Obama wants to raise my taxes!

[Blalron]

Here's the scoop:

WASHINGTON - The tax deal reached between President Obama and congressional Republicans could mean a higher tax bill for roughly one in three workers as a result of the Social Security tax cut Republicans pushed as a replacement for the current Making Work Pay tax credit.

The Making Work Pay credit gives workers up to $400, paid out at 8 percent of income, meaning that anybody making at least $5,000 gets the full amount -- and gets as much as anybody else. Its replacement knocks two percentage points off the payroll tax cut, meaning a worker would need to make $20,000 to get a $400 break. Of the nation's roughly 150 million workers, around 50 million make less than $20,000 and will see at least some increase as a result.

It looks like the poor may end up getting even poorer, in a time when "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps" is an unrealistic option (there are 5 people looking for work for each job opening). Apparently this is supposed to be the "change we can believe in" that I voted for. With political friends like these, who needs enemies? Maybe I shouldn't have expected anything better. I've seen him talk a lot about helping the Middle Class, but I haven't heard a peep from Obama about helping the poor.

I've been waiting patiently for Obama to reveal his secret radical socialist agenda, but it's taking a lot longer than I thought.

[Blalron]

And what does Obama get for this triangulation? Is he winning over the independents with this "centrism"? Nope.

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama's approval ratings have sunk to the lowest level of his presidency, so low that he'd lose the White House to Republican Mitt Romney if the election were held today, according to a new McClatchy-Marist poll.

The biggest reason for Obama's fall: a sharp drop in approval among Democrats and liberals, apparently unhappy with his moves toward the center since he led the party to landslide losses in November's midterm elections. At the same time, he's gained nothing among independents.

This is an epic fail, Obama. This is what you get for throwing your base under the bus.

[xenophon41]

I think their analysis focuses on the payroll tax change in isolation of the whole package. It does look like low income workers will pay a bit more out of each paycheck, and in that sense it's a raw deal. However, based on the tables available at the Tax Policy Center's analysis of the compromise, I think everyone ends up with an overall reduction in taxes. -Take a look at the tables comparing current law/current policy to the compromise tax structure.

Of course, the very high income people get an awesome deal, while the low income schlubs get crumbs. On the other hand, with Republican intransigence, I can't see how we get a 13 month extension on unemployment insurance benefits without the compromise.

[xenophon41]

Originally Posted by Blalron

And what does Obama get for this triangulation? Is he winning over the independents with this "centrism"? Nope.



This is an epic fail, Obama. This is what you get for throwing your base under the bus.

Entirely unfair, but that's par for the SDMB liberal course lately. If Obama had followed the (admittedly not very cohesive) advice of his "base" thus far, we'd have had no movement on health insurance reform and even more stubborn heel digging from the Party of No that he has to deal with every damn day.

Obama's never been an ideological purist. He's a pragmatist who's getting things done. And for that, he's being called a "sellout" and -ideologically worse- an "incrementalist" by the people who should be happiest to have an effective POTUS on their side of most issues.

Og's sake, weren't we the ones who pushed back at the Right's charges that we believed in Obama as a Christ-like "Magical Negro" who'd make everything right once in office? And now you expect him to be able to adhere to some progressive purity and still get movement from a divided Congress?

[Richard Parker]

You're mistaken on a number of levels, Blalron. But one of them is believing that Obama did this as a kind of olive branch to encourage future cooperation. That's not why he did it. He did it because the alternative was that everyone's taxes go up.

I find this whole thing baffling for two reasons. First, the same people who have been whining that Obama doesn't recognize that the GOP will just obstruct everything are the people now arguing that if only Obama had drawn a firm line in the sand the GOP would have come around. Second, a lot of Democrats are calling Obama a sellout coward because they disagree with him about a tactical decision. What the fuck? Reasonable people can think that Obama could have negotiated for more (I see no evidence of this, but that's neither here nor there), but there is absolutely no reason to think that Obama somehow did this out of cowardice or for personal gain.

[John Mace]

We keep hearing from quite a few posters around here that letting the Bush tax cuts "for the wealthy" expire is not the same as raising their taxes. I'm sure one of them will be along shortly to explain that the "making work pay" program was only set to run for 2 years, so letting it expire does not raise anyone's taxes, and to tell the OP what a dumb-ass he is for thinking otherwise.

