General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSELLOUT! This is NOT what we voted for! He ran on $250k and now is pushing $450K. Guess who is going
to pick up the difference. Yes, you guessed it, the working class will.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)I heard its hard to do on your own.
Wind Dancer
(3,618 posts)... to a political discussion?
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)Don't try to pretend that this OP deserves any serious regard or mature response. Spare me the disingenious lecture. It doesn't.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)But ... but ... but ... He gave an inch!!!!
Bake
(21,977 posts)Damn near doubled the figure -- 250K to 450K is more than an "inch." And there's no deal yet anyway.
Bake
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)there really is no difference between $250k and $450, for the wealthy.
Bake
(21,977 posts)If there's really no difference, why not make it $1 million?
Because there really IS a difference.
But pardon me for daring to point out the obvious, which you take as a criticism of the President. Helluva negotiator there.
Bake
freshwest
(53,661 posts)bunnies
(15,859 posts)Im in time for the hair-lighting ceremony!
on edit: gotta run to physical therapy. Nobody light till I get back!
BeyondGeography
(39,374 posts)Response to In Truth We Trust (Original post)
Post removed
In Truth We Trust
(3,117 posts)NYC Liberal
(20,136 posts)CatWoman
(79,302 posts)Number23
(24,544 posts)Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)those will make a big difference and allow the precedence to remain.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)Inheritance goes from 35% to 40% for estates over $5 million.
Elsewhere says Dems insisting on 20% cap gains for $250,000 and above.
Together, those probably come close to cancelling the revenue reductions of the move from $250,000 to $450,000.
Not bad, all things considered, if it comes off.
Report1212
(661 posts)Estate taxes if we do NOTHING will be 55% on estates worth $1 and more.
That's the most progressive tax in a generation.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)And this in exchange for no cuts and another temporary, undetermined extension to UI benefits with no progress in employing unemployed people.
A huge win for the rich at the expense of everybody else, with the added bonus of allowing the pols to avoid addressing the issues on the record.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)We should also measure the rate increases for everybody from zero, the end of a slew of tax credits that affect middle class families and the like.
That's fine as a perspective, so long as we own it: we trade 55% estate tax from $1 million for across the board tax hikes. OK, if that's what you want. Here's what we get instead with a deal: 40% estate tax (up from 35%) on $5 million and over. What do we get in exchange? No tax increases for anybody under $400,000 in income. Listen, it's nothing to do somersaults over, but I need that extra $150 or $200 in my biweekly, and that would be gone without a deal. So, for me, that's a pretty good deal.
I'm happy to measure against the cliff, but I want to measure against the WHOLE cliff.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)net gains for those with everything at the expense of, and a net loss for, everybody else, You get your two dinners out every couple of weeks and the nation continues to swirl around the drain.
Do you imagine that you're going to keep your $200 forever? Will the 1 - 3 month extension of inadequate UI payments get those people a decent job? Does any of this Grand Deal change any of the fundamental factors that have caused our national decline? No, it merely provides cover for political hacks refusing to do their jobs by distracting the sheeple while the chute gets narrower.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)That will be the first thing they all rush to do, or they are ALL gone. The other top order is to restore UI to 3 million long-term unemployed. The rest can be dealt with piece-meal.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)You assume that they'll rush to do that. I don't see any reason to believe it probable, much less certain.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)tax cuts next. That is a near-certainty because the political consequences of not appearing to act promptly will be like setting off a neutron bomb on Capitol Hill. If they don't, they will all be gone in a flash -- particularly the Republicans, who are getting the blame -- leaving the marble buildings standing and Congressional offices empty.
UI extension reported here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022106853
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)I mean, truly.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)as they should be. Yes, as you put it so succinctly, I will continue to "shit" on any deal that trades SS COLA cuts for revenue - they aren't structurally related, and SS benefits should continue to be treated as the "third rail of American politics." They aren't something to be bargained away. Any SS reform that cuts benefits for the poor is unacceptable, and if there really is a solvency problem, raise the cap - something that needs to be done, anyway.
As for the specifics of where one triggers the old tax rates, $250K or $450K, I personally think that isn't terribly important. I would prefer that another couple of tiers be added for multimillionaires above the 39.5% top rate and that many of the deductions and dodges, such as trusts and exemptions to the inheritance tax, be stripped out of the tax code so that truly wealthy people like Mitt Romney whose incomes are derived from investments really have to pay at least 39.5% and their overpampered children don't inherit all the world's riches.
