Why are Republicans opposed to extending 99.9% of the Bush tax cuts?

[hfojvt]

This seems odd to me. In a negotiation where my opponent gives me 99.9% of what I want, I am gonna agree very quickly. Then again, I am not used to negotiating with Obama. Obama campaigned on keeping 98% of the Bush tax cuts. But Republicans did not agree to that. They held 98% of America hostage for the top 2%. However, Obama let them off the hook by giving in to their demands. My rich co-worker still thinks, or says he thinks, that his taxes went up because of Obama.

Obama could have let everybody's taxes go up and it would have obviously been the Republicans' fault. Except that he would have had to spend the first six months of 2011 vetoing extensions of the Bush tax cuts that the Republican House and coservadems would pass. But in doing so, he could have thrown their deficit scare-mongering in their face. Veto message "we cannot afford these huge tax cuts for millionaires (accompanying chart showing how many billions of the tax cut goto people making over $500,000 a year.)

Yet instead of fighting that way, Obama "compromised". He gave Republicans 100% of what they wanted and threw in another $100 billion in estate tax cuts plus payroll tax cuts. By not settling for 98% of what they wanted, Republicans ended up with about 110% or 120% of what they wanted.

I mean, Obama originally proposed giving $40 billion in tax cuts to the top 1% and $39.6 billion to the next 4% and $83.5 billion to the next 15%. For a total of $163 billion to the top 20%. (Compared to $41.8 billion in tax cuts to the bottom 40%).

(details here http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxcompromise2010.pdf)

Republicans proposal was to give $103.8 billion to the top 1%, $43 billion to the next 4% and $71 billion to the next 15%. For a total of $218 billion to the top 20%.

They "compromised" on $107.3 to the top 1%, $55.5 billion to the next 4%, and $107 billion to the next 15%. For a total of $269.8 to the top 20%. 124% of what Republicans were asking for.

So why settle for 99.9%, when you might be able to get 124% - AGAIN?

The thing that really drives me crazy on this, is that if Republicans do give in, and compromise on 99.9% of what they want, that is a huge loss for Democrats and also for the American people. Keeping 99.9% of the Bush tax cuts? This is what Pelosi and Reid are fighting for? Listen, you two chuckleheads posing as leaders, we should not be keeping 99.9% or even 98% of the Bush tax cuts. We should be getting rid of 80% of them. Because it happens to be true, that a mere 14% of the Bush tax cuts go to SIXTY percent of US households. Meaning that 85% of the Bush tax cuts could go away and YET 60% of us would still get tax cuts.

The hard part though is that Republicans might not pay a political price for holding the rest of us hostage to the top .1%. Perhaps that is because Demcrats are holding the rest of us hostage to the top 20% and to much of the bottom 80% that does not seem like a huge difference.

[Xyzse]

1. I agree with this and it is definitely one of my gripes against Obama

Saying that, I don't have a viable alternative and whatever the Republicans are fronting scares the hell out of me.
They want to really turn the US in to a middle eastern country like Pakistan. So, I don't have much of a choice but to vote Democratic, as the Republicans have gone the deep end.

That though I consider his method of governing where he naively went for the middle ground immediately before actual negotiations, he has passed quite a lot of things despite Republican opposition.

This current topic is valid in my opinion and I can only look at it at an academic sense at this time. Sadly there is too much at stake if Romney wins the election, so whatever reservations I have against Obama has been superseded by the craziness of the GOP.

I know that last year I was stating that Obama has been governing like a Republican, but as things now stand, at least he has some basis in logic for what he has been doing, I currently don't see it with the other group.

You are right though, that one must stand firm on negotiations far more now than before, and I hope that they do take that criticism to heart and govern accordingly. I don't have much hope for that, but it is still better than the alternative.

[hfojvt]

4. my question is why don't Democrats do it in reverse?

Start with $60,000 not $1,000,000. Make Republicans answer - yes or no, Do you agree that nobody making $80,000 should face tax increases when the Bush tax cuts expire? If we agree on that, then pass an extension for incomes under $80,000.

In the first place, most Americans make less than $80,000 over 75% of us make less than that.

In the second place, such an extension would not add nearly as much to the debt as the current plan does. Thus they cannot really play the deficit card against it.

It also avoids another danger. I fear that Republicans will go along with keeping 99.9% of the Bush tax cuts. Maybe they cannot do that though, because that takes away one of their weapons against Obama in November. "If you vote for Obama, your taxes will go up." and for them even modest tax increases on the super-rich are unacceptable.

[Enrique]

2. I agree

the way they've been negotiating on those tax cuts and also on the debt limit deal has reduced my trust in them almost completely.

When people talk about whether the dems should "go negative", I'm all for it. I want to hear them attack the GOP, I don't want to hear them promise anything because I don't believe they mean it. I don't want to hear them argue why the tax cuts should be ended. They already won that debate, everyone agrees with them, we voted them in to end the tax cuts, they just didn't do it.

[Motown_Johnny]

3. Because they only care about the top 0.1%.

They would gladly make the reverse deal and repeal tax cuts for the bottom 99.9% as long at their wealthy donors can keep kicking back those tax breaks to keep them in office.

[hfojvt]

5. but this current Pelosi proposal

is a huge tax cut for the top .1% compared to letting them all expire.

Which seems to be the key. Republicans and the top .1% know that "letting them all expire" is not a serious threat.

In other words, they know that Democrats are not playing hardball.

This from a party which is trying to sell itself as "fighting for the middle class".