Obama caves on tax cuts for the rich

[jneal3]

Re: Obama caves on tax cuts for the rich

None of this idiocy would get any traction in a properly educated country - e.g. Canada - so we have no one to blame but ourselves. Politicians are merely pushers to the electorate of addicts, otherwise they wouldn't get elected. Addicts crash/burn and drop out of society, with some eventually recovering. I can't envision a scenario where this country of addicts regains its moral compass with words from leader(s) - it will take an historic crash.

As a father of two I'm very sad for my kids.

[Mn_Mark]

Re: Obama caves on tax cuts for the rich

True, but what's that got to do with the tax cut issue? Nothing appears to stop the runaway spending ---- not the Tea Party, not "starve the beast", not Mr. Change and Hope. Under Bush we went from $5 trillion to $10 trillion, and at this rate under Obama we'll get to $15 trillion by the end of next year. We are not going to default, so it must be repaid, with interest, by somebody in America. Who do you want that to be? Your children? [my emphasis]

Yeah it will be repaid, by inflating away the value of the currency. So, no, your children won't pay the price because your children are too young to have any significant savings to inflate away. The ones who will pay are the elderly and others living on fixed incomes and savings. Their savings' value will be quietly stolen away through an inflation that allows the "repayment" of all the debt with devalued dollars.

[Mn_Mark]

Re: Obama caves on tax cuts for the rich

Maybe this won't be taken well here, but I happened to be of the thought that the Bush tax cuts should expire. The $4T in lost revenue over the last decade sure looks like it would come in handy now.

With this kind of thinking - defining "lost revenue" as people getting to keep their own earnings - I guess you could say that any tax rate that is less than 100% is "lost revenue". Gosh golly gee whiz, it sure would be "handy" for the government to have ALL of my income, wouldn't it? Yeah, let's set what is "handy for the government" as what we ought to be willing to put up with.

[Munger]

Re: Obama caves on tax cuts for the rich

Of course everyone here realizes that what the democrats were proposing was a tax cut for everyone ... that is, everyone's income up to $250,000 would have gotten a tax cut ... millionaires included ... they were just going to let the tax cuts for the income above $250,000 lapse .... so a millionaire's first $250,000 would be taxed at lesser rates, just like everyone elses ... everyone knows that, right?*... glad the dems are so good at messaging ...

[sunskyfan]

Re: Obama caves on tax cuts for the rich

Far be it from me to be pessimistic and cynical but this deal looks like a panic to me. Of all folks in power not just the Dems. If the Dems were going to make this deal why not make it part of this last campaign? Cutting payroll taxes surely would have been a political winner. I think the folks in charge are looking at two things coming at them. The States are going to start raising taxes big time to cover their shortfalls and try to stave off default. People in mass are going to start deciding if they want health insurance or pay their rent or mortgage (whatever the difference is at this point). The Fed Gov has decided it is better to have a smaller percentage of something than a higher percentage of nothing. The gnashing of teeth is just political theater to cover this fact.

[thriftyandboringinohio]

Re: Obama caves on tax cuts for the rich

Of course everyone here realizes that what the democrats were proposing was a tax cut for everyone ... that is, everyone's income up to $250,000 would have gotten a tax cut ... millionaires included ... they were just going to let the tax cuts for the income above $250,000 lapse .... so a millionaire's first $250,000 would be taxed at lesser rates, just like everyone elses ... everyone knows that, right?*... glad the dems are so good at messaging ...

Excellent point, and sadly missing from the official message.

[goadam1]

Re: Obama caves on tax cuts for the rich


True, but what's that got to do with the tax cut issue? Nothing appears to stop the runaway spending ---- not the Tea Party, not "starve the beast", not Mr. Change and Hope. Under Bush we went from $5 trillion to $10 trillion, and at this rate under Obama we'll get to $15 trillion by the end of next year. We are not going to default, so it must be repaid, with interest, by somebody in America. Who do you want that to be? Your children? I know you feel like you didn't start a war, incur the debt or decide to bailout the banksters, but that was done. As they say, "mistakes were made". Isn't it more just that the same generation of Boomers who incurred most of the debt in the past decade are also the ones who must repay it? And if we just keep kicking that debt down the road, within ten years all of those responsible will be retired in lower income brackets, really placing the burden on today's young --- who, incidentally, will be competing with low wage foreginers and will, therefore, be unable to earn their way out of peonage.