Sekhmets Daughter
(7,515 posts)I can't help but wonder what will be said about this deal if the House doesn't approve it and everyone's next several paychecks are considerably smaller.
Happy New Year!
SpartanDem
(4,533 posts)No cuts? Part of the cliff is a $600 billion cut in discretionary spending. Hope your city does not need block grants or funding for public housing.
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/politics/2012/12/death-million-cuts-what-cities-stand-lose-if-we-go-over-fiscal-cliff/4203/
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)developer's pocket.
bbl.
AldoLeopold
(617 posts)[link:|
monmouth3
(3,871 posts)CJCRANE
(18,184 posts)and immature.
bowens43
(16,064 posts)In Truth We Trust
(3,117 posts)Response to In Truth We Trust (Reply #9)
backscatter712 This message was self-deleted by its author.
bama_blue_dot
(224 posts)here is a paid troll? Your post certainly smells a tad trollish to me..
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)BTW, I am in the camp that it is too early to accuse the President of selling out. The President campaigned on $250,000, but that was a starting bargaining position. The President is not a dictator who can have his way.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)dionysus
(26,467 posts)global1
(25,251 posts)backscatter712
(26,355 posts)The art you're so unfamiliar with is called negotiation.
GOP says "No tax increases!!!!111" Obama says "Tax hike for >$250k".
Today they're saying "Tax hide for >$450k, no Chained CPI (what, no celebrations? Chained CPI is OFF THE TABLE!), a few spending cuts."
Don't tell me Obama's giving away the store. That's total bullshit.
In Truth We Trust
(3,117 posts)ed to be happy soc sec is off the table??>? wtf? it is self funded. Methinks perhaps you are the one unfamiliar with negotiation!!! Don't patronize me either! I don't suffer fools gladly!
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)...basis in reality! And I'll reference Chamberlain because I think it makes me look smart! I'll ignore the fact that Republicans own Congress and have just as much power as the President when it comes to legislating! Never mind the fact that I need a civics class!
In Truth We Trust
(3,117 posts)argue with an idiot. Do tell me this though, is it tough always being the smarmiest asshole in any given room?
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)Nobody knows the troubles I've seen.
FSogol
(45,488 posts)bluestate10
(10,942 posts)Unfortunately, we are stuck with fucking republican morons leading the House and have no outlet other than voting them out of office in 2014 and replacing them with Democrats.
MH1
(17,600 posts)Although I agree we should certainly try.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)billh58
(6,635 posts)It's sad to see a fool suffer after being patronized. Try and cheer up, okay?
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)Oh yeah, when Chris Matthews was drinking Kevin James' milkshake.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)Of course they make in a month what most of us make in a good year...
That's rich. [img][/img]
I almost sprayed my morning cup of coffee. [img][/img]
Thank you
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)I'd prefer $388,500 to be the line in the sand on rate increases.
But the increased rate on dividends (conveniently left out of your account) really does offset that a bit - drawing additional revenues from the top 2% of the population where the rate line at $450,000 or $500,000 and no other revenues would not. Obviously would like to have estate as well, but both these features maintain the principle that the very wealthy should pay more.
If we review the Republican position, we see how eroded their defense is:
1) They insisted on no tax RATE increase PERIOD. They would find revenue other ways. They abandoned this position.
2) Having abandoned the "No rate Increase" position, they tried to set the rate at $1,000,000 or greater in income, and no other changes. This position, too, has fallen.
3) There was a HuffPo story this weekend that suggested the new Republican position was $500,000. Apparently, it is $550,000, but they might accept a capital gains increase alongside that.
When you look at where they started, you really see how far they've fallen. meanwhile, the Dem position started at yes on rates, and Rate at $250,000, and has apparently moved up to $450,000. That means no tax rate increases on the middle class, and only a slight movement up in brackets. Moreover, when a capital gains rate is included in the rate changes, you draw revenue from top incomes at roughly the level you would if the rate was something like $350,000, so the actual uptick is even more slight. The rate is a way for GOPers to save face. The capital gains increase may actually offset the income rate completely back down to $250,000.
Oh, an apparently we're going to get an increase on estate tax to 40% for $5 mil and over as well.
What a sellout!
