Obama Proposes Extending Bush Tax Cuts For Middle Class

President Obama is asking that the Bush Tax Cuts be extended for those making under $250,000 a year for one year.

Republicans want the tax cuts extended for everyone, including the wealthy.

< Law Enforcement Cell Phone Tracking Rampant | Monday Afternoon Open Threaad >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    My prediction (5.00 / 5) (#4)
    by sj on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 11:59:09 AM EST
    Obama will sadly "compromise" and end up at his real first choice: all the tax cuts will be extended.  Who says he doesn't know how to negotiate?

    I will gladly eat crow if I am wrong.

    Deja vu again. (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by lentinel on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 12:46:40 PM EST
    If Obama was to do what needs doing, if he is really serious about this: He gets on television and makes a prime-time appeal to the American people. He urges them to bombard congressional Republicans and Democratic Bluedogs with calls, emails and letters demanding an end to the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.
    He excoriates the Republican party and points out what they are doing and how it is hurting America and the American people.

    That would be interesting.

    A Kennedy v/s US Steel moment.

    Ain't gonna happen.


    US Steel moment (none / 0) (#144)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 01:02:17 PM EST

    So Obama wants the top rate for individuals to be higher than that for the downtrodden poor such as General Electric, Apple Computer, and  Morgan Stanley.

    Please advise when that prime time broadcast will be.  I would pay per view to hear him make that case.



    Just so you're ready (none / 0) (#8)
    by Farmboy on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 12:11:08 PM EST
    website at your link is blocked (none / 0) (#9)
    by sj on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 12:18:06 PM EST
    But this one would be fine...

    One million $$$ (none / 0) (#18)
    by christinep on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 12:41:56 PM EST
    I'll be eating crow if he backs off.  Yet, I do believe that a limited compromise is always possible at the end of the year...and, that really depends on how $250K plays among the polity. My burst guess: The tie-in to a time that many regard as the good-ol'-economic-days...the Clinton years...may be a central selling point.

    If the case about small business tax reductions can be clearly made in the fog of a general campaign, the $250K level should hold.  Worst case, I think, is the $1M threshold occasionally bandied about in the past...if it did come to a last minute compromise.  But, this time, the timing of a Big Election gives the WH the leverage.


    Leverage (5.00 / 4) (#23)
    by lentinel on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 12:52:12 PM EST
    But, this time, the timing of a Big Election gives the WH the leverage.

    You are assuming that this White House really wants to end the tax cuts for the wealthiest and will campaign on it.

    I think the opposite is the case.

    I think this is a small smokescreen, a suggestion that Obama will fight for the middle class - a bone tossed to his "base" - while the wealthy know that they have nothing to worry about, they will keep their tax cuts.


    Just as you're assuming ... (none / 0) (#32)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 01:21:36 PM EST
    lentinel: "You are assuming that this White House really wants to end the tax cuts for the wealthiest and will campaign on it."

    ... that they're not serious. In the end, it's all a wash, isn't it?

    The tax cuts need to expire, because we're never going to get a handle on the annual fiscal deficit until they do. Budgetary and economic realities have a way of coercing even the most incalcitrant.


    How is it a wash? (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by sj on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 01:33:29 PM EST
    "Expiring" is not equal to "not-expiring".

    Sure we can... (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 01:39:34 PM EST
    get a handle on the annual deficit without a tax increase...by cutting spending.

    Goodbye DEA, you've been abolished.  I wish I never knew thee.  Adios ICE, your budget just got halved. ATF placed fast and furiously into the dustbin of history.

    You can raise revenue too by abolishing unnecessary subsidies and assorted corporate welfare.

    Then and only then can you go to a brokedick with your hand out and not be laughed at.



    I would include (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by Zorba on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 01:52:02 PM EST
    Finish getting out of Afghanistan PDQ.  Close our unnecessary overseas and (more) domestic military bases and slash the Defense budget.  Close the stupid subsidies and pork.  But even then, kdog, that will not be enough.  You really have to look at raising taxes.  Personally, I would raise the top marginal rate back to where it was under Nixon, at least.  And close a whole bunch of loop-holes.   Neither of which are gonna fly right now.

    Good inclusions... (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 02:00:53 PM EST
    I'm not a tax ideologue like Grover F*ckin' Norquist, I've got no problem raising taxes when it is necessary and just.

    But as long as the DEA exists and the defense budget is so out of control, we can't know if it is really necessary, and it sure as hell ain't just.


    I always remember (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by Zorba on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 02:36:52 PM EST
    the Warren Buffett quote:
    I've had it so good in this world, you know. The odds were fifty-to-one against me born in the United States in 1930. I won the lottery the day I emerged from the womb by being in the United States instead of in some other country where my chances would have been way different.

    Imagine there are two identical twins in the womb, both equally bright and energetic. And the genie says to them, "One of you is going to be born in the United States, and one of you is going to be born in Bangladesh. And if you wind up in Bangladesh, you will pay no taxes. What percentage of your income would you bid to be the one this is born in the United States?" It says something about the fact that society has something to do with your fate and not just your innate qualities. The people who say, "I did it all myself," and think of themselves as Horatio Alger - believe me, they'd bid more to be in the United States than in Bangladesh. That's the Ovarian Lottery.


    I happen to agree with Buffett, who, by the way, thinks that the rich should be paying more in taxes, since they have benefited so much by being in this country, which made their wealth possible.  

    I'm certainly not saying that Warren Buffett is some kind of Messiah, and he has definitely done things that I would not necessarily approve of in furthering his own interests.  But:  

    In June 2006, Buffett announced that he gradually would give away 85 percent of his Berkshire holdings to five foundations in annual gifts of stock, starting in July 2006.  The largest contribution would go to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.  Buffett pledged to give the foundation approximately 10 million Berkshire Hathaway Class B shares spread over multiple years through annual contributions - a total 2006 value of approximately $30 billion.  The Gates foundation is focused on world health, improving U.S. libraries, and high school education.  Bill and Melinda Gates, in fact, credit Buffet with helping to inspire their thinking about giving money back to society.  With the dramatic announcement of Buffett's gift, there came a round of news stories and media appearances, some made jointly with Bill and Melinda Gates, and a number by Buffett alone.

