Critics focused on the cuts for the wealthy and rarely, barely mentioned the middle-class families

[bigtree]

When President Obama first announced that he would be seeking a compromise on the extension of the Bush tax cuts, critics almost universally left middle-class families out of their argument, except to insist they wouldn't suffer; would get their tax breaks restored later; or could benefit in the long run by some future economic strategy that took advantage of the money that would be saved by allowing all of the cuts to expire.

None of those arguments made any provision at all for what would happen to middle-class families in the interim of a political argument in Congress over economic policy, or accounted for the certain obstruction by Senate republicans of any free-standing bill which would maintain only the middle-class portion of the tax breaks.

The President said, yesterday, in his announcement of the tax compromise, that 'average families' (the vast majority earning an average of $50,000 a year) could see an decrease of as much as $3,000 dollars in tax breaks if the cuts were allowed to expire in January. The prospect for restoring those tax breaks on their own in the next republican-controlled Congress are non-existent.

These families don't deserve to have their incomes held hostage to political arguing from either party. That's why it was important for the President to step in and forge a compromise that allowed those tax incentives and breaks to continue; a vital need for these tens of millions of families during this economic collapse we're suffering in many parts of the nation.

President Obama put these middle-class families and workers at the forefront of his efforts. The President stated from the beginning that middle-class families and their ability to weather their personal economies were his primary concern; especially when the hit on their incomes threatened to occur at the end of the holiday season.

The amount of money that stood to be eviscerated from these families' incomes by the federal government was regularly dismissed as insignificant by critics who insisted the amounts were paltry and the long term benefits of denying them those funds would be recouped by some future economic strategy. That may well be so, but there's a question of just how much of an economic revolution is forthcoming with the balance of power, influence, and motivation having just shifted toward the conservative opposition.

It's just not realistic to assume that these tens of millions of Americans could just wait for some future economic benefit of some dubious legislative effort to trickle down in the form of prosperity for all. That's why the President fought for and obtained record tax relief in his 2008 stimulus bill. That's why the President is so intent on defending the level of middle-class taxation that his own financial relief and incentives have supplemented.

In the debate ahead, it should not be forgotten that there are real world consequences and effects to changes in economic policy on vulnerable, middle and lower-income Americans who make up over 95% of wage earning families. That's what the President is focused on in his controversial efforts at compromise in the present tax debate. Those vulnerable middle-class families caught in the way of our politics should be at the forefront of critics' advocacy, as well.

[Hello_Kitty]

1. The lion's share of the cuts go to families with minor children, which 80% of households are not.

Most households will barely see anything. "Families" are not the norm and it's about time our politicians figured that out.

[bigtree]

2. there's that dismissal of the loss of tax breaks

I don't understand how folks can just blithely dismiss the effect of a reduction in income right now for millions of families.

[Hello_Kitty]

3. That has fuck all to do with what I said.

I pointed out that 80% of middle class taxpayers are not going to see anywhere near the "$3000 per average family" amount. Most of that is tax breaks due to having minor children.

[bigtree]

4. $500 per child, I believe, just for that portion of the cuts

It has everything to do with the point I'm making in the op. Dismissal, or no regard for money taken from millions of vulnerable Americans. 60% of children live in families with medium to low income.

[Vinnie From Indy]

5. I am so sick of this shit!

You write,

"When President Obama first announced that he would be seeking a compromise on the extension of the Bush tax cuts, critics almost universally left middle-class families out of their argument, except to insist they wouldn't suffer; would get their tax breaks restored later; or could benefit in the long run by some future economic strategy that took advantage of the money that would be saved by allowing all of the cuts to expire. "

Complete nonsense! While you are correct that many critics did offer those scenarios in regard to middle class families, but to say that the "middle class" was mostly absent from criticism of the Obama cave-in is laughably untrue. In fact. one might argue that it is EXACTLY the middle class that motivated the critics of the President's shameful betrayal and lack of leadership.