SpartanDem
(4,533 posts)we didn't get EVERYTHING therefore it's a SELLLOUTTT!!
peacebird
(14,195 posts)Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)what was at stake. Sometimes some people can't put together the net effect and focus on several points instead of looking at the greater picture.
In Truth We Trust
(3,117 posts)so that i can review it please?
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)Happy new year
In Truth We Trust
(3,117 posts)In Truth We Trust
(3,117 posts)The deal emerging from the Senate is a lousy one. Let me count the ways:
1. Republicans havent conceded anything on the debt ceiling, so over the next two months as the Treasury runs out of tricks to avoid a default Republicans are likely to do exactly what they did before, which is to hold their votes on raising the ceiling hostage to major cuts in programs for the poor and in Medicare and Social Security.
2. The deal makes tax cuts for the rich permanent (extending the Bush tax cuts for incomes up to $400,000 if filing singly and $450,000 if jointly) while extending refundable tax credits for the poor (child tax credit, enlarged EITC, and tuition tax credit) for only five years. Theres absolutely no justification for this asymmetry.
3. It doesnt get nearly enough revenue from the wealthiest 2 percent only $600 billion over the next decade, which is half of what the
http://www.facebook.com/RBReich/posts/542987339047200
President called for, and a small fraction of the White Houses goal of more than $4 trillion in deficit reduction. That means more of the burden of tax hikes and spending cuts in future years will fall on the middle class and the poor.
4. It continues to exempt the first $5 million of inherited wealth from the estate tax (the exemption used to be $1 million). This is a huge gift to the heirs of the wealthy, perpetuating family dynasties of the idle rich.
Yes, the deal finally gets Republicans to accept a tax increase on the wealthy, but this is an inside-the-Beltway symbolic victory. If anyone believes this will make the GOP more amenable to future tax increases, they dont know how rabidly extremist the GOP has become.
The deal also extends unemployment insurance for more than 2 million long-term unemployed. Thats important.
But I cant help believe the President could have done better than this. After all, public opinion is overwhelmingly on his side. Republicans would have been blamed had no deal been achieved.
More importantly, the fiscal cliff is on the Presidents side as well. If we go over it, he and the Democrats in the next Congress that starts later this week can quickly offer legislation that grants a middle-class tax cut and restores most military spending. Even rabid Republicans would be hard-pressed not to sign on.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)Finally! A concrete proposal for how the GOP House was supposed to magically assent to the middle class tax cut (apparently Reich agrees that we needed to retain that!). It wasn't just going to magically agree, but it was going to grant the middle class tax cuts in exchange for...full restoration of military spending from the sequester?
This is the deal we wanted? Middle class tax cuts in exchange for full restoration of military spending?
Can you imagine the fucking outcry here if we'd taken THAT route! Hell, half our progressive friends on DU have gone all deficit hawk on us, arguing that all tax cuts need to expire permanently, a position that even Reich seems uncomfortable with (I shouldn't say "even" Reich - he's obviously a Keynesian who would look askew at such deficit-sensitive proposals that reduce consumer demand in a tough economy).
But even supposing that we agree with that logic, doesn't Reich's argument here undermine the idea that the Dems have given up all their leverage? If, for Reich, we were going to get concessions from the Repubs by holding out military spending, how has that changed? I thought, according to all the critics, our only leverage was the tax hike? But Reich himself suggests that there is another leverage point that would allow us to extract revenue concessions! That's from the horse's own mouth, as it were. So, do we agree with Reich or not?
frazzled
(18,402 posts)Who for the entire year Obama was saying $250K, they were saying, "Millionaires." They put forth plenty of signals, radar, and actual plans that suggested raising taxes on income over $1 million was fine with them. They undercut the president.
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)Schumer was doing what he should be doing for the citizens of his state.
Walk away
(9,494 posts)It's not like they can't afford to kick in a little more but they aren't the rich doing nothing for a living.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I get that. I also disagree.
I also have yet to see anything passed.
kiranon
(1,727 posts)to negotiation. IMHO, $450,000 amount is a win.
Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)You start with a low figure and work from there. Boehner started with an astronomically high number ($1m) though, so Republicans have given a lot more ground for $450k.
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)davidpdx
(22,000 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)dionysus
(26,467 posts)man.
GoCubsGo
(32,084 posts)Starting right now, LOL! Good Gawd! All this outrage over a crummy $150,000.