         In addition to his own philanthropy, Buffett has also occasionally prodded America's wealthiest to do more.  In October 2007, he issued a challenge to members of the Forbes 400 richest Americans list, saying he would donate $1 million to charity if the collective group (or a significant number of them) would admit they pay less taxes, as a percentage of income, than their secretaries.  Days after issuing the challenge, Buffett appeared before Congress to encourage it to keep the estate tax.  Armed with a few Forbes 400 issues at the ready, he told the hearing that "dynastic wealth, the enemy of a meritocracy, is on the rise."  He has also spoken out on the market system and wealth distribution: "The market system is not perfect in any kind of distribution of wealth, and taxation is a way you get to the excesses of what the market system produces and where you take care of the people that get the short straws. In a country as prosperous as we are, nobody should get a really short straw."


    And that's the whole thing.  "In a country as prosperous as we are, nobody should get a really short straw."  There are far too many in this country, hard-working people, who are getting the "short straw."  


    Short straw... (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 02:40:57 PM EST
    and a tax increase hanging over their heads....all so Democrats and Republicans can play poker.  

    Yes, well (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Zorba on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 03:17:50 PM EST
    We are the holders  of the  "short straw," while the majority of the members of both parties are the holders of the "long straw."  What can I say?  The odds are stacked against us.

    And there it is, right on cue: we have to (5.00 / 6) (#53)
    by Anne on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 02:51:51 PM EST
    get a handle on the deficit...


    We both know that deficits don't matter - they never have.  Republicans - and apparently, Obama and his Merry Band of Austerians - only want them to matter because they are very useful in clubbing social and other programs into submission.   Or killing them.  

    So, why are you buying into that nonsense?  I think you think you're helping the argument for letting tax cuts expire, but what you're really doing is fighting the other side on their terms, in language they have been using effectively for a long, long time.

    The bigger question is, why has Obama bought into that argument, that we HAVE TO get a handle on the deficit?  Here's a hint: it has nothing to do with budgetary and economic realities, and everything to do with a fiscal agenda that has no plans to be kind to ordinary people.


    I agree with Anne (none / 0) (#110)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 08:01:48 PM EST
    To some degree here.  When the economy comes back, revenues will rise and the deficit won't look as scary.  I personally don't care a whole lot about taxing the rich. The amounts are so small that it doesn't matter.  I just care about protecting healthcare and other entitlements where we can.  If Obama uses tax cuts to get reelected and then has to raise the threshold to a mil, that's cool with me.

    I'm not sure what you are saying here (none / 0) (#22)
    by sj on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 12:50:07 PM EST
    You'll be eating crow if he backs off?  Backs off from what?  You're kind of all over the lot and are hedging your bets in well in advance. The way I'm reading this, you could look back to this comment at the end of the game and say you were "right" and the end result is acceptable no matter what the outcome.  

    I believe that the President (none / 0) (#50)
    by christinep on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 02:42:30 PM EST
    Will follow through with what he promised, sj.  My only hedge, if hedge it is, concerns whether the amount is $250K as threshold at the end of the year...e.g., will it be the 2 percent or the 1 percent cut-off level.  And, please note: It is just a gut reaction...in fact, I'd be willing to bet on Obama's statement as being the final statement in January. Period.

    Why should you believe this promise? (none / 0) (#51)
    by jbindc on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 02:43:52 PM EST
    When he promised in 2008 that he would roll back these very same tax cuts?

    Leverage (none / 0) (#52)
    by christinep on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 02:49:23 PM EST
    Is leverage stronger than (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by sj on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 02:56:10 PM EST
    riding the crest of a mandate?

    Yes--it is akin to the offer (none / 0) (#67)
    by christinep on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 04:24:01 PM EST
    One can't refuse. In all of that, timing is central.

    Who, or what, is he leveraging? (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by Anne on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 03:03:34 PM EST
    While it seems he has gotten Pelosi and Schumer in line on where the cuts will expire, that may be the last bit of agreement he can squeeze out of this Congress.

    From David Dayen:

    Now that the dividing line has been re-set, the bigger question is whether or not a strategy with a dividing line is doomed to fail. Republicans know they have leverage if they just vow to not split the tax cuts, only extending those for people making under $250,000 if accompanied by the tax cuts for people making over $250,000. The only way to break that leverage is by declaring it an all-or-nothing deal, and vowing to let all the Bush tax cuts expire if the first-priority option does not succeed. At that point, if they all expire, the Democrats could come back with "Obama tax cuts" in 2013 (provided he's still President). But that's really the only way tax rates rise on those wealthy earners. Otherwise, Republicans will be content to block any effort to split things out.

    Now, maybe you see any of these Dems having the intestinal fortitude to take an all-or-nothing stance on this, and gamble that they can come back in 2013 with the Obama tax cut for those making $250K or less, but I sure don't.


    The leverage, in my view, that the President has (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 04:37:25 PM EST
    is to let all the Bush tax cuts expire and/or to permit the sequestration agreed to last summer take effect this January. Teasing out "middle class" tax cuts, defined as those making up to $200,000 single/$250,000 family, may be a good campaign tactic, but it is unlikely to be achieved.

    The choice, then, is to let all the Bush tax cuts be extended or let them all expire.  Letting all the Bush tax cuts expire at this time would blunt an already stalled economy, a situation that would be aggravated by the plan to permit the  temporary payroll tax cut of two percent of wages (up to $110,000) to end.  

    If the "middle class" tax cuts were somehow to be worked out, it would come at a higher cost--the costs to the middle class to avoid the sequestration of budget cuts of $1.2 trillion over ten years in equal parts military and non-miltary spending (with exemptions for social security, Medicare and Medicaid). Costs would come in the form of a bargain that would be anything but grand --with cuts for the middle class then  defined as being much, much less than $200,000/$250,000.

    The real choice, I fear,  would boil down to a temporary extension of "Bush Era" tax cuts or a return to "Clinton Era" tax rates along with permanent "Harding Era" social safety nets. However, within  the next few years, all the Bush tax cuts will need to expire as the economy improves, the political landscapers become less certifiable, and a reformed and fair tax code can be considered.  


