This is a big moment in Obama’s history. He can cave and become a footnote in the history of the takeover of America by the rich. Or he can gut up and make the Repubs fight hard ,long and in public to keep the rich getting even more.
Few are dumb enough to proclaim raising taxes in a time of economic trouble is wrong And valid. We have to grow up and face the Republican debt once again. Much of the economic problem is the deficits. Without the crippling debt we have options. One more term of Republican theft and we will have a different country. It has to end now.
The tax cuts to the rich have not created jobs. Saving the banks and making the banksters whole again, did not make them feel a need to do the right thing. They sneered at our stupidity and continued the theft. They do not lend to small businesses which most understand is where job creation occurs.
Obama should have taken over one of the failing banks and operated it to help the country. He took over the auto industry. Why not stop the thieves in the financial sector? Why not start lending to small business and start to rebuild America?
I disagree too. However, I’m tired of the administration and their boosters saying, like you did, “if he does this it can be framed this way”.
Guess what? You’re already a tax-raising socialist pussy. No matter what you do, no matter how much you cut taxes or escalate your war, you’re STILL going to be a tax-raising socialist pussy. Since that’s going to be the case, what reason is there to compromise?
Or, like I said, pre-compromise. If I’m negotiating from Position A, and you’re at Position Z, it’s fair to assume that a compromise is going to be somewhere around Position M or Position N. Instead, Obama’s method seems to say, “Okay, I’m going to start at M, let’s get this out of the way so we can move on to more important business”. Naturally, this leads to the opposition declaring that Position T is the only acceptable compromise. Then, when he agrees he’s told that it’s Position Y or nothing, and then he either grabs his ankles or the process fails and gets abandoned.
-Joe
And that’s completely fair. I don’t blame people for being angry. Heck, I even understand a promise not to support him, to some extent.
It’s just that I read Daily Kos and some other sites, and man… You’d think Obama personally kicked their grandmothers and set fire to their houses. Lots of people aren’t surprised at what he’s doing, knew this when he was running, and voted for him anyway.
If some millions of Americans don’t get their unemployment insurance, they will suffer. Perhaps they will blame the Pubbies, as they ought, and perhaps this will lay the foundation for a huge Dem victory in the future.
But this is Leninist thinking, this is “It is good that the Czar oppresses the people more, than means the Revolution comes that much sooner.” I reject Leninist thinking as immoral and unworthy. I cannot accept making people suffer so that I might gain what I think will be a victory. Our enemies are rich, ruthless, and powerful, and deeply entrenched, they’ve had generations to burrow in. We will not beat them in one election, or three. I’ve been on this shit for forty years now, and I’ve had the snot kicked out of me more times than I can count. I can take another beating, and another. I don’t have to like it, I have to get back up.
Final (and honest) question: I wonder how many voters out there, on all sides of the fence, particularly care about tax cuts to the rich, as long as they get theirs? A heck of a lot of people appear to be willing to sacrifice their own to pay down the debt, fund other projects, stick it to the Republicans, or whatever. I just wonder to what extent they represent the majority, or large numbers, or what have you.
ETA: There’s probably a poll out there somewhere I can’t find. Still, unless the majority is huge…
The problem is the hoi polloi Republican voter has been led to believe that it is important to them personally that the tax cuts for the rich are kept in place, and not because the rich create jobs that will decrease unemployment, but because they themselves will one day be rich and don’t want to be saddled with a high tax rate when that inevitability occurs.
This should be put on a poster and hung just inside the Oval Office facing Obama’s desk.
Very much expecting it to be a Palin-esque crapfest, this morning I read the article Obama Should Put on ‘Manly Man’ T-Shirt and Learn to Love Politics. I have to say, I was pleasantly surprised; rather than being a hit-piece, it provided a perspective that hadn’t really gained concrete form for me. At least, not recently. It’s tough to pull a few quotes to sum it up, as it’s more of a coherent whole. But I think the nut of it is:
Politically, IMHO, Obama is fucking up and needs to engage in some confrontation. Sometimes, when a bratty child will do nothing but bellow “NO!” to anything and everything, the adult thing to do is to apply a firm swat on the behind and send the kid to bed without dinner. (I’ll leave it to the reader to choose a specific Republican to play the whiny infant role.)
At any rate, even if Obama is getting “pretty decent results” on the whole, I think it would be politically smart to sacrifice just a bit of that for a more entrenched stand. At least, it sure would make me happy. And I think that doing so would likely yield better results in the long run…
Just sent mine.
Ya know…
It would probably help if you people knew what the hell you were talking about. All I have read in this thread is perpetual bitching and whining about “tax cuts for the rich, tax cuts for the rich” like a goddamn parrot on crack.
Excluding other tax issues and concentrating solely in the income tax: the Bush tax cuts came in two phases. We first had the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGGTRA). EGGTRA’s rate changes were
So, let’s see…the “rich” got a big, honkin’ tax cut of…3.6%. Wow.
Along came the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGGTRA). JGGTRA basically accelerated the percentage reductions from 2006 to 2003. JGGTRA changed some of the base lines as well (sorry about the bad table alignment).
