Question for Sen. Warner: Are the Bush Tax Cuts ($4 Trillion a Decade) On the “Table?”

    202
    8
    SHARE



    What I want to know is, when Sen. Warner talks about not taking anything “off the table,” does that count the Bush tax cuts, which cost about $4 TRILLION a decade, and which Congress just voted a couple months ago to extend for two more years? If so, then I’m interested in what Warner’s doing. If not, then I’m not. How about you?

    P.S. When Sen. Chambliss (ack, can barely even type that scumbag’s name!) says he’s never voted for a tax increase and doesn’t plan to do so, doesn’t that take the Bush tax cuts off the “table?”

    • pontoon

      Here’s the story:

      http://www.reuters.com/article

      And most Americans prefer to roll back the Bush tax cuts, believe that millionaires should also feel the pain in this recovery by having a surtax applied to their earnings, and that we should roll back the subsidies to oil companies, before Social Security, Medicare and other social programs should be cut.

      Here’s the story:

      http://www.thinkprogress.org/2

      Will our Senator Mark Warner in partnership with Senator Chambliss propose these ideas?  I doubt it.

    • K in VA

      He seems to be wearing his rich man’s hat in all this, not a Democrat-who-gives-a-damn-about-non-rich-people’s hat.

      None of this will come out well … except for Republicans and their wealthy masters.

      The wealthy (including Warner) will get to keep all their ill-gotten plutocratic gains. And the working poor (make that “the poorer”) will pay, now and for future generations.

    • DanielK

      The political aspect of this speaks for itself in regards to the Bush tax cuts but for me, just him dealing with Chambliss is enough for me to lose a lot of respect for Mark.  There are certain things in politics you simply don’t do.  I know I am being way too harsh on him but to compare a triple amputee, military veteran to terrorists and dictators is disgusting and makes me sick that someone like that is serving in our federal legislature.  I argue that it almost puts Mark in the same company as Republicans who did not denounce those ads and attacks to proudly be able to work with him on issues like this even though Chambliss is one of the most partisan politicians out there.

      In the end, regarding the tax cuts….It’s going to the Saxby’s way or the highway. Unfortunately, Mark Warner needs to stand up against the corporate interests involved in these decisions but I don’t think he will.

    • Teddy Goodson

      What is on the table is how much Democrats are going to give up, not how much the Republicans will give up. “Reforming” the tax code to find ways to enhance revenues from corporations is diddly stuff and a smoke screen for attacking the middle class—- once again. This is not moderate or moving to the middle, it is sharpening the knives for amputation on the middle class.

      I am positive President Obama will join in the operation, since the corporate media have created a picture of the landscape in which “middle” has been redefined to the far right, in which the fright mask of the deficit and national debt is more important than the rescusitation of the economy and creation of jobs, and in which wealth and privilege are taken as a God-given, natural part of that landscape, and untouchable. Only the un-rich and un-elite are on the operating table…. and most of them have already been anesthetized, and cannot fight back (they don’t even realize what’s happening right before their eyes).

    • Elaine in Roanoke

      My understanding is that whatever legislation the “bipartisan” group of senators comes up with will closely follow the report of the president’s deficit commission I read that report a couple of times and didn’t find it nearly as bad as some of the tripe the GOP is now proposing. If Warner and Chambliss do follow the report on taxes, the Bush tax cuts really don’t figure in. What they will be proposing is an overhaul of the tax code, lowering all the tax rates, but eliminating many of what the commission called “tax expenditures.” We call them deductions and tax preferences for certain groups of people.

      Of course, the devil is always in the details.