    So NOW he's being honest? (none / 0) (#55)
    by jbindc on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 02:58:21 PM EST
    What? (none / 0) (#60)
    by sj on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 03:23:39 PM EST
    will it be the 2 percent or the 1 percent cut-off level
    What is the "it"  you're referring to?  And what promise?  Right now I've seen only a proposal.  Please don't get offended, but sometimes your comments make more sense to me after happy hour.

    I'm going to restate so that it makes sense to my particular type of brain so help me out here, okay?  Is this correct:

    You believe that Obama will actively advocate for extensions ONLY for those making $250K or less.  But that he may compromise on the upper limit.  Is that it?  Are you saying he will veto a full extension if it crosses his desk?

    That last paragraph is the only thing I'm trying to clarify.  I'm not going to get distracted by 1% or 2% by trying to assign meaning to this:

    I'd be willing to bet on Obama's statement as being the final statement in January.
    Thanks :)

    Yes, you stated my position (none / 0) (#70)
    by christinep on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 04:27:41 PM EST

    Okay (none / 0) (#71)
    by sj on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 04:30:07 PM EST
    But it would be good if you stated it also :)  I want you to be right, but I think I am.

    Okay, sj (none / 0) (#80)
    by christinep on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 04:51:02 PM EST
    My position is: President Obama will adhere to the extension he outlined today (July 9, 2012) with one possible variation at the end of the year respecting the threshold level.  As to the threshold, it is possible that another $$$ amount representing the 1 percent (read: about $400K) may be the negotiated position as a variant of the initial 2 percent cutoff.

    .....Stating it so many different ways, I may need to imbibe something to understand my  own writing as well.  But, where I'm coming from on this one is that I think that the moves to date convince me that the President is going to get what he explicitly set out to  get here...or lose the election while trying, because this proposal is a specific, straightforward one that will be considered part of the vote.)


    Thank you (none / 0) (#83)
    by sj on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 04:56:11 PM EST
    I see now.  We'll see how it turns out.

    The GOPers will not (none / 0) (#117)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 11:23:27 PM EST
    compromise on this.  Polls be damned.  This new crop of TP types knows what it knows, and to heck with what the general public wants.

    Do people realize that it isn't just the (5.00 / 5) (#7)
    by Anne on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 12:09:27 PM EST
    so-called middle class that gets the break in this scenario?  That everyone gets the advantage of the lower rate up to that $250K level?  Yes, Virginia, even the millionaires and billionaires.

    I think most people don't understand that; they think that if you make more than $250K, you are going to be paying the higher rate on all your income, not just that amount in excess of $250K.  

    Here's a question: why only a year?  What's going to change between now and then, other than possibly the party in control of the WH?  Does Obama have some kind of tax reform in mind?

    I'm going to go way out on a limb and say that the tax cuts end up being extended across the board.  Pelosi and Schumer think that by getting Republicans to reject their $1MM cut-off, they can show them as petty and obstructionist, but we all know the GOP isn't agreeing to any number that isn't a 100% extension of the cuts.  And Obama will do what he did last time: explain to the people that extending the cuts for all was the only way he could get them extended for those who really need them.

    It'll make for some nice stump speeches; Obama will get some mileage out of it, and Republicans will make the argument they always make: if tax cuts are good for the middle class, they are good for everyone.

    Both sides will milk it and misrepresent it and manipulate it, but when all is said and done, limiting the extension of the cuts to those under $250K has about as much chance of happening as a snowball has of lasting 10 minutes in a heat wave.

    Do people really care? (none / 0) (#15)
    by jbindc on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 12:23:05 PM EST
    Do people realize that it isn't just the (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Anne on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 12:09:27 PM EST

    so-called middle class that gets the break in this scenario?

    I mean, it sounds good now, but if Joe, who makes $50,000 gets a tax cut, does it matter to him if Bob, who makes $350,000 gets a tax cut too?

    I know it's a popular theme these days, but I think people are more interested that Bob gets more advantages than Joe - but if everyone is getting a benefit, I ask again - will people really care?


    Joe doesn't care about Bob - he thinks Bob is (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Farmboy on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 01:55:10 PM EST
    his buddy. Based on the last couple years, what matters to Joe is that Hector, who makes $18k, is receiving gov't assistance for his family.

    Joe is downright upset that folks like Hector who aren't paying income tax are getting help - help paid for by Joe's taxes.

    Joe wants to know why Hector, and people like him, are getting these so-called entitlements when he just knows they don't deserve them - not like him and his buddy Bob.


    Proving my point (none / 0) (#41)
    by jbindc on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 01:58:54 PM EST
    the argument that Bob is going to maintain (not get) a tax cut isn't going to make Joe angry.

    And that's assumuing that Joe doesn't lose his $50,000 a year job, making the extension of the tax cut a moot point.


    Like I said, Joe doesn't care about Bob's tax (none / 0) (#46)
    by Farmboy on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 02:25:31 PM EST
    cut because he thinks he is just like Bob. There's not enough contrast.

    To make Joe upset, point out that JP Moneybags, the millionaire owner of the factory where Joe works, is paying less in taxes percentage-wise than he is. Point out that JP keeps a lot of his money overseas, where it isn't even part of the US economy. Point out that during the recession while Joe's 401k was disappearing JP was making more money than ever. Point out that JP's lobbyists have told congress that unless JP gets to keep his tax breaks and loopholes, JP has already decided that he'll be shutting down Joe's plant as a tex write off.

    That'll get Joe's attention.


    It may get his attention (none / 0) (#47)
    by jbindc on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 02:26:54 PM EST
    But if Joe is not going to see less in his check come January 1, he won't care that Bob won't see less in his check either.

    Nope, they won't (none / 0) (#29)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 01:09:47 PM EST
    But that's why the Class Warfare strategy has been in the Demos plan for years.

    Beggar your neighbor instead of worrying about yourself.


    Only class warfare I see waged ... (5.00 / 4) (#35)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 01:32:49 PM EST
    ... is being conducted by the wealthy and the corporatists against everyone else. When the wealthiest 20% of Americans own and control 85% of the nation's financial assets and net worth, yet only account for 62% of all local, state and federal tax revenues generated in this country, something's definitely wrong.

    That sort of fiscal imbalance is the primary cause of the growing discrepancy in wealth in the United States. It cannot continue, because it will inevitably produce serious social discord, if not outright upheaval.