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)There is no complexity and compelling reason for negotiation in their minds.
RomneyLies
(3,333 posts)Politics is the art of compromise. I suggest you get used to it or give up completely on politics because you will never be happy.
polmaven
(9,463 posts)A mandate does not equal the ability to issue orders regarding policy. The president MUST compromise in order to get anything done. This is not a dictatorship!
In Truth We Trust
(3,117 posts)which in effect means they (the right) move right and we concede to compromise based on their narrative. I propose we negotiate from principle and reality based numbers and no longer negotiate with unreasonable and unethical people. The working class/middle class has borne the brunt of all sacrifice while the wealthy get breaks. I say when they move right we move further left. A classic example in this round of scamming has been their even positing that SS should be on the table. SS is self funded and has NO place in these discussions yet Obama put it there by agreeing to even negotiate it and consider a chained cpi. Utter bullshit. A true leader would have called this out quite emphatically and publicly shamed any future consideration of such.
babylonsister
(171,066 posts)to put your hair out?
And Obama is a better leader than we could have ever hoped for...imo. My glass is more than half full, unlike yours.
In Truth We Trust
(3,117 posts)RomneyLies
(3,333 posts)Obama had precisely 29 legislative days in four years where he could get ANYTHING past the Senate.
That he has accomplished what he already has says he's a much better leader than FDR.
randome
(34,845 posts)In Truth We Trust
(3,117 posts)through the great depression, enacted great public works programs, gave us real wall st reform, social security and ended world war 2 in 3 1/2 years. Obama gave us continued bush policies and bailouts for wall st and couldn't even let bush tax's fucking expire with a huge mandate. Your true colors are showing.
RomneyLies
(3,333 posts)He accomplished more in his first term than any president since FDR, and FDR had a House comprised of 332 Democrats to 105 Republicans and a Senate comprised of 59 Democrats, 1 Farm-Labor, and 36 Republicans. That was his first two years.
In the second two years of FDR's first term, he had a House virtually unchanged and a Senate comprised of 70 Democrats, 1 Farm-Labor, 1 Wisconsin Progressive, and 23 Republicans.
That FDR couldn't get more passed with a Congressional makeup like that points to his weakness as a leader when compared to Barack Obama.
In Truth We Trust
(3,117 posts)the 1932 election was won overwhelming by dems as was the 2008 election. Both presidents enjoyed massive public support. for you to say obama is a new deal democrat and was more effective by 20 fold shows a lack of basic understanding unless your definition of being effective means third way dlc corporatist bullshit then and only then would you be right.
RomneyLies
(3,333 posts)Bush's legislative agenda was nearly non-existent in his first four years compared to Obama.
FDR didn't have to face EVERY piece pof legislation being filibustered in its tracks by a GOP minority, and wouldn't have faced it anyway as there was no point in time where the GOP had the votes to do so.
You need to go back, learn some history, then spout off.
Seriously, dude, trying to claim Bush had more of his agenda passed during his first four years than Obama did is just plain ingorance of the facts.
In Truth We Trust
(3,117 posts)all. If he was the leader you claim why did he not accomplish the goals he ran on? There is a litany of promises made and not kept including into the eve of his second term still negotiating on raising taxes above the 250k threshold he ran on in 2008. He won that election with a huge mandate on four years ago. Yeah he's a real tough superman of a leader alright. I'll take FDR over obama any day in the leadership department.
He may be an intelligent well spoken and likable man but a leader for progressive values he is not! He had a bully pulpit and continues to have one and yet he continues this good cop/bad cop bullshit with the right controlling whats on the table. He literally was offering to hit soc sec with a bullshit chained cpi which is beyond understanding unless you see it for what it is; an assist to to corporation's.
That kind of leadership we can do without.
RomneyLies
(3,333 posts)None of the legislation listed in the 64 pages at the following link would have been signed:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/signed-legislation
In Truth We Trust
(3,117 posts)and other public worlks projects, provided a social security network, aided in ending the depression and brought the country through WWII in just 3 1/2 years. Last I checked we're still in Afghanistan and are currently running more covert wars than a TI 86 can track. Oh and lets not forget all the broken promises for the man whom you claim is 20 times more effective than FDR:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/04/05/the-top-five-campaign-promises-obama-left-behind/
billh58
(6,635 posts)You were disappointed that Obama beat McCain, so you became a PUMA and.... No, wait, you were disappointed that Hillary didn't win the 2008 primary, so you became a PUMA and...
