Trade Off: START & Unemployment benefits for Temp Extension on all Tax Cuts. Worth It?

[Clio the Leo]

Poll question: Trade Off: START & Unemployment benefits for Temp Extension on all Tax Cuts. Worth It?

Looks like Dems and GOP have made a deal to vote in favor of passing START and Unemployment benefits extension in exchange for temporarily keeping all of Bush's tax cuts. More money in the pockets of those who need it most this winter, plus fewer nukes in the world. The only folks who wont be happy are the real deficit hawks (and really, who is that?) Everyone gets SOME of what they want, no one gets everything. It's how you get toddlers to stop fighting, also handy for getting a bill passed through Congress.

http://twitter.com/#!/HotlineJosh/status/9979639619387392

http://twitter.com/#!/aterkel/status/9981822364557313

BTW: I think this whole show about "Republicans vow to block votes on any Dem-sponsored issue until all tax hikes are blocked!" is spin. They're saying that because they know it wont be an issue.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/12/dadt-no-more-republicans-plan-to-block-all-dem-initiatives.php?ref=fpa

"Yes" I think it's a fair trade off or "No" I dont. I think "No" will win, but I'm curious to see by how much.

[Joanne98]

1. HELL NO!

[stevenleser]

2. I'd have to say Yes, primarily to get the unemployed their benefits. How can anyone vote against

that? I'd like to hear whether anyone voting "No" is unemployed or has someone unemployed in their immediate family (Spouse/significant other, child or parent)

[Clio the Leo]

9. exactly nt

[rurallib]

3. almost seems like a hostage situation that terrorists would pull off.

Man those guys will go to the mat for their rich people won't they?

[stevenleser]

5. I agree and felt almost 'forced' as much as one could be with an internet poll to vote 'Yes'

I dont see how anyone who calls themselves a Democrat/Liberal/Progressive could throw the unemployed under the bus to hold out for not extending tax cuts for the rich. That is not where I make MY stand, thats for sure.

[Clio the Leo]

10. except that no one actually dies in this scenario. nt

[CherokeeDem]

14. To paraphrase Pogo...

We have met the terrorists and they are the Republicans.

They are more dangerous to the American public than any outside terrorist group.

[MBS]

50. You're EXACTLY right n/t

[leveymg]

4. No. These are separate issues that should have separate votes.

I want all Senators and Congressmen to go on the record about all three issues.

[stevenleser]

6. I agree, but that is not the question in the poll. n/t

[leveymg]

13. The question in the poll seems to reduce this to an either/or choice. It isn't.

I'll respond to it as I see fit.

[stevenleser]

17. Whatever floats your boat. I hope people treat your OPs the same way...

... when you are trying to get an honest opinion on a set question, I hope people completely disregard your question.

[leveymg]

21. Why are you turning this into a personal matter?

All I'm saying is that this is not an either/or issue, unless the Senate leadership wants to make into one. That would seem to provide an easy escape route for Blue Dog Dems who would otherwise have to vote directly to extend the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy. I want them to be on record with such a vote so I can help primary them for it.

[stevenleser]

26. Because you personally disregarded the OP's poll question.

Did you never take a course in, or were you never exposed to philosophy or anything related to it? To debate/forensics?

The OP posed a specific question. If this was the choice, how would you feel about it.

It's great that you want to discuss it in a different way. That is not the point.

[Clio the Leo]

36. Serious question....

.... was there even one progressive Democrat who was able to unseat a Blue Dog during the last midterm?

It's a great idea, just not sure it has any practical application in today's political atmosphere.

[Clio the Leo]

35. Dont worry...

.... my goal was to see how many were willing to screw the poor and NOT reduce nukes (which has been a goal of the left for, what, 50 years?) in order to win an ideological battle.

Such a sad lot we are sometimes.

[karynnj]

31. Ultimately, on each bill, the legislators are faced with exactly a yes or no

Just like all of us here are saying, we would prefer some different choice. The problem is that to even get to a vote in the Senate now requires cloture - 60 votes. What is clear is that a bill just extending unemployment will fail - as it has several times. Similarly, many Senators have said the straight middle class tax cut doesn't have 60 votes.

I had the same feeling you did, but I think this is an interesting exercise in experiencing the real type of choices our legislators must make. It really does force you to weight different values. Here, I found I had to weight what meant more - getting a one year extension on extended unemployment benefits and getting not making the deficit worse. When forced - I went with not destroying the lives of the people who need the unemployment. (Not to mention - not doing that would have a greater impact on the economy than raising an already too high deficit.

One thing people might think of is who is most hurt by a high debt? The answer is those with large assets in dollars - as it really lowers the value of the dollar.