    Donald, you are pettifogging (none / 0) (#148)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 01:24:51 PM EST
    Obama clearly is using a non-issue to try and stir is base.

    pettifogging: (none / 0) (#190)
    by jondee on Wed Jul 11, 2012 at 12:18:00 PM EST
    meaning, the whole issue's over my head because nobody's ever discusses it on AM talk radio.



    And what kind of "warfare" (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by christinep on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 02:59:24 PM EST
    Forms the basis of the Koch Bros. $$$ assault in this political year?  or lobbyist Norquist? Or casino magnate Adelson?  

    Really, is there factual support to establish that the interests of those wealthiest who want to preserve their Bushian tax status is anything other than benefitting the rich. (Oh, let's leave the "job creators" jargon at the door...unless you are willing to talk about the location offshore and/or outsourced.)


    "Class warfare" (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by jondee on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 12:32:55 PM EST
    how original, Rush..

    The only class warfare is the one involved in screwing the workers to the enrich the major shareholders: the oldest game in town..


    jondee... stockholders??? (none / 0) (#149)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 01:26:04 PM EST
    .....like all those pension funds held by...among otheers...unions...teachers....????

    Do you seriously ... (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by Yman on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 03:47:43 PM EST
    ... want to compare the amount of stocks owned by middle class workers (usually in their pensions or 401k plans) with the amount owned by wealthy stockholders?

    'Cause that would be funny.


    Spoken like the true (1.00 / 1) (#189)
    by jondee on Wed Jul 11, 2012 at 12:09:56 PM EST
    man-of-the-people slash ruling-class-house"n" you've always been, Jim..

    Massa's so happy 'bout folks like you shinin' his shoes lookin' and lookin' out for his interests..




    Unfortunately (none / 0) (#123)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 11:43:18 PM EST
    they do care, against their own interests, because of relentless GOP propaganda.

    You're right, except (none / 0) (#122)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 11:42:17 PM EST
    this isn't even going to come up for a vote until the lame duck after the election.

    I am for that (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by sj on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 12:19:21 PM EST
    then why not let them expire for everyone?
    why not indeed.

    Why not? (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 01:10:09 PM EST
    Cuz I think 4 large or so a year is quite enough from me tyvm, especially when so much harmful government spending is so plainly visible.

    If Uncle Sam cuts the crap and is still short on cashish, then I'll listen to his cries of poverty.  


    While I cannot agree with you (none / 0) (#31)
    by sj on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 01:15:10 PM EST
    I understand and respect your position.  You are always consistent -- in your beliefs and in your actions.  And on the rare occasions where you are not consisent, you admit it out right.  I find that honorable.  Even as I strongly disagree with you about the tax cuts.

    Thanks for the kind words... (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 01:28:57 PM EST
    and you know I love you, but I don't understand your position here sj.

    You know how stagnant wages are, you know how the cost of living rises every year in the face of those stagnant wages, and you want people barely making it to pay more in taxes to a government that favors billionaires at every turn?  I think that's f*ckin' nuts.

    For me it's principle, I'd survive higher taxes and eat out less or something...but for others in my income range living check to check even ten-twenty bucks a week missing from the paycheck is a serious burden.

    If you're in the service industry, you charge those who you serve...hit up the cats buying legislation if you must, and leave the lobbyless alone.


    Bravo, Kdog (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 11:29:27 PM EST
    Well, we can't have the government (5.00 / 4) (#33)
    by Anne on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 01:24:55 PM EST
    collecting too much revenue, you know, because that would make it so much harder to argue that we have to cut all those programs that support the old, the sick and the poor...

    I mean, what would the deficit hysterics get hysterical about?  

    Class warfare is just so much more civilized when the upper classes are winning, don't you think?


    Obama is (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by lentinel on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 12:32:38 PM EST
    "asking" that the tax cuts for the "middle class" be extended, and the cuts for the rich be ended.

    You and I know where this is going: absolutely nowhere.

    These endless exercises in light comedy are really getting tiresome.

    Okay. (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 12:46:42 PM EST
    How many here believed that he would let them expire when we had this discussion before?

    When these tax cuts were made, the economy was (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Farmboy on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 02:10:56 PM EST
    doing rather well. Because of that, at that time the cuts did primarily benefit the wealthy. The Dems told the truth.

    Two years ago median household income was decreasing, so extending the tax cuts for the middle class was beneficial for them. Again, the Dems told the truth - because economic circumstances had changed from 2001 to 2010.

    Middle class wages and income are still stagnant/sinking now, so raising their taxes would have a negative impact. However, the wealthy are doing better than ever, so they can afford to pay more of their fair share.

    From the link jb cited to: (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Anne on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 03:59:06 PM EST
    These figures cover only the federal income tax and ignore the substantial amounts of other federal taxes -- especially the payroll tax -- that many of these households pay.  As a result, these figures greatly overstate the share of households that do not pay federal taxes.  Tax Policy Center data show that only about 17 percent of households did not pay any federal income tax or payroll tax in 2009, despite the high unemployment and temporary tax cuts that marked that year.[5]  In 2007, a more typical year, the figure was 14 percent.  This percentage would be even lower if it reflected other federal taxes that households pay, including excise taxes on gasoline and other items.

    Most of the people who pay neither federal income tax nor payroll taxes are low-income people who are elderly, unable to work due to a serious disability, or students, most of whom subsequently become taxpayers.  (In years like the last few, this group also includes a significant number of people who have been unemployed the entire year and cannot find work.)

    Moreover, low-income households as a group do, in fact, pay federal taxes.  Congressional Budget Office data show that the poorest fifth of households paid an average of 4.0 percent of their incomes in federal taxes in 2007, the latest year for which these data are available -- not an insignificant amount given how modest these households' incomes are; the poorest fifth of households had average income of $18,400 in 2007.[6]   The next-to-the bottom fifth -- those with incomes between $20,500 and $34,300 in 2007 -- paid an average of 10.6 percent of their incomes in federal taxes.  

    Moreover, even these figures greatly understatelow-income households' totaltax burden because these households also pay substantial state and local taxes.  Data from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy show that the poorest fifth of households paid a stunning 12.3 percent of their incomes in state and local taxes in 2011.[7]

    When all federal, state, and local taxes are taken into account, the bottom fifth of households pays about 16 percent of their incomes in taxes, on average.  The second-poorest fifth pays about 21 percent.[8]

    Just to put it in some context.


