Tweet
From HuffPo’s Sam Stein, we learn of yet another foolish Democrat, this time Missouri Senate candidate, Robin Carnahan, who thinks we should extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, because "now is not a good time for raising taxes."
Carnahan isn’t the first Democratic Senate candidate to call for an extension of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway has said that he favors keeping the current rates for "five, eight, maybe ten" additional years. Rep. Brad Ellsworth (D-Ind.), who is running for Sen. Evan Bayh’s soon to be vacated seat, also has said he would support extending the entire package of Bush tax cuts.
Are they truly that clueless about what the choices are?
The cost to the Treasury of extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealth starts near $35 billion next year and explodes to nearly $700 billion over a decade. So the question for Democrats is simple: what do you want to happen to that $700 billion?
If you give it to the wealthiest Americans, who already have the vast majority of wealth in the US (and it’s getting worse), they won’t stick it in mattresses or some Cayman Islands bank account earning piddling interest, though they may try to hide it there and avoid even more taxes. No, they’ll send much of that $700 billion to Wall Street to gamble on making more money, asking their favorite bankster to place their bets on the latest expected bubble.
Or . . . you could let the tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans expire and use that money, or even a portion of it, to create jobs, reduce unemployment, rehire teachers/firemen/police, rebuild infrastructure and help those most in need, including the insecure elderly who lost much of their retirement savings when Wall Street and incompetent regulators destroyed $12-14 trillion in America’s housing and investment wealth.
The one thing almost all economists agree on — even the Republican advisers — is that reducing taxes on the rich has a very small stimulus effect on the economy, but using those same dollars on the poor and lower middle class has a much larger positive effect — about five times as large, or more. Clearly, that’s the best investment we could be making with that $700 billion, or any portion of it.
So here’s the test for Democratic candidates: You have $700 billion. You can give it away to the richest Americans and have them gamble that on the next Wall Street scams, or you can invest some or all of it with the people on Main Street.
Wall Street casinos or Main Street jobs. The choice is really that simple. And any Democratic candidate that can’t explain and sell the right choice to voters shouldn’t be running for office.
44 Comments
The questions arise when Politicos make statements that are really for electioneering results than what they really think. Integrity is not a word in any politician’s modus operandi except perhaps on a local level.
And instead of bringing up a good jobs package and MAKING Republicans filibuster it on record, Reid’s plan is to take up EXTENDING the Bush tax cuts when the Senate gets back. He says it will show how the Democrats are on the side of working people but I see it as a way to sneak those tax cuts in, (because they expire if they do nothing). I really detest that old man. And every so called “Democrat” who thinks extending wealthy tax cuts is a wonderful idea. Oh yeah! Because those tax cuts have worked so well up till now…..
They’re not clueless at all. Let’s see, we have candidates running for major positions in a kleptocracy. What do you think they would say? Who did you think they really are? Or who they really represent? A vote for any Democrat or any Republican is a vote for kleptocracy, plain and simple.
Even though I disagree with her on this issue, she is still a million times better than Blunt.
Truly, Margaret, it passeth understanding. Carnahan, Coneay Ellsworth. Reid. Any number of these kleptorcrats (or would-be kleptocrats). How can we keep sending these people money? Especially since they don’t mind handing ours over to the rich? How can we vote for them? How can we care a rap about the whole damn Democratic (sic) Party?
I have an extremely wealthy relative that, frankly, has no bloody idea how much is owed or saved by taxes….it is all run through a trust. The relative spends what is needed and wanted with never a care about how much. A vacation to europe for a month or two, a new car, lending money to a friend for a house…all no problem. If the tax cuts were cut there would be no problem and no idea how much difference made. There would not be a rush to save as the amount would be a bloody pittance to the overall account. A few years ago the tax refund from the fucker bush was greater than my immediate family income. Insane, bloody insane.
What does that even mean? They are both corporatist looters. You find Blunt more obnoxious so you would prefer to have you and your country looted by Carnahan?
” …you can invest some or all of it with the people on Main Street.”
But those ungrateful Main Streeters won’t kick back to my campaign fund.
She is a better con artist?
Thanks for your personal story. As some know, there are those who post here chiding & scolding all of us outrageously lazy liberals on how frackin’ hard the uber wealthy work. And how we should all be, I don’t know??, down on our knees and kissing the ground the uber rich walk upon because??? I. don’t. know.
frankly the extremely wealthy could give a crap about keeping the tax cuts other than it grinds the serfs under even more. Why dittoheads feel compelled to champion their obscenely wealthy overlords rights to not pay their fair share and not really contribute to our society is beyond me.
Agree completely.
None of these hacks are “clueless,” but one can certainly call them heartless and venal.
