Obama/GOP's Tax Plan...

US citizens: Assuming you were a member of congress, how would you vote?

  • Aye/Yea/Yes.

  • Nay/No.


Results are only viewable after voting.

lothar

Diamond Member
Jan 5, 2000
6,674
7
76
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=2&vote=00276
Vote on the bill as is with no changes, adjustments or amendments.
How would you vote?


You know the story of the tax bill so there's no need to beat around the bush.

This is an up or down vote, since that's what the Senate/House did.
"Filibuster"(whether making the threat or actually doing the real thing) will not be an option since this bill passed by overwhelming majority(81-19 in the Senate).
But if you will have used the filibuster, please mention so in your post and the reason.

Oh, and if you plan not to vote, or plan to vote "present", then don't vote.

Possible reasons to vote FOR:
-Relieves tax cut for the middle class which is something that should not be held hostage by the wealthy elite(Obama's position).
-Extends unemployment benefits which is something that should be continued and not held hostage by the wealthy elite(AKA "extend unemployment benefits at any cost").
-There is no other option for democrats after the end of December...Passing a shitty bill is better than doing nothing(AKA the "rational" partisan )
-It provides tax relief to those who already pay the most(AKA the wealthy).
-Raising taxes on all Americans while in a recession or a period of high unemployment is the wrong thing to do(Official GOP/Republican position)
-So the Republican smear machine would shut up and not use taxes as a talking point against Obama in the 2012 campaign(Dave Axelrod's position).
-So Republicans can use it as their own talking points to prove how influential they are and what they achieved in the 2012 election(Karl Rove's position).
-Eliminates the steep marriage penalty that Obama's plan would have proposed.
-The bill saves my family and/or I from pay higher taxes...why the hell not?
-We need to pass the bill first to know what's in it.
-I am of the opinion that this rubbish passed is better than doing nothing.

Possible reasons to vote AGAINST:
-It's not paid for and it actually increases the budget deficit(Sen. Tom Coburn's position).
-I would prefer we go back to the Clinton tax rate so we can make inroads in paying down the budget deficit.
-Because it is given to everyone with no exceptions, it is therefore a tax increases on everyone masqueraded as a tax cut(AKA the "rational" human being).
-Extends unemployment benefits again which is something that should have ended a long time ago.
-It further erodes the already disappearing middle class, not save it and leads to a plutocracy through the estate tax reduction. (Sen. Bernie Sanders' position)
-I would rather(or it would be better for the middle class) to NOT get a tax cut so the rich people should pay their own fair share.
-It moves SS closer towards the brink of destruction.
-I am of the opinion that this rubbish passed is worse than doing nothing and just letting the tax cuts expire.




I think I've listed most of the PROS and CONS...
 
Last edited:

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,824
6,372
126
I'd vote No. The big claim of "Not Raising Taxes during a Recession(which is over btw)" only really applies to the Lower Income brackets who are struggling.
 

pcgeek11

Lifer
Jun 12, 2005
22,391
5,004
136
I would also vote NO. This is a BS Bill that only drives up the deficit. I would rather pay more in taxes and pay off this stupid democratic debt and not add more to it. The Unemployment has to stop somewhere and give those that are riding the Gov a chance to actually get a job.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,824
6,372
126
I would also vote NO. This is a BS Bill that only drives up the deficit. I would rather pay more in taxes and pay off this stupid democratic debt and not add more to it. The Unemployment has to stop somewhere and give those that are riding the Gov a chance to actually get a job.

:rolleyes:
 

trenchfoot

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
15,988
8,585
136

X2

The hypocritical repubs on the one hand railed against how the Dems drove up the deficit trying to fix what the repubs broke, yet thought nothing of driving up the deficit even higher by insisting on keeping Bush's tax cuts for the nation's wealthiest, all while holding hostage those who are presently grievously suffering from the repub's voodoo economics agenda.

The emotional side of me feels this despicable behavior should not be rewarded by voting yes. Better that those and their loved ones who will suffer grievously from the repub's tactics and voted republican in the last election learn a hard bitter lesson from their choice.

The logical side of me feels that the Dems should get what they can from this situation, of which they practically cornered themselves into by being limp wristed and indecisive when they needed to be principled and resolute in their will to stand for the values they represent.

Upon weighing this and for other more practical reasons, vote no.
 
Last edited:

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,883
641
126
I would vote the way my constituents wanted. My thoughts, beliefs and opinions would have no bearing on my vote. I was elected to serve.
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
73,322
34,785
136
I would vote the way my constituents wanted. My thoughts, beliefs and opinions would have no bearing on my vote. I was elected to serve.
I see it in a completely opposite light. "Here are my beliefs, values, and proposed agenda. "Like 'em? Vote for me." If I win, I go forth and try to accomplish my agenda. If the voters don't like it, I won't win to begin with or get voted out next election. A "representative of the people" is not the same thing as "to represent the people".

Anyway, the Obama/GOP tax law sucks. Obama gave away the store for nothing of value in return. At this point, a strong primary challenger in 2012 would be welcome (yeah, I know, no chance). We voted for a liberal and got Bush Lite instead. Obama has to be a most ineffective President we've had in my life time. Even Carter got more done.
 

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,645
0
76
www.facebook.com
With no changes or adjustments, I answered no. The mortgage tax deductions have got to go, so do the "tax credits", aka handouts. However, I agree with most of the cuts, and you can't squeeze out hardly any more revenue with a 39.6% top marginal rate.
 