    50% of the population pays no income tax because (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by Farmboy on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 04:24:45 PM EST
    they're poor. They don't make enough money. Any increase in income taxes for them would be devastating. So yes, they are paying their fair share.

    A small percentage of the population pays much of the tax revenue because they have almost all the money. However, their income tax rates are at the lowest they've been in nearly 60 years. So no, they are not paying their fair share.


    Your statement makes no sens (none / 0) (#72)
    by jbindc on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 04:36:10 PM EST
    If we are talking strictlyabout income taxes, then raising the tax rate will not affect poor people who don't pay because they don't make enough money. If under the current system, they don't make enough to pay a 15% rate, they will not make enough money to pay a 20% tax rate.

    The people a tax rate increase affects are those in the middle.


    His comment makes perfect sense (none / 0) (#75)
    by sj on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 04:38:02 PM EST
    if you read the parent.

    No it doesn't (none / 0) (#82)
    by jbindc on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 04:54:23 PM EST
    His comment

    they're poor. They don't make enough money. Any increase in income taxes for them would be devastating.

    makes no sense.  If the poor don't make enough money to pay taxes now, then saying "any increase...would be devastating" is illogical, because they are already not paying taxes - how could being taxed a higher percentage on 0 be "devastating"?


    Seriously? (none / 0) (#84)
    by sj on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 04:57:13 PM EST
    That's how you're going to read that?

    Seriously? (none / 0) (#128)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 06:44:57 AM EST
    Yes.  That's exactly what he said.  If he meant something else, then he should have typed that.  If you are reading something different into what he typed, well, then, that's your interpretation, but since we can only go by what he actually wrote, then I still say his statement is incorrect.



    I'm going to respond as if you're serious. (none / 0) (#130)
    by Farmboy on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 08:26:10 AM EST
    If you are not serious, or reflexively arguing against helping the working poor because Obama is in favor of extending the tax cuts for them, that's your decision.

    Number one, the working poor pay all sorts of taxes, from sales to property to payroll. However, we're talking about income taxes, not taxes in general as you argue. Saying they pay no taxes is inaccurate.

    Two, the working poor have income taxes withheld from their paychecks just like other workers do. They earn that money, but don't receive it until tax season. Because they're poor, most or all of their income taxes are refunded. That's not the same as a "0" tax bracket as your argue.

    Three, and this the biggie, because the working poor have so little income, and the cost of living is rising faster than wages, any decrease in their take home pay would be devastating. If their income tax rates go up, that means less money in their paychecks each week. That means less money to feed their children, pay their bills, etc. Yes, they'll probably get most of that money back - in the spring of the next year. That doesn't do much good if the kids are hungry today, does it? And having to see kids go hungry is, for me, one example of the word "devastating."


    Wow - can you read? (none / 0) (#132)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 09:26:49 AM EST
    I'm not arguing against helping the working poor, although you like to read it that way because it helps you try to make your argument. although not really.

    Yes, working poor pay all sorts of taxes that take proportionally more of their income than rich people do.  But that's not what you said.

    You said

    50% of the population pays no income tax because (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by Farmboy on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 04:24:45 PM EST

    they're poor. They don't make enough money. Any increase in income taxes for them would be devastating.

    And this statement is blatantly incorrect - since they pay no income taxes currently, any increase in income taxes would not affect them at all.

    If you can't see the difference, then I can't help you.


    I think Farmboy is right... (none / 0) (#134)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 09:31:28 AM EST
    they will see a decreased net in their paycheck if their income tax rate is increased, even if they get it all back after filing next year and end up paying no FIT.

    Though I suppose one could claim 20 dependents or something to bring down the witholding amount.


    Maybe week to week (none / 0) (#135)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 09:38:06 AM EST
    But again - that's not what he said.  He said those people that pay "no income taxes" - which is over the year and not week to week.

    Week to week... (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 09:57:47 AM EST
    is how far too many Americans live, haven't you heard of the expression "check to check"?

    Don't get bogged down in Clinton-esque depends on your definition of "is" semantics, the point is an increase in the FIT rate could be a serious burden on the check to check brigade, whether they end up paying FIT or not when they count the beans in April.  

    Even in the case of too poor to pay FIT, the too poor are giving Uncle Sam an interest free loan via witholding, talk about bleeding a stone!


    kdog... If their W4 is filled out correctly (none / 0) (#154)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 01:43:07 PM EST
    they won't have any withholding.

    Wouldn't their AGI be higher? (none / 0) (#159)
    by vicndabx on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 01:54:25 PM EST
    and won't that push them (potentially) into a bracket that has some liability?

    Huh?? (none / 0) (#178)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 11:30:23 PM EST
    AGI is income.

    I've reviewed the thread, and I stand by three of (none / 0) (#137)
    by Farmboy on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 10:12:35 AM EST
    my four points.

    I said the working poor pay no income taxes because they don't make enough money, and I still say that is true. All (or almost all, depending on where you define "poor") get their income taxes back as a refund, resulting in a net income tax payment of zero.

    My comment that they don't get to bring that money home each week is also true. The income tax is still withheld until they get their annual refund check. It isn't theirs to spend for daily, weekly, and monthly expenses.

    And my point that increasing income tax rates without increasing hourly wages means increasing the amount withheld is yet another truth. And increasing the amount withheld means decreased take-home pay which means less for their families.

    It's your claim that "any increase in income taxes would not affect them at all" where I can't agree with you. As I've stated, I happen to believe that a smaller paycheck would be devastating to poor families. However, I admit that my conclusion about what is devastating is subjective, and therefore your interpretation may differ from mine. Fair enough.


    No Farmboy (none / 0) (#155)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 01:45:04 PM EST
    as I noted to kdog if their W4 is properly filled out they won't have money withheld.

    Their refund would be earned income tax credit payment.


    BTW - Farmboy (none / 0) (#156)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 01:47:59 PM EST
    since you opine that any additional dollars taken from the "poor's" paycheck would be devastating (I agree) will you also agree with me that high gasoline prices, say a $10-15/week hit is also devastating?  