They are out to rip us off once again. Make no mistake.
“How can we vote for them?”
If we don’t, the evil Sarah bear might get us.
It was, I believe, Prof. Krugman who pointed out that the right’s long term strategy has been to provoke a budget crisis so as to create the justification for cutting various programs which they oppose. Tax cuts, in that they reduce revenues, are a part of that strategy.
While it’s always possible that the candidates are simply playing politics, it’s as likely that they are revealing their sympathies.
A candidate who wishes to tolerate reduced revenues at this point in time implicitly supports cuts in other programs. While there may be differences on some particulars, strategically, this brings any Democratic candidates thought in line with their opposition.
They are SCREAMING about the deficit.
We should use it to pay down the deficit.
period.
The WARS, the medicare drug benefit, the tax cut. all unfunded.
they can pick which thing they want to pay for.
don’t make it about rich v. middle class/working class/poor.
it’s about unfunded expenses.
make them pay their fair share and check a damn box:
Bush Wars ( )
Medicare Drug Benefit ( )
Bush Tax Cuts with NO correlating spending cuts ( )
I know, I’m starting to root for angle. She is insane, but always good for a grin…plus then we could get a new minority leader. :^)
Pardon me, these are Ds shilling for Barry. He’s the one who doesn’t have the guts to let them expire.
does she like fine art jewelry????????
the lesser of two evils is still evil.
Send a real message and vote 3rd party or write in a candidate or don’t vote for that race at all, but vote on other ballot items and races. Don’t vote for the Repub because the corporate whores in the party will see that as vindication that they need to move further to the corporate right. The undervote will tell the Dems that they lost you as a voter, and that they lost you due to their Repub lite policies. It won’t matter now, but in a couple of election cycles it might move the party back to the people. If it doesn’t, we’re all screwed anyway…the only difference is if we’re offered Vaseline or not.
they don’t NEED our votes anymore….democracy is “a convenient fiction”.they jsut pretend it’s ALL in the hands of the voters. PAH!
What ever they do it’s all for the plutocracy. Working and middle class, not so much.
You’re more than likely right…I’m just not ready to get that cynical yet. =)
If their is any “hope” (and after Obama, I only use that as a four letter word)of changing the Democratic Party from within, I think electoral losses are the best chance. Being out of power during the 60′s and 70′s worked for the Repubs(though they had several advantages: one consistent message, wingnut welfare for the pundit class, corporate wealth bankrolling initiatives and political activities).
The level of systemic, prolific, and legal corruption in this country truly disgusts me.
I’m with you stevo67.
Don’t stay home. If there is no progressive third-party candidate for an office, you can always write-in someone.
If both parties see third party numbers go up as their numbers go down, maybe the message will be clearer than just plain old low voter turnout itself would send.
And the fish rots from the head.
“If both parties see third party numbers go up …”
When the total votes cast for third parties exceeds the vote differential between the R’s and D’s they might start to pay attention. The vote differential is frequently less than 10%, even in safe districts
You forgot the other choice, the one taken in 2009.
Spend on a lot of pork barrel projects that go nowhere and lead to nothing long term.
Or, spend on stuff that even the people voting on it don’t know what it is.
Or, spend it on stuff that the public has not real idea what it is until after it’s voted on, and even then, they don’t know.
You forgot to calculate the portion that comes back to the Hill in the form of campaign contributions from the rich and their lobbyists.
Scarecrow, good framing of the choices. According the CBO the Federal Government will spend $11.8 Trillion over the next 15 years on interest on the national debt. Or we can stop issuing debt now, and use that $11.8 Trillion to rebuild our country. So, what should we do: the former or the latter?
Scarecrow, you just don’t understand:
No need to worry about raising taxes. They plan to fix the deficit by fucking Social Security.
Well said Margaret,I bet ya more than most who are supposed to be progressive,probably about to lose their home,are unemployed, kids or grand kids school programs are being cut are going to see fit to go vote for these creeps who call ‘emselves Democrats,eventhough the evidence suggests that these people(Carnahan & Conway) don’t care about ordinary Americans.
And what more evidence do we need .that the shit we are in ,did not come to us just by the GOP only….you see more than enough members of the Democratic party were just as responsible.
They will easily spend $700 billion plus in the next decade on occupations and wars. The idea that either party gave a rats ass about establishing viable budget priorites for the betterment of society is ludicrous.
Social Security are savings. Deficit will not get affected by social security meddling when the expenses of the WAR are same or increasing and the revenues are same or decreasing. Only reason social security meddling is contemplated irrespective of its positive aspect of preventing depression by keeping a substantial portion of economy humming just fine is to remove that savings component and get more control not possible when one has financial independence in the form of guarrented payouts in golden years.
