems can be engineered. In the case of economics, this process has been stalled. The Left is long on "design requirements" but short on design, architecture or implementation. In doing so, the Left ratifies the Right's myths of perpetual growth.

It's time for the Left to adopt an economic theory. For the most part, the American Left has rejected Communism and socialism as wrong or undesirable. So what remains? Modified Capitalism? If so, what modifications? When do we stop subsidizing people? Which needs do we ensure? Air? Water? Food? Shelter? Health Care? Education? Fashion? Mates? Children? Cars? Self-Esteem? Surely we draw the line somewhere that we can actually point to and say, "after this line it becomes socialism and we rejected that" or "Hey, I guess we embrace socialism after all."

For me, I find that there are six basic needs - 4 biological and 2 economic needs we all need to be ecologically and economically competitive. After that, we are on our own. The 4 bio needs are air, water, food and shelter. The 2 eco needs are health care and education.

I would suggest that the Left needs to examine the new school of Ecological Economics for a rational approach to economic theory.

Otherwise we are just groping in the dark.