    Well, sure, gas prices matter a lot to those on a (none / 0) (#162)
    by Farmboy on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 03:39:26 PM EST
    limited and/or tight budget. Four years ago the national average for a gallon of gas was $4.12. Today it's $3.37. That's a savings of $.75 per gallon. You'll save that $15 figure you mentioned in the next 20 gallons of gas you buy.

    Good point!


    And on the day Obama was (none / 0) (#177)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 11:27:04 PM EST
    sworn in gasoline was $1.81. The national average today is $3.41. That's a $1.60 increase.

    Gas Buddy

    That's a $32., or over twice the hit we agreed would devastate the poor.

    And what did Obama say about high gas prices??

    A slow rise in price would be his preference.

    MSNBC Interview

    Well, he sure got what he wanted.


    What did gas jump to after (none / 0) (#193)
    by jondee on Wed Jul 11, 2012 at 12:39:53 PM EST
    the Iraq invasion? and why didn't you express a single iota of concern - I know, I was here - about it then??

    The crackers got what they wanted: 4,000 dead Americans (for energy conservation), through-the-roof gas prices, and, most importantly, culture war vindication.

    Who could ask for more?


    Nice reframe try (none / 0) (#200)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 12, 2012 at 06:36:47 AM EST
    What happened to gas prices last week after Iran rattled its cage and we sat mutely by with nary a word from Obama to settle the market.

    Citation, please (none / 0) (#166)
    by Farmboy on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 04:20:49 PM EST
    The federal income tax rate is currently 10% on up to 17k/year income, and goes to 15% on income greater than 17k but less than 59k. When the cuts expire the lower bracket will go to 15%, and the next bracket up to 23%.

    How much of that income tax is withheld is based on the information in your W4 sure, but a percentage of your income taxes are still taken out. When you fill out your tax return it says that your taxes owed can be reduced to zero, but the amount refunded is never more than you paid in.

    The idea that you can get back more than you had withheld is a right wing talkshow staple. Find me IRS documentation that says you can get a refund greater than your withholding though, and I'll admit I'm wrong.


    EITC can and many times (none / 0) (#171)
    by BTAL on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 06:41:44 PM EST
    does result in a refund greater than what was withheld.  It is a "refundable" credit.  So, yes you can get back more money than you paid.

    This is false. (none / 0) (#174)
    by coast on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 09:34:44 PM EST
    "the working poor have income taxes withheld from their paychecks just like other workers do. They earn that money, but don't receive it until tax season. Because they're poor, most or all of their income taxes are refunded. That's not the same as a "0" tax bracket as your argue."

    If you received a refund of all your withholdings, then you had no tax liability.  Therefore, you can indicate on your W-4 form that you are exempt from withholdings if you believe that you will not have a tax liability in the coming year as well.  You will not have any federal income taxes withheld from your paycheck.


    The info I have is that if we took all (none / 0) (#147)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 01:21:54 PM EST
    the money people making above $250K made it would run the government for 8.5 days.

    Would that satisfy you?


    According to a comprehensive study ... (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 04:37:01 PM EST
    ... conducted by UC-Santa Cruz Prof. G. William Donhoff, 20% of the wealthiest Americans own or control 85% of all net worth and 93% of all financial assets in the United States, yet they account for only 64% of all local, state and federal taxes collected in this country. (I mistakenly stated in another earlier comment that it was 62%.)

    When we discuss taxation, we need to examine the entire tax structure, and resist our temptation to segment that structure and silo various population demographics accordingly, because it can offer us a very misleading picture.

    Yes, the bottom 20% don't pay much in federal income taxes, if they pay anything at all. But they also pay a vastly disproportionate share of their income in state and local taxes, i.e., sales taxes and user fees, compared to wealthy people, because a far greater share of their income is used to purchase life's staples.

    When we examine property tax revenues, we see similar inequties. On average, the value of one's principle (or only) place of residence accounts for only 9% of the wealthiest 1%'s overall assets, but accounts for 62% of all assets for those in the bottom 80%. Thus, middle-class or working class homeowners like me pay tend to a far greater proportion of our income in property taxes than do the wealthy.

    When we talk about federal capital gains taxes, which tend to run about 15% on average, we should also note the following:

    • The wealthiest 20% of Americans own 91.1% of all common shares of stock in this country, while the rest of us own only 8.9% of all shares.
    • The wealthier you are, the less proportion of your income is going to be derived from wages and salaries, which are taxed at a much higher rate than capital gains.

    Thus Mitt Romney, who receives no wages and salary, paid only 13% in federal taxes on an 2010 income of $21.6 million, while an average of 24% of a working stiff's $40,000 annual income probably went to the IRS.

    When we talk about federal payroll taxes -- which everyone pays, even if you don't have to pay federal income taxes -- again, the wealthy pay a much lesser proportion of their income on payroll taxes than do working schlubs like you and me, because payroll taxes are capped at about $106,000.

    So, when you say that you want people to pay their fair share, you really need to look at all taxes in the aggregate, not just federal income taxes.



    To be accurate (none / 0) (#78)
    by jbindc on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 04:49:53 PM EST
    The Romneys estimate they will pay a tax rate of 15.4% tax rate on $20.9 million.  

    The Obamas paid an effective tax rate of 20.5% on almost $800,000.


    More from the article (none / 0) (#79)
    by jbindc on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 04:51:00 PM EST
    Romney's anticipated 15.4 percent income tax rate is roughly in line with that paid by most Americans, but it is far below the top income rate of 35 percent.

    For 2011, about 46 percent of Americans will pay no federal income taxes, according to the Tax Policy Center, a think tank, largely because their incomes are too low or they benefit from deductions aimed at the working poor, the elderly and parents. Many in that group, however, pay federal payroll taxes.

    Does this include (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 11:40:44 PM EST
    all that stuff he has stashed away in the Caymans and Switzerland?

    gryfalcon... he pays taxes on that (none / 0) (#157)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 01:48:59 PM EST
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 01:50:11 PM EST
    he should release his taxes then.

    He could show you everything (none / 0) (#176)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 11:16:59 PM EST
    and it wouldn't satisfy you.

    You're (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jul 11, 2012 at 06:27:15 AM EST
    not making any sense. Romney should release his income taxes because every presidential candidate releases their income taxes. Heck conservatives screamed to the high heavens about the Clinton's tax returns and they released something like 15 years worth. Romney's father released 12 years of taxes but he won't do it for some reason.