[Blalron]

Originally Posted by xenophon41

Obama's never been an ideological purist. He's a pragmatist who's getting things done. And for that, he's being called a "sellout" and -ideologically worse- an "incrementalist" by the people who should be happiest to have an effective POTUS on their side of most issues.

"Incrementalist" I can deal with. I thought the health care law is a good start, a stepping stone for better stuff in the future. But this is actually a march backwards. The poor are going to be worse off under this deal.

[Richard Parker]

Originally Posted by Blalron

"Incrementalist" I can deal with. I thought the health care law is a good start, a stepping stone for better stuff in the future. But this is actually a march backwards. The poor are going to be worse off under this deal.

Worse off compared to what baseline? Political reality, or your unsupported supposition about what was possible?

[gonzomax]

I think he could have gotten more because he got practically nothing. The Repubs get to keep the tax cut in place for the rich. It will be permanent because if they have the house, they will pass it and filibuster the Senate. During Bush, the top 400 earners doubled their income and cut their taxes by 50 percent. i do not know why it should continue.
We fight over the inheritance tax. Only .24 percent of families will pay it. It is the richest in the world. The Walton family will get about 32 billion dollars by killing it. We know who the pols work for. The Repub fight for the rich at the expense of the middle class and poor over and over.
All Obama gets is a 1 year extension of unemployment for a 2 year and possible permanent huge tax cut for the rich. It does not ever cover the 99ers. It is a terrible deal.

[Richard Parker]

I think he could have gotten more because he got practically nothing.

Even taking your premise that he got almost nothing as true, why does your conclusion follow?

It will be permanent because if they have the house, they will pass it and filibuster the Senate.

You need to review this, gonzo.

All Obama gets is a 1 year extension of unemployment for a 2 year and possible permanent huge tax cut for the rich.

This is factually false. I suggest you also review the facts of the deal.

[xenophon41]

Originally Posted by Blalron

"Incrementalist" I can deal with. I thought the health care law is a good start, a stepping stone for better stuff in the future. But this is actually a march backwards. The poor are going to be worse off under this deal.

I agree that the deal continues an unfair advantage given to the very wealthy, but I disagree that the poor will be worse off. With this deal, the EITC and child tax credit provisions of the 2009 stimulus act are also extended, plus the afore mentioned UI extension. And if all of the Bush tax cuts are just allowed to expire, the very poor will be hit worse than anyone else and there's little reason to believe a Republican majority House in 2011 and 2012 will enact a tax cut for the lower brackets without a corresponding cut for upper percentile any way.

[Blalron]

Originally Posted by John Mace

We keep hearing from quite a few posters around here that letting the Bush tax cuts "for the wealthy" expire is not the same as raising their taxes. I'm sure one of them will be along shortly to explain that the "making work pay" program was only set to run for 2 years, so letting it expire does not raise anyone's taxes, and to tell the OP what a dumb-ass he is for thinking otherwise.

I decided, purely on a spur of the moment whim, that it would be amusing if I used the GOP way of framing this issue against them. Maybe it hurts my cause in the long run to tacitly accept their framing, but this is the pit and not all pit threads are deeply thought out treatises.

It's a bad policy decision, regardless of how we frame it.

[Leaper]

Originally Posted by Richard Parker

I find this whole thing baffling for two reasons. First, the same people who have been whining that Obama doesn't recognize that the GOP will just obstruct everything are the people now arguing that if only Obama had drawn a firm line in the sand the GOP would have come around. Second, a lot of Democrats are calling Obama a sellout coward because they disagree with him about a tactical decision. What the fuck? Reasonable people can think that Obama could have negotiated for more (I see no evidence of this, but that's neither here nor there), but there is absolutely no reason to think that Obama somehow did this out of cowardice or for personal gain.

As I said in another thread, I think part of this is Bush's fault.

Actually, I'm serious. I think Democrats saw what he did, believe he did so with little to no negotiation or compromise with their ideological opponents, and think that Obama can and should do the same, especially with Congressional majorities.

[Richard Parker]

That's just it, what did Bush accomplish? He passed a bunch of things in the wake of 9/11 with near unanimity, including the PATRIOT Act. He passed bipartisan education legislation that was not part of the core GOP platform. He passed prescription drug coverage that was not part of the core GOP platform. And he cut taxes, temporarily, and through reconciliation.