The scenario that will play out if we don't pay these debts now is exactly what is happening in Ireland as we speak. Debts incurred by specific people for specific gain were transferred to the general taxpayers and within just a few years those taxpayers, as represented by the Irish Sovereign, could not pay. So now their taxes are rising and employment is falling --- which means that younger Irish who had absolutely no responsibility for the mistakes of their parents, will be left in debt peonage.

Rail all you want against abusive government spending, but why do you think it will stop if those who benefit from it --- banks, military industries, big pharma, big ag, --- can so easily pass it on to the next generation? And given that Congress is owned by these interests, isn't moral shame, expressed by our commander-in-chief, the best way to stop it?[/QUOTE]

[don]

Re: Obama caves on tax cuts for the rich

Actually the message was quite clear...



(thanks to Jesse's Cafe)

[don]

Re: Obama caves on tax cuts for the rich

Obama Defends Tax-Cut Plan as ‘Good Deal’ for Americans

By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG and DAVID M. HERSZENHORN 20 minutes ago

With many Democrats angered by his concession to Republicans, President Obama defiantly defended his plan at an afternoon news conference.

[skidder]

Re: Obama caves on tax cuts for the rich

In my opinion, most (fraud being the exception) of these issues are merely the result of a flawed monetary system mired in its end game. I tend to agree that this particular issue appears to be panic driven (as far as the rapid agreement goes) but also don't forget that Reid has a lot of favors he is personally trying to take care of in the lame duck session. He's pushing S. 510 for Monsanto and the Dream Act for who knows who (besides the 12 million plus new demo voters). Anyway, the Repukes are happy to take a payoff since they either are on the same side of these issues (their public stance notwithstanding) or really don't give a shit about the country either way. I hear the Repukes made a backroom deal on the Dream act, so there's another 6 billion/yr in entitlements plus you can watch go down the drain. Count on re-visiting this issue with in several more years since there are no border enforcement provisions in any of the 4 Dream Act bills Reid has put on the agenda for a vote tomorrow. Of course the next time you as a citizen will be more of a minority to the newly and steadily building citizenry of hispanics so have less of a chance to stop this snowball in the future. But I digress, basically this monetary collapse will run it's course and no amount of taxation is going to fix it, so really, who gives a shit about these sideshows? Perhaps another glass of wine will help with my cynicism?

[BK]

Re: Obama caves on tax cuts for the rich

Why is this a surprise?
Benny B has his Magical Money Machine running a full speed. Why would the Government want to Suck Money out of the Banking System into Government coffers?

Wealthy will leave the extra Money that would have been Paid in Taxes in the Banking System - doesn't this allow for even more inflation.

Why would the Bureaucrats and Politicians have any interest in prudent collection of taxes to pay debts! Many of these Politicians were (including President Obama) were involved in the System that allowed people to buy homes with No Money Down and encouraged Citizens to extract Money from their homes.

How is that any one can be surprised or outraged by this very predictable and irresponsible development???

[ltullos]

Re: Obama caves on tax cuts for the rich

you have my vote which otherwise will be flushed down the crapper!

[dcarrigg]

Re: Obama caves on tax cuts for the rich

With this kind of thinking - defining "lost revenue" as people getting to keep their own earnings - I guess you could say that any tax rate that is less than 100% is "lost revenue". Gosh golly gee whiz, it sure would be "handy" for the government to have ALL of my income, wouldn't it? Yeah, let's set what is "handy for the government" as what we ought to be willing to put up with.

We can't all live in an anarchist's paradise like you Mn. Some of us live in a world of pragmatism. It's a scary world, where you have to get up, get dressed, go to work, and pay your taxes. But part of being a grown up is learning how to share your toys.

[Chomsky]

Re: Obama caves on tax cuts for the rich

He just cut himself off at the knees. One and done.

It's on:

Murmurs on Left of a Primary Challenge to Obama

By MATT BAI

Published: December 7, 2010


WASHINGTON — President Obama’s compromise with Republicans on extending tax cuts for the wealthy, which his self-described progressive critics see as a profound betrayal, is bound to intensify a debate that has been bubbling up on liberal blogs and e-mail lists in recent weeks — whether or not the president who embodied “hope and change” in 2008 should face a primary challenge in 2012.

The idea seems to have little momentum for now, not least because there isn’t an obvious candidate, and because such a challenge would seem to have about as much chance of success as, say, a reality show about David Hasselhoff. That a primary is being openly discussed, though, reflects how fully Mr. Obama’s relationship with his party’s liberal activists has ruptured and the considerable confusion on the left over what to do about it.