    I will respond for JimakaPPJ, (none / 0) (#196)
    by NYShooter on Wed Jul 11, 2012 at 04:29:46 PM EST
    Really, all the candidate's released their tax records? I didn't know that. Well, golly-gee. I stand corrected, Thank you for that information. I guess Mom was right when she said, "Jimmie, my son, if you keep an open mind, "you learn something new every day."

    And, moms never lie.


    Isn't the supposed problem that Mitt (none / 0) (#197)
    by oculus on Wed Jul 11, 2012 at 04:44:56 PM EST
    Romney may have accounts outside on the U.S. upon which he may pay no U.S. income tax?

    No, the problem is that (none / 0) (#201)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 12, 2012 at 06:42:20 AM EST
    Obama's minions want to claim that.

    Romney's campaign has issued a statement saying he has no such accounts and has paid all US taxes.

    Believe or disbelieve if you like.

    BTW - I think his assets have been in a blind trust since 2003.

    BTW - Shall we talk about all the money Obama got from Wallstreet???


    Who does (none / 0) (#62)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 03:40:11 PM EST
    not pay income taxes? And if there are so many as conservatives like to say then they should be the first ones who want to get rid of the Bush Tax Cuts as they are what allowed so many people to pay "no income tax".

    Fiscal (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 04:39:58 PM EST
    discipline? Well, let's see the last president we had who balanced a budget got called all kinds of names by conservatives and was even impeached by them over nonsense.

    George W. Bush said Ronald Reagan proved that deficits don't matter and Reagan ran up massive debt and conservatives revere him. It seems no one is willing to take an axe to the most wasteful and expensive thing we are doing--corporate welfare.


    Really? (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by sj on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 05:22:06 PM EST
    You're really going to go with that?

    Don't want to confuse you with facts (5.00 / 3) (#92)
    by sj on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 05:42:07 PM EST
    like the one that the starting point for the budgetary process these days is with the budget that the president submits.  I think you will find a way to disregard or minimize that inconvenient bit of information.

    And frankly, I like neither the budgets that have been submitted, nor the ones that have been approved so I don't care enough to continue a conversation with you.


    Read my own link? (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by sj on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 06:22:09 PM EST
    I'm pretty darn sure that the "gotcha" you quoted is the very first declaration in my comment.  

    Exactly whose reading skills are you criticizing?  LOL

    Definitely done talking to you.


    The president submits a budget (none / 0) (#93)
    by BTAL on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 05:46:02 PM EST
    request outlining what the executive would like to spend.  Esteel is completely correct, the legislative branch is the budget controllers.

    Speaking of POTUS budget requests, if the President's request is the guiding element, why has the last 3 been completely shot down by the Dem Senate with a grand total of ~3 votes for his proposals for the entire 3 submissions?


    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 06:10:56 PM EST
    a president submits a budget and Reagan never submitted a balanced one.

    No budget gets passed without the signature of the president. The buck stops with the president.


    So they (5.00 / 3) (#99)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 06:07:14 PM EST
    can just magically pass budgets and the president has no part in it? That's what you are saying and that is complete nonsense.

    Oh, boy more Reagan apologia. Reagan signed everyone one of those budgets. The buck stops with him. Reagan wanted the increased spending.

    Of course, conservatives NEVER take responsibility for what they do. Need I remind you that George W. bush with a GOP congress spent MORE MONEY than all the presidents in the last 200 years put together! They always blame someone else and you are in good standing in the conservative community I'm sure. I've heard this nonsense for quite a while and no matter how many times the lie is repeated conservatives just can't seem to realize it is just that: a lie.


    So what? (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by Anne on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 07:31:27 PM EST
    Really, why does this matter?  I know your comment is in rebuttal to someone else's making claims about spending, but what's the point?  Is there some kind of contest going on, with a prize for who spends the most or the least?

    The truth is that deficits don't matter to conservatives when they are arguing for certain kinds of spending - war, national security, the war on drugs - and maybe you want to live in a country that sacrifices the well-being of the least of its citizens in order to feed that machine, but a lot of us don't want to be that kind of country.

    Sadly, we aren't likely to get the kind of country we want with the president we have, nor are we ever going to get it with the presidential wanna-be that is Mitt Romney.

    We're pretty much screwed, either way; the most we can hope for is that it will be less bad with Obama, but that's not saying much.


    This is (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 07:06:43 AM EST
    another lie. The spending that happened in 2007 was directly related to the 2003 vote on the Medicare prescription drug program that the GOP instated in 2003. The program did not take effect until 2006. If you want to quit being called a "liar" then quit lying.

    This whole conversation is ridiculous; (5.00 / 4) (#104)
    by Anne on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 06:33:25 PM EST
    the federal budget is not a household budget.  Do you know what it means that we are sovereign in our own currency?

    I don't think you do.

    You say you struggle on almost $250K of income; I don't think you know what it means to struggle.  The mortgage you pay, the car payments you make, the food and clothing you purchase, the gas you put in your cars, the lunches you buy during the week, parking, cable - that's spending.  You may not come away with a lot of disposable income, but you have disposable income, which is more than a lot of people have.  Try living on minimum wage, trying to find a decent place to rent and then let's discuss "struggle."

    Or try having no job at all.  That might change your definition of "struggle," or at least I'd hope it would.

    Republicans and conservatives constantly whine about the economy, but they offer nothing - nothing - that will fix it.  The tired old answers they always give have the same predictable results: they don't work.

    Obama's not doing much better in that department; he's a little too enamored of those conservative policies, which is why we're sitting where we are, in a languishing economy that won't take much stress before it goes right over the edge again.


    Congratulatoins on (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 11:37:25 PM EST
    memorizing the Fox News talking points so well.

    We're having our throats cut.. (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by jondee on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 01:02:07 PM EST
    not "cutting our own throats"..

    And the one's doing it are the ones who'll pull out of China and move their entire operation to Myanmar, Cambodia, or Antactica as soon as the climate there becomes more "investor friendly" than the one in China.

    Thats been the history in the last few decades: an utterly self-absorbed, predatory, 1% wagging the dog of the U.S economy.

    The least you can do is quit being their's - and Roger Ailes - errand boy.