Single
Tax Year 2002[3]…Tax Year 2003[4]
Income level…Tax rate…Income level…Tax rate
up to $6,000…10%…up to $7,000…10%
$6,000 - $27,950…15%…$7,000 - $28,400…15%
$27,950 - $67,700…27%…$28,400 - $68,800…25%
$67,700 - $141,250…30%…$68,800 - $143,500…28%
$141,250 - $307,050…35%…$143,500 - $311,950…33%
over $307,050…38.6%…over $311,950…35%
Someone earning $311k plus change isn’t rich. But for sake of argument, let’s look at income breakdowns. (Figures are from 2002 IRS data).
Gross Income Americans % of Population
$1 – $50,000 92,594,960 71.185%
$50,000 – $75,000 17,396,916 13.374%
$75,000 – $100,000 9,247,839 7.110%
$100,000 – $200,000 8,422,603 6.475%
$200,000 – $500,000 1,908,466 1.467%
$500,000 – $1,000,000 336,684 0.259%
$1,000,000 – $1,500,000 78,121 0.060%
$1,500,000 – $2,000,000 31,316 0.024%
$2,000,000 – $5,000,000 44,205 0.034%
$5,000,000 – $10,000,000 10,026 0.008%
$10,000,000 + 5,309 0.004%
We’ll use the entire percentage amount of the bracket where $311k falls, so let’s see…that gives us a whole 1.856% of American tax payers got a break of 3.6% on their taxes. Well, Jeebuz Christ on a crutch - I can see why you libs are so upset about that.
Shut the fuck up.
And the SDMB’s dumbest poster contributes.
I wonder if he realizes that the bigger a number is, the bigger a percentage of that number is? Probably not, that’s practically quantum physics to someone like him.
-Joe
Are you simultaneously arguing that a certain income bracket ($311k+ and above) is both not rich and such a small percentage (1.856%) of the top of the wealth ladder as not to matter? Isn’t it sort of by definition that the very top of the income bracket for the a wealthy country is rich?
Anyway, since it’s no big deal because it’s such a small amount on so few people, then the $700 billion that it will bring in over the next 10 years seem well worth it, right?
One also has to wonder, if the tax break to the wealthiest 1.8% of taxpayers wasn’t such a big deal, why the GOP threatened to shut down the government if they didn’t get it. It was the GOP, not the “libs”, who had a meltdown over it.
It’s kind of like how his ilk like to handle debts and profits. You socialize debts, you privatize profits.
$311k+ is rich, in that they are better than you and must be grovelled to, but they’re not rich in that they’re just like you pobes and their taxes should be at the same rate as yours.
Got it?
-Joe
Let us talk about the real American poltical world that we live in for a moment, instead of the one we wish we had.
There was never any real possibility that unemployment benefits would be cut off and not extended while the unemployment rate is stuck at 10%. This is just a barganing chip for the Republicans, who know that they could never get away with dropping a couple million people off of public support.
On the other side, there is a probability of zero that the Democrats can get a tax increase passed in the same atmosphere, even if the target is the ‘bogey man’ of the ultra rich.
So you already know, if you are any kind of news junky, that the following is about to happen.
The Bush tax cuts for everyone, even the rich, get renewed up to a period somewhere before the election in 2012 when the politicians say we will have a better view of how the economy is doing, and has hopefully recovered and blah, blah, blah. And then they will not be voted on again before the election, making these tax rates essentially permanent.
The whole issue of extending unemployment benefits is just a face saving measure that allows the appearance of compromise. Neither party could ever actually allow this to happen in a down economy. From a philosophical view point the Republicans may say they would allow these benefits to expire, but from a practical, political point of view, it ain’t going to happen.
So all the tax cuts get extended as do the unemployment benefits, and after much bluster, what you knew in your hearts would happen, will happen.
And while I am disappointing you, there is no Santa Claus either.
Well, yeah Dallas. Still doesn’t mean it doesn’t suck that the government response to “how shall we fairly divide up this pie?” always has to be “let’s go buy another pie.”
I’m an independent voter with 2 driving principles:
- ratfuck the moral majority
- I’d vote for a small soap dish if it were actually “fiscally responsible”
So, that makes is unlikely I would vote for a Republican but it’s not exclusionary.
I’m with Krugman and the OP. And depending on my bonus next year, it might even be to my direct disadvantage. That said, I still think extending the tax cuts for the top 1 or 2% of all Americans is a horrible idea.
Clothahump - could you explain something to me? It’s obvious you are not in the top wage earner ranks, I’m not trying to be snarky but I really doubt if you have a shot at ever making the top wage earner brackets, and your current employment is probably not directly dependent on someone in the top 1% keeping his current tax break (dayam Chothahump, you’re a good worker bee but that socialist Obama is keeping my taxes and I can’t afford to keep you on the payroll this year). Given that, why so rabid about keeping the tax cut for the richest Americans?
Taxcuts and Govt. shutdowns are the GOP’s top two priorities.
It only takes a little translation to see the ‘threat’ from their point of view:
“Do exactly as we say, or we will EAT OUR FAVORITE CANDY!!!”
That’s not so terrible an outcome for them, no matter what happens, now is it?
Ever take a basic statistics class? Ever hear of a skewed bell curve? Try reading a fucking book, moron, and stop assuming your audience is as stupid as you are.
squink: Yes, I sent my message to the White House, though not in the same language as my first post. I’d like somebody to get past the first sentence. 
From what I’ve seen, part of being stupid IS assuming everyone is as stupid as they are.
-Joe