You write,
"None of those arguments made any provision at all for what would happen to middle-class families in the interim of a political argument in Congress over economic policy, or accounted for the certain obstruction by Senate republicans of any free-standing bill which would maintain only the middle-class portion of the tax breaks."

I would offer that Obama could have won this fight if he would have fought it. It would seem that the President and Dems in Congress could have introduced a free standing bill that ONLY allowed the middle class tax breaks to continue and then made the GOP publicly fight against it. One VERY important point that many do not include in their apologies for this President on this issue is that Dems could have fought this fight AND still come back to the position that all tax breaks could proceed. The entire argument about middle class families being caught in the lurch is bullshit. Obama simply chose not to fight.

You write,
"The President said, yesterday, in his announcement of the tax compromise, that 'average families' (the vast majority earning an average of $50,000 a year) could see an decrease of as much as $3,000 dollars in tax breaks if the cuts were allowed to expire in January. The prospect for restoring those tax breaks on their own in the next republican-controlled Congress are non-existent."

Another hysterical gem! Who would know what the GOP would do if actually confronted with a well organized push-back. As stated above, Obama could have made a fight of this AND STILL COME BACK TO WHERE HE IS TODAY on these tax cuts.


In short, your whole argument is straight from the "gimme the money or I shoot the puppy" genre. Are progressives and liberals supposed to cower each and every time the GOP and others want something and threaten to destroy the middle class if they do not get their way? Is that the bold future of our Obama-led Democratic Party? It sounds much more like "battered wife" syndrome.

[bigtree]

6. you go to a great length to speculate that the republicans in Congress could be moved

That premise was tested before the election and in the two votes on middle-class cuts that was just held.

It is absolutely true that I found almost minimal mention of the impact of the politics on middle-class families in most criticisms (here and elsewhere), as well as the groundless argument that republicans could be moved. Maybe they could have been, but it wasn't from lack of effort by the President to get a vote on this before the election. The President has responded correctly to their failure to act, in defense of these middle-class wage earners.

It's always interesting to read criticisms from folks who insist that their own political strategy would move republicans to do the right thing, when there's been such recalcitrance and obstruction from them so far.

[Vinnie From Indy]

7. And you go to great lengths to ignore one of my central points - Obama should have fought this fight

Your OP rests on the fundamental lie that middle class families would be greatly harmed if Obama chose to make this a real public fight. As stated above, he could have always come back to this piece of shit compromise.

Cheers!

[bigtree]

9. the cuts expire in January

. . . not much time for your dubious 'fight'.

I think most of the suggestions about 'fighting' are unrealistic and simplistic; especially given the present balance of power, influence, and motivation in Congress (both parties).

[Egnever]

11. He has been fighting for this since before he was elected

He has explained countless times in countless diferent forums that he doesnt want to keep the tax cuts for the rich. He forced them to take a vote on just the middle class tax cuts and it failed! What do you expect him to do? Wave a fuckin wand and turn repukes into dems?

[Individualist]

8. DLC talking points. No sale!

[bigtree]

12. Well, I'm just a working-class stiff

I made about $32,000 last year and my wife about $12,000.

I don't know or care fuck about the DLC. Disappointing that you can't argue a differing opinion without trying to denigrate or label.

[nykym]

10. Agreed most coverage of the TAX issue

centered on the wealthy & small businesses, The wealthy well you all know this nets them around $6,000.00+/yr. Small businesses fall more in line with the middle class, few grossing more than $250,000/yr. What was almost completely ignored is that 100% of taxpayers would receive a break on the first $250,000 of income. The wealthy (most of them) wanted MORE! The large corporations, 9you can see where some corps fit in; under 500, 750 or 1,000 employees you are a small businesses) wanted more! This aside from the fact that the corporations are saving money due to reduced work force and on-hand inventory. While using this extra money to buy back their own stock. All in all it is just a very fucked up system!