No, wait, you just became a PUMA and an Obama hater because you think that you will become the center of attention and a darling of the "anyone but Obama" sect who are currently swarming on DU. Is that it?
I really can't think of any other reason for you to be on a Democratic board, unless you just want to show everyone how brightly your hair burns, or maybe how dramatic you can be. That part of your hissy fit is easy to spot.
In Truth We Trust
(3,117 posts)nothing of the kind about me but pretend to. That is sad and lame. I stated earlier that I find obama likable, intelligetnt and well spoken. It is a major disappointment that he ran in 08 as one thing and governed as another. This is a democratic board and therefore by defintion should be open to expressing ones opinions. You claim to be a democrat (small d) but your assertions and accusations are anything but democratic. Somebody hurt your feelings because they see your hero has no clothes?
billh58
(6,635 posts)angry PUMA. Don't worry, your hair will grow back...
Number23
(24,544 posts)The anti-Obama sect here appear to be the only people here that don't see the anti-Obama sect on DU. They only see patriots doing their "civic duty" by shitting on everything the man does -- kind of like those lunatics who showed up at the president's rallies in 2008 with guns and t-shirts about the tree of liberty needing to be watered with the blood of patriots. The similarities are... interesting.
billh58
(6,635 posts)absolutely everywhere you look -- all 40 of them.
NYC Liberal
(20,136 posts)The poster to whom you are responding is 100% on the mark. Obama had one of the most successful terms of any president in history in terms of legislation passed. And he did it despite unprecedented opposition from a right-wing GOP, which also controlled half of Congress for 2 out of 4 years in his first term and despite a 24/7 media finding fault with everything he did -- neither of which is something FDR faced.
Are we talking about the FDR who refused to support an anti-lynching bill because he needed Southern support? If it were Obama, you would be no doubt calling him a "caver" or an "appeaser" or "Repub-lite". How about the FDR that put over 100,000 Americans into prison camps based solely on their race? If Obama did that, I doubt anything else he did would matter to you; you would be SCREAMING bloody murder. I mean Obama got shit from some quarters here just because he killed Osama. FDR refused to desegregate the armed forces; Obama fought for the repeal of DADT and the equal inclusion of all Americans in our military.
Now, none of this is to say I do not think FDR is a great president, because I do. He is one of our greatest. But I am simply exposing YOUR double standards. If Obama had done some of the bad things FDR did, or made some of the mistakes FDR did, you would be excoriating him for it.
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)politically. If Obama tried to buy votes today with patronage, everyone would be all over him and his Presidency would be ruined. If Obama tried to make republicans pay for their bullshit, those republicans would run right to FOX News and CNN to show their wounds.
greatauntoftriplets
(175,739 posts)Want some to go with that popcorn?
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)Nothing left to catch fire but his clothes. Whoops. There they went, up in flames. Better catch him quick!
RomneyLies
(3,333 posts)Look it up because if yu do not accept this fact of life, you are going to spend your days as an angry, unsatisfied person.
In Truth We Trust
(3,117 posts)RomneyLies
(3,333 posts)In Truth We Trust
(3,117 posts)RomneyLies
(3,333 posts)You obviously have no clue what the word "compromise" even means.
In Truth We Trust
(3,117 posts)RomneyLies
(3,333 posts)If you don't want to go through life being completely angry, learn what "compromise" means and do some studying on how politics works.
In Truth We Trust
(3,117 posts)I've already said, negotiating from strength doesn't require you to compromise your values or your stated platform for which you ran and won a mandate upon. A true leader could use that bully pulpit and lead. Can't wait for all the details to come out of this days political theatre to see how much the working class gets screwed again. But hey, if your happy then good for you!
RomneyLies
(3,333 posts)You demand everything be your way.
Politics does not work that way.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)I see seven, maybe eight similarities. Even the phrases used here have been the same. Is there a leftist bagger group?
Jennicut
(25,415 posts)$450,000 is reasonable (with no cuts to Social Security or any nonsense like that).
I suggest you watch American Pickers or Pawn Stars sometime. You start at a place and then both sides haggle.