Just last weekend, three liberal writers made the case for taking on Mr. Obama in 2012. Michael Lerner, longtime editor of Tikkun magazine, argued in The Washington Post that a primary represented a “real way to save the Obama presidency,” by forcing Mr. Obama to move leftward. Robert Kuttner, co-founder of The American Prospect and one of the party’s most scathing populist voices, issued a similar call on The Huffington Post, suggesting Iowa as the ideal incubator.

On the same site, Clarence B. Jones, a one-time confidant of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., suggested that liberals should break with Mr. Obama now, just as Dr. King and others did with Lyndon B. Johnson in 1968. “It is not easy to consider challenging the first African-American to be elected president of the United States,” Mr. Jones wrote. “But, regrettably, I believe the time has come to do this.”

Meanwhile, in Iowa, a group known as the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, originally founded to aid Democratic Congressional candidates in 2010, has started broadcasting an advertisement that shows Mr. Obama, in 2008, promising to reverse the tax cuts for the most affluent Americans. The group isn’t advocating a primary challenge just yet — but then, the choice of Iowa as a market seems intended to send a pretty clear warning to the White House.

“On issue after issue, when the public is on his side, this president just refuses to fight,” says Adam Green, the group’s co-founder. “At this point, the strategy is to shame him into fighting.”

All of this would have seemed unthinkable in 2008, when Mr. Obama’s red-white-and-blue visage seemed omnipresent on campuses and along city streets, a symbol to many of liberalism reborn. That, of course, was before the abandonment of “card-check” legislation for unions and of the so-called public option in health care, the escalation in Afghanistan and the formation of the deficit-reduction commission.

After this week’s reversal, quips the progressive commentator Cenk Uygur, it may be time for his fellow progressives to face the fact that Mr. Obama “is just not that into you.”

Of course, Mr. Obama is only the latest in a long line of Democratic presidents, going back to Franklin D. Roosevelt, to disappoint the liberal wing of his party and to at least hear rumblings of a challenge. In 1960, the hipster John F. Kennedy represented for liberals something similar to what Mr. Obama embodied as a candidate; two years later, the writer Norman Mailer acidly concluded that Kennedy stood for nothing but the pursuit of power, “without light or principle.”

Both Johnson and President Jimmy Carter faced liberal primary challenges when they stood for re-election: Mr. Johnson because of the Vietnam War and Mr. Carter because he was deemed to be ineffectual in advancing liberal ideals. Bill Clinton’s stances on issues like free trade and welfare reform similarly infuriated the left, though he managed to avoid a primary.

Echoing his Democratic predecessors, Mr. Obama seemed frustrated at a news conference on Tuesday about being pilloried by liberals who haven’t had to wrestle with the realities of governing. “I’ve got a whole bunch of lines in the sand,” Mr. Obama protested.

The White House seems to view the notion of a serious primary challenge as far-fetched, and you can see why. For one thing, there seems to be no perfect vehicle out there, no Edward M. Kennedy biding his time.

The closest approximation appears to be Howard Dean, the former presidential candidate and party chairman who criticized the president’s deal on taxes. But Mr. Dean hasn’t shown any interest to this point in running, and you might recall that his 2004 campaign, for all its passion and fund-raising prowess, yielded just two primary victories, in the District of Columbia and in his home state of Vermont.

There’s also the unique nature of this president himself, which makes the sheer math of any primary effort seem especially daunting. Mr. Obama, after all, drew his most monolithic support in 2008 from African-Americans and younger voters, two groups who are pivotal in Democratic primaries and whom you would expect to be essential constituencies for any kind of insurgent, take-it-to-the-Man candidacy.

All that said, Mr. Obama must be aware that not all primary challenges to sitting presidents are about winning. Some, like Edward Kennedy’s in 1980 and Ronald Reagan’s in 1976, are in fact designed to unseat the incumbent and capture the presidency. But other ideological challengers, like Eugene J. McCarthy in 1968 and Patrick J. Buchanan 24 years later, measure their success not by where they’re standing on Inauguration Day, but by whether they have changed the trajectory of their parties.

Such protests candidates don’t have to win more than a state or two to have an impact; they merely have to show up and sow division. It probably isn’t coincidental that none of the last four American presidents to face primaries while seeking re-election — Johnson, Gerald R. Ford, Carter and George H. W. Bush — survived to serve another term.

In other words, should the president’s progressive critics warm to the idea, it might not take a particularly credible primary challenge to weaken Mr. Obama’s chances for re-election. It might only take a challenge designed to do exactly that.

[Roughneck]

Re: Obama caves on tax cuts for the rich

Raise taxes,lower taxes.We're still focusing on the wrong side of the equation. it's like I tell my kids.....it's not what you make but what you spend.