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,883
641
126
I see it in a completely opposite light. "Here are my beliefs, values, and proposed agenda. "Like 'em? Vote for me." If I win, I go forth and try to accomplish my agenda. If the voters don't like it, I won't win to begin with or get voted out next election. A "representative of the people" is not the same thing as "to represent the people".
I see your point and it also makes sense. What I don't like about that scenario is that the people are stuck with the votes the individual made that may not be representative of the wishes of the majority. In other words, there is no guarantee the office holder will vote as they proclaimed they would while campaigning.

Regardless, both of our interpretations are not how it's done. Greed and corruption influence our elected legislators foremost. They also know that they can count on their constituents to have short memories unless they do something especially grievous and even then, it would have to be pretty close to election time. Short attention spans are the norm.
 

lothar

Diamond Member
Jan 5, 2000
6,674
7
76
I would vote the way my constituents wanted. My thoughts, beliefs and opinions would have no bearing on my vote. I was elected to serve.
You are from Michigan. In that case, vote however your state constituents wanted you to vote.

Would the people from the state of Michigan want you to vote Yes or No?

Sen. Stabenow voted Yea.
Sen. Carl Levin voted Nay.

They both share the exact same constituents and voted in opposite directions...How would the people of Michigan have wanted them to vote?
How would YOU want them to have voted since you are their constituents?
 
Last edited:

MovingTarget

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2003
9,002
115
106
I would vote no, even though I will be affected by the expiration of the cuts. This package is fiscally irresponsible to me as a Keynesian. It also has the added bonus of increasing income inequality which is already getting out of balance. Even worse is the reduced estate tax, as we are already in the beginnings of a defacto oligarchy forming in this country. Best to let all the Bush cuts expire.
 

Ronstang

Lifer
Jul 8, 2000
12,493
18
81
I would have voted no only because of all the spending that is in the bill. The tax rates need to stay where they are permanently, losers on unemployment have gotten almost a year and a half more than they should have already. Those bums need to be cut off and forced to find their way.
 

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,883
641
126
You are from Michigan. In that case, vote however your state constituents wanted you to vote.

Would the people from the state of Michigan want you to vote Yes or No?

Sen. Stabenow voted Yea.
Sen. Carl Levin voted Nay.

They both share the exact same constituents and voted in opposite directions...How would the people of Michigan have wanted them to vote?
How would YOU want them to have voted since you are their constituents?
My statement you quoted was rhetorical in nature. It was meant to foster introspection on how our system would work under ideal circumstances.

How I wanted them to vote is immaterial in our current society. If they'd voted as I wanted, both votes would have been the same. Their votes are proof of what I speak. They do not represent the people.
 

DaveSimmons

Elite Member
Aug 12, 2001
40,730
670
126
I'd vote no, even though I have a modest amount of capital gains income.

If both parties want to hand out tax-cut and welfare goodies, they need to cut spending somewhere to fund them.
 

Fear No Evil

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2008
5,922
0
0
Everyone saying NO should just send in the extra amount they would have paid in taxes to the Feds this year. Its funny how these are tax cuts for the rich but so many libs in this forum seem to be impacted by them, oh wait, this is AT everyone is rich I forgot.
 

Carmen813

Diamond Member
May 18, 2007
3,189
0
76
I said no, but honestly, I'd need to think about it more. I think its pragmatic, if flawed. It would depend on who my constituents are.
 

DaveSimmons

Elite Member
Aug 12, 2001
40,730
670
126
Everyone saying NO should just send in the extra amount they would have paid in taxes to the Feds this year. Its funny how these are tax cuts for the rich but so many libs in this forum seem to be impacted by them, oh wait, this is AT everyone is rich I forgot.

Fiscal conservatism is a "progressive" trait now? Good to know.
 

PhatoseAlpha

Platinum Member
Apr 10, 2005
2,131
21
81
My statement you quoted was rhetorical in nature. It was meant to foster introspection on how our system would work under ideal circumstances.

How I wanted them to vote is immaterial in our current society. If they'd voted as I wanted, both votes would have been the same. Their votes are proof of what I speak. They do not represent the people.

You know, I disagree. If the ideal circumstances are "The leader decides his vote entirely on opinion polls", we might as well disband the political system entirely and replace it with polls. Save ourselves the expense of paying these people, as well as the money and annoyance of months of political commercials every 2 years.

But that's really beside the point - congressman and senators are not supposed to just be agents of the people's will. The issues in running a government the size of a small city are too large for a typical citizen to understand well enough to have an informed vote on every issue, much less the issues effecting an entire country.

That's why we have these people. We provide philosophic guidance through elections, and they are responsible for understanding the problems and finding solutions. That why we give them staff and pensions - so they can dedicate their time to finding solutions, because the rest of us can't.
 

rcpratt

Lifer
Jul 2, 2009
10,433
110
116
I basically said this in another thread, but I don't love the tax breaks. However, they've been inevitable for quite a while and would have been extended no matter which party was in control.

As for the 2% SS tax cut, I'm all for that. I'll never collect SS anyways, so the less I have to pay into it, the better. Too bad they didn't scrap the whole system.

Already increased my 401k contribution by 2% to compensate. Not that I was counting on SS before, but might as well save it.
 
Last edited:

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
If we lived in a sane country, I'd say it's a horrible piece of legislation. However, Americans WANT politicians to tell them they can have EVERYTHING and pay NOTHING for it. And I believe that politicians are sent there to represent the people, so if the people want to be lied to, the politicians SHOULD lie to them. If the people want to reward irresponsibility, the politicians SHOULD be irresponsible. It's like a car, if the driver wants to drive it into a tree, it's the car's job to hit the damn tree, otherwise it's a broken POS. So in this context, I am all for this beautiful display of democracy where we the politicians kicked the can down the road, exactly as the voters wanted.