In Truth We Trust
(3,117 posts)Shivering Jemmy
(900 posts)billh58
(6,635 posts)please see his post #43 above so that he doesn't hold his breath until he passes out for Christ's sake. I would, but I have to go take care of a hangnail.
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)I'm watching my cat sleep. She makes funny faces sometimes and I'd hate to miss one. Plus she's snoring.
still_one
(92,204 posts)bluestate10
(10,942 posts)In Truth We Trust
(3,117 posts)absolutely...you keep running with that old disproved meme I'm sure you take comfort in it. Shame on anyone who would vote progressive right?
still_one
(92,204 posts)Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)Some of you have quite ridiculous expectations.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)Robb
(39,665 posts)dionysus
(26,467 posts)Indykatie
(3,696 posts)I believe the majority of the public will be fine with this compromise. I certainly am. While I would have been fine "going over the cliff" I am convinced that is not the majority opinion in the country. At least the polls indicate that to be the case.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)In Truth We Trust
(3,117 posts)dionysus
(26,467 posts)fadedrose
(10,044 posts)Was that in Clinton's time, or Bush's time?
Anyway, with cost of living increases it would have to be higher than $250Gs, but how much higher I don't know, to be compared.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
Hekate
(90,704 posts)HOFU
CatWoman
(79,302 posts)CitizenPatriot
(3,783 posts)I'm holding out hope that it is. It can't be real. It lacks the smell of real outrage.
Hekate
(90,704 posts)Skittles
(153,164 posts)you should fucking know better
CitizenPatriot
(3,783 posts)The part where you ignore the question about actually getting things through Congress sorta gave it away (Obama storms into the House and arm wrestles Boehner until he gives in, he still can't get his caucus on board so Obama throws mud at them until they cave!), and the calling other people "assholes" when they disagreed with you was classic, as was the profuse usage of !!!!!
Yes, it's hysterical. Well played.
Number23
(24,544 posts)Although I have a sneaking suspicion that Robb's rec may have been satirical as well.
CitizenPatriot
(3,783 posts)but here's hoping Cheers to sanity!
Ian David
(69,059 posts)tritsofme
(17,379 posts)bluestate10
(10,942 posts)MjolnirTime
(1,800 posts)Trajan
(19,089 posts)HairOnFireUNDERGROUND ...
I love that moniker ... This OP explains why!
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)The President is not a dictator. I voted for Obama hoping that he could get higher rates at $250,000, but knew that Obama would have to negotiate the amount upward some.
We need to focus on defeating republicans in 2014, only then will we start to see sane policy being crafted.
Hekate
(90,704 posts)HOFU rules, but this is ridiculous.
Robb
(39,665 posts)It is fucking hilarious.
Number23
(24,544 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)ZRT2209
(1,357 posts)the GOP appears to be stonewalling, and the public sees that, driving down the GOP's approval ratings even further.
JoeyT
(6,785 posts)as long as we don't commence cutting a bunch of safety net programs or social security. If they start pushing for that again, I'll throw a wobbler, but until then I'm ok with arguing over details.
Edited to add: BTW, income is kind of a red herring anyway. Capital gains is where the money is once you get above a certain point.
In Truth We Trust
(3,117 posts)rights position and not to the left.
Hekate
(90,704 posts)And you have no idea what you are talking about.
In Truth We Trust
(3,117 posts)your insults? I see no self parody. What I see are insults, sarcasm, derision, 3d chess, good cop/bad cop apologists. I see people arguing for the status quo and speaking down. I hear people say I'm naive, or claim I am ignorant. What I don't see or hear is anything resembling how this deal is not as how I described it.
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)compromise.
This place is nuts.
Zoeisright
(8,339 posts)You don't get everything you want, bucky.
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)Go Pats.
In Truth We Trust
(3,117 posts)WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)are always happily accepted.
xxxsdesdexxx
(213 posts)In Truth We Trust
(3,117 posts)or who will be made to pay for the "compromise"?
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Your mother and I are worried about you.
Are you OK?
steve2470
(37,457 posts)Quick Civics 101 lesson for ya:
1- House passes money bills, sends to Senate, compromise version worked out, sends to President for signature. In this case, I'm guessing the House will do their thing and send another bill back to the Senate.
2- Since 1789, there has ALWAYS been at least two parties (or at least factions) represented in Congress.
3- The Republicans wanted NO tax increases on the wealthy, which included $250K and up.
