I’m curious what, in your opinion, constitutes “really fucking rich people” dollar-wise. 
He advocated all the time, until the vote came up. Then we had tax cuts on the wealthy. So then he advocated during the debt ceiling, and we still had tax cuts on the wealthy. Advocating is largely meaningless if it doesn’t result in policy. He will advocate in 2012 when the cuts are up again before likely making them permanent.
Why didn’t the dems do the debt ceiling negotiations during the lame duck period when the tax policy issue came up?
Please stop asking valid questions. Your insubordination is not appreciated. :mad:
Note that Obama doesn’t get a vote in Congress.
The Dems have made many tactical screwups, that I won’t deny.
That is a story I’ve never heard before. My impression at the time was that Obama had a relatively hands-off approach to health care reform, preferring to let Congress hammer out the details themselves. (After all, he never submitted to Congress the health care plan that he’d campaigned with.) The House did pass a bill that included a public option; the Senate did not. A few conservative Dems like Lieberman and Nelson wouldn’t vote for a bill that included the public option, and they needed them to get 60 votes. After Ted Kennedy died and was replaced by a Republican, the House taking up the Senate bill was viewed as the only shot of getting health care reform passed at all. On a side note I never understood exactly why the Senate suddenly needed 60 votes to pass anything at all, or when exactly that happened; not long ago that was certainly not the case. But I digress.
As I recall, Obama actually opposed an individual mandate. He was only willing to sign it because it included a low-income exemption.
One would think his administration would have caught on to the new “bipartisanship” dynamic by now, and come out with a new strategy to deal with it. Namely: virulently oppose taxes on the rich, be adamant that health care should remain exactly the way it is and an absolute commitment to keep Gitmo going.
Then vote for whichever diametrically opposed laws Republicans come up with to stand firm against Obama’s new, intolerable ideas.
This jives well with my recollection.
There’s his first mistake. Michael Moore got that one right: When we’re discussing health-care reform, “The health-insurance companies are the enemy and should not have a place at the table.”
The Tea Party wants to eliminate the capital gains tax, meaning that many of the ultra rich would pay no taxes because of where they earn their money. They already pay a lower percentage because of how they can classify their income.
But if the ultra rich pay no taxes, where do we get the money to hand over to them if they are in trouble? Where do we get the money to hire Blackwater (sorry, Xe Services LLC) to fight wars for us?
Clearly the only option is to further gouge the remnants of the middle class. Payroll taxes, which primarily affect the middle class, should be sent soaring to subsidize the ultra rich. It’s the logical conclusion for the Tea Party.
Trick question. They weren’t in trouble… they were just in danger of not getting fully paid off on their risky and abusive bets in the world finance casino.
It would be unacceptable if they weren’t fully paid on those bets. It would be unacceptable if they had to pay a single cent of tax on the winnings.
It would be unacceptable for the middle class not to cough up their last dollar to pay them off.
Wow, Jon Stewart was prescient. They actually thing that it’s better to increase taxes by 50% on the lower 50% than to increase it 2% on the top 2%.
And, no, it isn’t funny that the Democrats are against a tax hike on the poor. That’s the whole reason we’ve been pushing for taxes on the rich. Duh. We know that taxes will have to be raised. We choose to take an almost imperceptible amount from the rich rather than take the entire livelihood from the poor. We’ve always been against increasing taxes on the poor.
The fact that Republicans aren’t is yet another reason why I don’t get why the evangelical community is behind them. If you actually read the gospels, giving and not exploiting the poor was Jesus’ main message. If you hurt the poor, you don’t get to go to heaven. What you do to the poor, you are doing to Jesus himself. Argh!
Cool. But does it jibe well with your recollection, too?
Sorry. I don’t want to start some spelling war because surely, I would loose.
:p:p:p:p:D :eek:
Is that some kind of slang? Oh, you meant think. Got it.
So, um, do the lower 50% even pay taxes? (See the now closed Free Shit thread for the answer)
Here’s a hint: The people paying for the free shit can’t afford to keep paying for their shit AND the free shit.
Math is easy.
We already did this in the Pit.
It looks to me like a bit of sensationalist journalism. Nothing has been done yet, and the article clearly states that the two highest ranking Republicans have not weighed in on this issue.
As for this being a Tea Party issue… not seeing it. The only guy mentioned in the article, Jeb Hensarling, is the guy the GOP put in their Conference Chair. A move that was seen as a rebuke to Bachmann, who was seeking that position. He’s a conservative, yes, but not a TPer.
Man, don’t you get it? You can’t raise taxes on the “job creators.” Otherwise they won’t be able to create jobs and help the working man.
Lord knows how many jobs that A-Rod and the Kardashian girls wouldn’t create if they paid a few percent more in taxes.
Of course they do.
Only people who are hyper-partisan class-warfare types consider federal income taxes the only taxes that count. They ignore state and local taxes that are far less progressive than the federal income tax (or even regressive) because it doesn’t serve the purpose of labeling poor Americans “freeloaders”.
We wouldn’t want to ignore all the taxes these people pay, from the meager amount of money they have to begin with, just to label them “freeloaders” would we?
Hey. If the poor want to pay less in taxes, all they have to do is become rich.
Why do people never think of the easy solutions?
I am well into the lower 50% (income <$20,000), and yes, I pay taxes.
Do you have a point? Or a rhetorical question that doesn’t imply a blatantly false answer?
Do you, um, know what FICA is? Do you, um, know that that is the topic of this thread?
You mean the spam thread you posted in the Pit that the mods locked?