Test of time has showed again and again the biggest economic expansion happens only under the progressive taxes. Whatever being proposed is not even sufficient and we need to go back 90% top tier rates we had under President Eisenhower.
Seeing these opportunistic and short-sighted talk without logical basis or based on facts I am not even sure these candidates are worth voting for.
Lets say for argument sake give tax cuts to wealthy and cut down on public education and reducing teachers. Please remember these innocent children of today will become brutes which is a self-evident fact due to lack of education after a decade and will become brute rebels with no cause, a major head-ache to the law-enforcement, loss of valuable talent to the society in form of doctors and engineers, lost generation of great potential and a overall degradation of the society from the mayberry values of Andy Griffith show (Progressive Taxes Era) to Jerry Springer show (Regressive Taxes Era).
Every third-party or write-in vote tells them a voter cared enough to get out and vote against both parties. Low turnout tells them voters just don’t GAS.
You can pick which message you wish to send. We have to start somewhere to reach that number you mention don’t we?
Not a bad litmus test for Democrats.
But why go easy on them?
Check out the test at FAIR AMERICA.
As I understand the Bush tax cuts also cut taxes to those who made less than $250k. The cuts are scheduled to expire on 1/1/11. That suggests that the middle class tax cuts will also expire, right? Of course, congress could make it just the top brackets but if we have to wait for congress to do it, will it happen or do you have to give the rich a tax break to keep the tax cut on the middle class? Anyone, I just don’t know the answer.
Yeah ,but… If they don’t take up the tax cuts doesn’t that mean the middle class will see their taxes go up as well as the rich?
If they let them expire, doesn’t that mean your taxes go up as well? And didn’t Obama promise not to do that?
40% of the stimulus was tax cuts. Obama thought that compromise would gain support of people like you. Conservatives should never be trusted, no matter what party they claim.
Over at DKos, TomP just put up a diary pulling off his ardent support for Carnahan: no more money, no more time and energy. He does say he’ll hold his nose and vote for her. I gave to Carnahan last year, but she took a sharp turn to the right immediately after(was it something I said?) and that was the end for me. I’m in NJ, so her election is out of my hands, but I send my, very limited, funds where I see my agenda supported.
please remember that she’s running in a very red state (tho the youth vote in st. louis and kansas city tipped the scale for obama in 2008.)
please recall that sen. claire mccaskill went out and did a little skeet shooting when she first ran for the senate. we saw lots of those photos. we’re mostly mouth-breathers here. kit bond could bite the heads off of kittens and still get re-elected here. carnahan is running for his seat.
and how about the meth capital of the nation? i don’t know if that’s really true, but the locals sure repeat it a lot.
missouri is known as the “show me” state, but only because “would you explain that to me again, but real slow” doesn’t fit on our license plates.
The undervote will tell the Dems….
We tried that in Mass on the public option – tried to send a message with an 800,000 undervote that gave the election to the GOP – Senator Brown – and afterwards when the procedure required only a 51 vote majority, we got nothing in terms of a public option.
I don’t know that voting third party would be different.
I just do not want to vote for the lesser of two evils – and I do not want to “waste” a vote on a third part that I don’t really agree with on most of my top 10 issues – perhaps because that third party does not have 10 issues on which they have positions.
Obama’s sellout to the corporations has destroyed the Democratic Party – and there is not much I can do to fix the situation. It really now has the feel of a third world country where the new boss is the same as the old boss – always. Moving to Germany, or elsewhere in the EU, or Canada or Australia, seems more and more like the right thing to do.
That’s not an exclusively conservative perception. Money was wasted in NJ on big bucks highway projects, big show stuff, that are questionable, at best. Under a Democratic administration at the time. I reckon a lot of money went to soothe big contributor constituencies and/or flashy project stuff while small and desperately needed work went begging.
Well, no one has jumped up and down about my assumptions so it is fair to say there will be some sort of “compromise” with the repugs on tax cuts for the wealthy b/c Obama and the dems cannot allow the tax cuts on the middle class to expire. It would be electoral suicide. Anyone disagree? Now if the repugs really want to play hardball, guess what they can do?
It means that she votes in a way I would approve of lets say 90% of the time. That is far superior to the way Blunt would vote. I’ll never be able to vote for someone I agree with 100% of the time, unless I wrote myself in. So instead of sitting back and railing against everyone for not being pure enough to my exacting standards, I seek to support those who do enough to warrant my vote.
You mean the Repuli-Dems? The two party system is a sham and we are played for fools. The Repubs don’t have any trouble being united but the Dems allow people in that sabotage their goals and even back them like President Clinton backing Lincoln. If that doesn’t tell you everything you need to know about the farce called the two party system, I don’t know what will.