Bush's is not a record of steamrolling Congress to get his right-wing agenda through. The only arguably right-wing big picture legislation he passed was either because of 9/11 or using reconciliation.

Meanwhile, Obama has signed more of his party's core legislation in two years than any President in forty years.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Blalron

I decided, purely on a spur of the moment whim, that it would be amusing if I used the GOP way of framing this issue against them. Maybe it hurts my cause in the long run to tacitly accept their framing, but this is the pit and not all pit threads are deeply thought out treatises.

It's a bad policy decision, regardless of how we frame it.

Oh, OK. I didn't realize you were being facetious. Never mind...

BTW, I'm cool with the argument that not letting temporary tax cuts continue isn't tantamount to raising someone's taxes. The "raise", to the extent there is one, was built into the system from the beginning. If anyone is "raising" someone's taxes, it was the guys, like Bush, who designed the cuts to expire in the first place.

[elucidator]

It wasn't so much designing as coping with the limitations. They had to do it that way in order to use the "reconciliation" dodge. That was before they realized what a ghastly, UnAmerican, socialist horror it was.

[John Mace]

Yes, that was a bit sloppy on my part. I'm sure Bush et al would have preferred to make the cuts permanent, but had to make them temporary to use "reconciliation" to pass them.

[Dallas Jones]

The diabolically successful plan to elect a "shadow" Republican has unfortunately been revealed too soon. But it is just as well. The strain was begining to wear upon Obama, as evidenced by his recent press conferences.

Soon he, Rush Limbaugh and Elton John can all go golfing together.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Dallas Jones

The diabolically successful plan to elect a "shadow" Republican has unfortunately been revealed too soon. But it is just as well. The strain was begining to wear upon Obama, as evidenced by his recent press conferences.

Soon he, Rush Limbaugh and Elton John can all go golfing together.

That's only a threesome. Surely than could get Sean Hannity for a fourth, don't you think?

[Dallas Jones]

Originally Posted by John Mace

That's only a threesome. Surely than could get Sean Hannity for a fourth, don't you think?

Sorry, you were all being much too serious for a Pit thread.

[XT]

Originally Posted by Richard Parker

You need to review this, gonzo.

Best. Comeback. EVAH! Gods, I'm rolling on the floor!

'Oh, I'm just a bill, yes I'm only a bill, and I'm sitting here on Capital Hill....'



-XT

[UTejas]

One group of people this will impact is working students. Currently students working for the same university they attend pay no FICA payroll tax. Speaking as a PhD-pursuing graduate student on a stipend, this deal will result in my taxes going up $400 if the Making Work Pay credit is allowed to expire.

[MilTan]

Originally Posted by UTejas

One group of people this will impact is working students. Currently students working for the same university they attend pay no FICA payroll tax. Speaking as a PhD-pursuing graduate student on a stipend, this deal will result in my taxes going up $400 if the Making Work Pay credit is allowed to expire.

But that's Richard Parker's point. The MWP credit was going to expire no matter what. This deal doesn't replace a long term MWP credit with a payroll tax cut. Extending MWP was never on the table. This deal replaces nothing with the payroll tax cut. As RP pointed out, the deal only raises taxes on the poor relative to an imaginary, possibly unattainable, baseline.

By the way, it is worth noting that if you treat your baseline as Obama's preferred position on the Bush tax cuts, this compromise lowers taxes on the poor. Obama's original position was silent on MWP, EITC and UI. And there was no chance that those credits and benefits would have been extended in isolation.

[gonzomax]

Originally Posted by Richard Parker

I think he could have gotten more because he got practically nothing.

Even taking your premise that he got almost nothing as true, why does your conclusion follow?

It will be permanent because if they have the house, they will pass it and filibuster the Senate.

You need to review this, gonzo.

All Obama gets is a 1 year extension of unemployment for a 2 year and possible permanent huge tax cut for the rich.

This is factually false. I suggest you also review the facts of the deal.

I am well aware of the "facts' The Social Security holiday is dangerous. It is a Republican proposal and you count it as a Dem plus.
http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato...obamas-tax-pla
The Bush tax cuts for the rich will likely be made permanent by the Repub house. They have a majority there. The house is where financial bills are originated. The Bush bill is a financial bill. It will sail through the house. The Senate will pass it.because they are owned by big money. Obama does not have the guts to veto it.