[Clio the Leo]

37. exactly nt

[Clio the Leo]

12. Oh they will...

.... again...

http://twitter.com/#!/aterkel/status/9981822364557313

[leveymg]

18. Not if this gets rolled into a single Bill, which is what you seem to suggest.

If I seem to have misinterpreted your poll, please explain.

[Clio the Leo]

38. Read the Tweet I have now referenced twice...

.... which clearly says the tax votes would come w/in the next two weeks and the START vote would be after the 13th. ;)

[Deep13]

7. How can we afford unemployment extensions if we extend tax cuts...

...for the rich? I thought the objection to unemployment extensions was the expense.

[stevenleser]

8. That is the objection on the Repug side, yes. Not sure it affects the voting here. n/t

[Clio the Leo]

16. You're attempting to inject reason where none exists...

... no one ever accused the GOP of making sense.

[Deep13]

19. Truer words never spoken. nt

[fasttense]

11. Hell NO

First it doesn't address the 99ers who are living out of their cars.

And the uber rich tax cuts means we will have to borrow from China so the rich can put more money in their Swiss bank accounts. That will leave the debt for the poor and middle class grandchildren to pay while the rich children sit around the pool.

[stevenleser]

15. And the unemployed do what then? Are any of your children or parents or spouse or SO unemployed? n/t

[leveymg]

22. Separate Bills. Separate votes. Let everyone go on the record. Including Obama.

Particularly, Obama.

[stevenleser]

24. Again, that is not the poll question being asked.

The OP specifically wanted to know what we thought of the question if it came down to an either or.

That is great that you want to discuss something else. You should have more respect for the OP and create your own OP.

[Clio the Leo]

40. It's clear a lot of us think that Dems can pass anything they like...

.... provided they "man up" (I hear that a lot, but dont see it being explained in practical application) ... or from magic jelly beans .... or ... Spider Man ....... heck, I dont know. But SOMEHOW they can overcome not having enough votes provided they "try."

[Clio the Leo]

39. He gets a vote on the Senate floor?

Well, this is a new twist.

[CherokeeDem]

23. I am unemployed...

I was extremely lucky, I was on the first tier of Fed Extended Unemployment Benefits and zeroed out before November 27, filed for the next tier, and will receive the full tier benefits without interruption. I am single, 'supporting' only myself and two cats. I do have elderly parents, who are fortunate to be able to deal with their own financial circumstances. I am also fortunate that I get the maximum amount of benefits. The money I receive pays my basic bills. But having been out of work for 15 months, I have exhausted savings and no longer can afford COBRA, which with the Fed assistance was $400 + $100 for the drugs I take. I have searched diligently for a new job, but because of the position and salary I held, I am considered too overqualified for most positions available, and a risk to hire for lower level positions. Employers tell me that I'll simply leave if I find a better paying job. Clairvoyent...all of them.

I, too, am angry that these benefits are being held hostage by the Republicans. However, it is what we have come to expect from our government. I am disappointed in Obama...and it hurts to say that. Unemployment not only provides a lifeline for many of us, but stimulates the economy. My money was deposited this morning, and the rent is due. Thank goodness, I can pay it.

The answer? If I knew that I'd be in DC knocking on the White House door. While I would love to see Obama stalking the halls of Congress with a bull whip, I don't think that is going to happen. But an unemployed women can hope.

[stevenleser]

27. OK, but my point was, would you give up your benefits to stop an extension of tax cuts for the rich?

I'm interested in hearing what people in your position think about that.

[rocktivity]

20. Tax cuts don't help the economy, unemployment benefits do.

In other words, no.

:headbang:
rocktivity

[Fearless]

25. Unemployment maintains the economy as it is...

Families buy what they need and nothing else. They save anything they possibly can because they don't have jobs. Tax cuts to the middle class do the same thing. A tax increase on the rich does the opposite. It causes the rich to have to do something with their money. That is where we should be looking.

[stevenleser]

30. There are a few issues with your assertions

#1 Re: Unemployment maintains the economy as it is... families buy what they need and nothing else.
Yes and no. Unemployment maintains the economy as if those who were layed off didnt lose all of their income. It does not maintain it as it would be if those who lost their jobs were without income at all, which is the position most of them would be in without unemployment. The economy is very different than it would be without unemployment money.

#2 Re: A tax increase on the rich does the opposite. It causes the rich to have to do something with their money. That is where we should be looking.
It causes them to do something with it, that is for sure. The Bush Tax cuts for the rich caused a 400% increase in private investment outflow overseas. We stimulated a lot of economies with that money, just not our own. Fully 1/3rd of the Bush tax cuts went to investment overseas and basically hurt us by making overseas businesses more competitive.