4- Compromise is part of our system, like it or not. Leftists in FDR's day complained, too.
Yea, I'm not thrilled with the $400K provision but a fuckton better than the Repubs wanted.
Happy to help.
stultusporcos
(327 posts)Those with a D after their name never do wrong!
In_The_Wind
(72,300 posts)Do I detect a bit of sarcasm there? [img][/img]
stultusporcos
(327 posts)Kolesar
(31,182 posts)stultusporcos
(327 posts)trumad
(41,692 posts)I have a D after my name and I'm telling you to fuck off troll.
Ya see---that's wrong ---against the DU rules to do that.
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)bitchkitty
(7,349 posts)It's actually a lot better than I thought it would be. Although it's not set in stone yet...
Sekhmets Daughter
(7,515 posts)In Truth We Trust
(3,117 posts)The deal emerging from the Senate is a lousy one. Let me count the ways:
1. Republicans havent conceded anything on the debt ceiling, so over the next two months as the Treasury runs out of tricks to avoid a default Republicans are likely to do exactly what they did before, which is to hold their votes on raising the ceiling hostage to major cuts in programs for the poor and in Medicare and Social Security.
2. The deal makes tax cuts for the rich permanent (extending the Bush tax cuts for incomes up to $400,000 if filing singly and $450,000 if jointly) while extending refundable tax credits for the poor (child tax credit, enlarged EITC, and tuition tax credit) for only five years. Theres absolutely no justification for this asymmetry.
3. It doesnt get nearly enough revenue from the wealthiest 2 percent only $600 billion over the next decade, which is half of what the President called for, and a small fraction of the White Houses goal of more than $4 trillion in deficit reduction. That means more of the burden of tax hikes and spending cuts in future years will fall on the middle class and the poor.
4. It continues to exempt the first $5 million of inherited wealth from the estate tax (the exemption used to be $1 million). This is a huge gift to the heirs of the wealthy, perpetuating family dynasties of the idle rich.
Yes, the deal finally gets Republicans to accept a tax increase on the wealthy, but this is an inside-the-Beltway symbolic victory. If anyone believes this will make the GOP more amenable to future tax increases, they dont know how rabidly extremist the GOP has become.
The deal also extends unemployment insurance for more than 2 million long-term unemployed. Thats important.
But I cant help believe the President could have done better than this. After all, public opinion is overwhelmingly on his side. Republicans would have been blamed had no deal been achieved.
More importantly, the fiscal cliff is on the Presidents side as well. If we go over it, he and the Democrats in the next Congress that starts later this week can quickly offer legislation that grants a middle-class tax cut and restores most military spending. Even rabid Republicans would be hard-pressed not to sign on.
Sekhmets Daughter
(7,515 posts)1. The debt ceiling was always going to be battle. I don't know what Obama was thinking when he threw down the gauntlet on that issue and said he wouldn't negotiate for it. Of course he will have to or invoke the 14th amendment.
2. There is no such thing as a permanent tax rate, for anyone. The only reason the Bush cuts came with an expiration date is because they were passed through the 'reconciliation' procedure in the senate. In order to do that the cuts had to have a 10 year life span.
3. The original offer didn't get nearly enough revenue from anyone, including us. $60 billion or $120 billion of increased revenue doesn't begin to address the budgetary problem, yet alone the deficit. You're arguing over whether you want to spill Coke or Pepsi...
4. If your estate is $5 million or less neither you nor your heirs have been idle. Some of the hardest working people I know have estates valued between 3 and 5 million dollars.
Public opinion does NOT elect the house of Representatives. In case you hadn't noticed, the House was not particularly popular before the last election, and while they did indeed lose some of their most extreme assholes, republicans still hold the House and thanks to the stupidity of the Democratic Party at the state level, they will continue to hold the house for at least another 8 years. It will take that long to wrestle control of state legislatures from the republicans. Redistricting and the consequent gerrymandering has locked up the House for at least that long.
You assume that the same representatives who would refuse to vote for tax hikes, would fall for the 'it's a tax cut' meme after we go over the cliff...but what if they don't? It's been argued that with everybody feeling the pain of the Clinton tax rates, Dems would have no real advantage over republicans in the negotiations. Just how long do you want to pay not only the extra 2% of Payroll taxes but the Clinton tax rate on your earnings? How long are you willing to allow the long-term unemployed to have nothing coming in at all?