[Fearless]

51. Assertions...

Re: #1... Yes the economy would be different without it, however it will be the same with it. Therefore it is not the way to solve the problem. It only stops a greater negative. If the options are only unemployment insurance or tax cuts, I'm saying that neither actually solves the problem it just maintains the status quo, as you said. I agree.

[karynnj]

28. Can I have "it depends"?

I think it would be a nightmare if they extend everything two years, as it replays the same nonsense right before the Presidential election. It sounds like they are saying just kick it down the road - extending both for the same time. It would be better to have something that breaks the pieces apart. It would also be good to minimize the cost by giving back at least part of that last marginal rate - either by cutting the decrease or eliminating it just for some portion.

But, that is not the choice - and just as our leaders often get no choice but yes or no, I will reluctantly take yes.

They do have an enormous "chip" in being able to prevent the renewal of the unemployment extension. This is very very real and impacts people directly who really are already hurting and could be devastated. There is no way to justify no helping those that need it the most. It also has the affect of implicitly saying that we should not be the only ones making hard choices because of the deficit. This also does NOT prevent the Democrats from playing closer to the Republicans' game and make sure that people see that the Republicans insisted on adding whatever large amount it cost by their insistence on extending this to the deficit AND doing nothing much to help the economy. We can insist that new taxes on them be considered as part of any major solution to lower the deficit. The fact is that they have two contradictory goals - lower taxes and lower the deficit.

[Clio the Leo]

41. "it replays the same nonsense right before the Presidential election."

And that is the ONE part of this "deal" I dont like. Put do I dislike it enough to keep the unemployed from getting benefits and miss a chance at reducing the number of nukes? Nope.

[gkhouston]

29. That's not a "trade off". That's extortion. The Republicans are willing to risk

our global safety and let the unemployed (and our economy) suffer to benefit the rich. I oppose this both because we can't afford tax cuts for the rich and because yielding to extortionate demands will only encourage more of them. The Republicans are neither satiable nor reasonable in their demands. We can't "nice guy" our way out of this situation and it is folly to try.

[elleng]

33. They extort; thats what they do.

Imo, given the importance of the issues, we should accept (but make 'temporary' cuts brief/1 year, no more.)

[gkhouston]

46. But that's the game they play. Always make the issues so important (or seem so

important) that the "reasonable" party yields first in the game of chicken. And if we go right along with playing the game of chicken instead of saying, "Stop! This is bullshit! They're trying to play chicken with something that's truly important and that's insane and irresponsible", there will be another urgent, my-God-this-is-too-vital-to-challenge-them-issue in front of us again before you can blink. When the issues are always either too trivial or too important for confrontation, the Dems have reached a state of perpetual cowering and that's pretty much where we are. It's not where we have to be, but it's where we are, IMO.

[avaistheone1]

34. I strongly agree.

The Dems and the country are being held hostage by Republican terrorists.

Dems should not give in. PERIOD.

[Clio the Leo]

47. Are the Republicans using car bombs? Or PETN? Or what? nt

[avaistheone1]

48. They may as well be

given the damage they are doing to our country.

[Clio the Leo]

49. I lost a friend on 9/11 ... I respectfully disagree.

And we're no better than the tea party when we resort to such hyperbole.

[Clio the Leo]

43. No one ever accused Congress of being a church picnic. nt

[elleng]

32. There are no REAL deficit hawks, imo; its all posturing.

In this case, we'll take what we can get. Most important: unemployed and START, imo, but make the 'temporary' tax cuts really temporary, like, 1 year, NOT 2 so as to coincide with elections.

[stevenleser]

42. Absofrigginglutely. And I say that with certainty because the Repugs have never cared about it

before when they were in power. It is all bullshit.

[Clio the Leo]

44. BINGO!

"no REAL deficit hawks, imo; its all posturing."

[Clio the Leo]

45. I'm amazed at how START has become a non-issue...

.... liberals have been fighting to reduce the number of nukes in the world for, what, 50 years? What happened? :shrug:

I'm actually not even sure half of DU knows what New START is.

[Hawkowl]

52. Obama needs to get off his knees

Stand up and fight for what is right and necessary! Tax cut for the rich are KILLING, KILLING, the country.

Don't rich people love their country? Don't rich people support the troops?

[Enrique]

53. no way

no f*ing tax cuts for the rich!

[Hello_Kitty]

54. Oh FFS. I've known they were going to cave on tax cuts to the rich for months.

Who really cares what the excuse is?