    You have repeatly beat the (none / 0) (#105)
    by BTAL on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 06:42:45 PM EST
    drum about national vs household budgets.  Yes, to a large degree you are correct.   However, it is not that simple of a solution.

    Just because a nation has sovereign currency (and its debt is owed in same currency), excessive borrowing or even just printing enough money to pay the bill has significant historical negative implications.

    Research says that since 1800 countries that have maintained deficits & debt in relation to GDP like we have been running take on average two decades to get their economies back to "normal" health.  If anyone thinks the last 3.5 years have been painful, let's tack on another 15 or so.

    The same type fates have been those countries that completely devalue their currencies by running the printing presses 24/7/365 in the attempt to "print" their way out of economic problems.

    Like it or not, but in a world economy with a fiat currency, we don't have the luxury to print/borrow/govt spend our way back to a solid economy.


    Here you go (none / 0) (#63)
    by jbindc on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 03:43:45 PM EST
    Thanks (none / 0) (#65)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 04:16:36 PM EST
    I knew conservatives were lying about this.

    From the link: (5.00 / 3) (#86)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 05:07:22 PM EST
    TPC estimates show that 61 percent of those that owed no federal income tax in a given year are working households.[9]   These people do pay payroll taxes as well as federal excise taxes, and, as noted, state and local taxes.  Most of these working households also pay federal income tax in other years, when their incomes are higher -- which can be seen by looking at the low-income working households that receive the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC).
    The leading study of this issue found that the majority of households that receive the EITC get it for only one or two years at a time, such as when their income drops due to a temporary layoff, and pay federal income tax in most other years.  The study examined the filers who claimed the EITC at least once during an 18-year periodand found that they paid a net of several hundred billion dollars in federal income tax over that period.[10]   This finding shows that while some households will receive refundable tax credits in a given year whose value may exceed their payroll tax liability, they pay significant federal income taxes over time in addition to the payroll and state and local taxes they pay each yea

    The whole "They don't pay income taxes" is a lie. Any given year a person may not pay income taxes because of circumstances but conservatives make it sound like these people NEVER pay income taxes. People without a job certainly probably do not pay income taxes and there are other circumstances and if you read the link conservatives put students in the category as paying no income taxes. Sorry. I'm dead tired and sick of conservatives lying about almost everything.


    Yes, there are working people (5.00 / 4) (#95)
    by Rupe on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 05:52:32 PM EST
    who pay no federal income taxes in a given year.  The objections you get come from your saying "there are working class people who don't pay taxes", which is incorrect, as they pay a variety of taxes, most of them regressive, just not federal income tax.  And quite frankly, I would say a lot of us here believe that if you're a working family and making under $35K a year with two kids that your "fair share" would indeed be no federal income tax.  I sure as hell do.

    You are saying (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 06:00:50 PM EST
    "working class people don't pay taxes" and that is NOT what the article said. It said any given year they may not pay taxes but it did not say that they NEVER pay taxes as you are stating.

    You should be the first one who wants to get rid of the Bush tax cuts then because if you believe what you are saying whether it's true or not, he just made the "problem" worse.

    The truth is conservatives don't want to pay any taxes but also want to be the world's policeman. You can't have it both ways.


    You said (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 06:31:09 PM EST
    they don't pay taxes. You are implying that a group never pays taxes ever. You make it sound like they never pay taxes and now you are admitting that it is wrong. The fact of the matter is that someone might not pay taxes in a given year like a student but they do pay taxes at a later date. And don't you think it's really dishonest to include students in that number?

    Ex-ACT-ly (5.00 / 3) (#111)
    by Yman on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 08:40:55 PM EST
    I am talking about income taxes only.

    Why is it that conservatives always want to limit the discussion to income taxes?  For some (obvious/transparent) reason, they want to ignore all the other taxes that lower income/poor people pay on that income.  Then, they often take it a step further and make statements like this, where they drop the income tax qualifier:

    If you earned an income and pay no taxes, then you are not paying any share let alone a fair share.

    BTW - The reason those people aren't paying taxes is because their income hasn't risen above the very low threshold where their income less deductions creates a tax liability.  Everyone else, including the middle class and wealthy, benefits from the same tax liability floor, below which your income is not taxed.  But if it makes you feel better, tax the poor one dollar for all income below this threshhold, and then we can finally stop with the whining.


    I pay fed income taxes (5.00 / 3) (#119)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 11:33:10 PM EST
    but not a whole lot.  However, combining all taxes I pay, my bite is something over 30 percent of my income.

    That's apparently not enough for these people.


    The last time I did an actual income tax (none / 0) (#69)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 04:24:58 PM EST
    exercise using 1040's a family of 4 making around $45K paid no FIT.

    Read the link (none / 0) (#77)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 04:40:34 PM EST
    jb linked to.

    Recently I had in interesting exchange with Jim (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by sj on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 04:52:05 PM EST
    he made a statement to the effect that he couldn't think of a better alternative to the tactics of TSA.  I provided him with some links that had alternatives.  Rinse and repeat, rinse and repeat.

    At this point he said something like:

    As to why you think I'm supposed to read what you provide and then comment on them, I really don't know
    LOL.  I've since seen little evidence that he reads any of the links provided.

    Having said that, I do respect his straightforward statements on a number of issues.  I very much appreciated his statements on wrongful convictions.


    sj I have read the link and must say that your (none / 0) (#146)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 01:20:17 PM EST
    nasty personal attack is noted and that you have now fallen into the jondee category as someone who just wants to stalk me and make nasty.

    Stalk you? LOL. Not hardly (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by sj on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 01:33:11 PM EST
    You said what you said.  I didn't make that up. In fact, I was somewhat nonplussed and held back to observe before I even took your own words to heart.  But, as near as I can tell, you were completely -- if perhaps inadvertantly -- honest.  You felt no need to read the link provided to you.  And you did need to restate your original thought.

    I'm not worried about your newly declared animosity.  I ignore you for the most part.  And when you show compassion I acknowledge it because I appreciate it.  But -- again -- you said what you said.  And observations lead me to believe that you were being utterly truthful.


    No you are stalking and being nasty (none / 0) (#152)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 01:39:30 PM EST
    and making personal attacks because you disagree with some of my positions.

    And what you fail to grasp is that my point was simple. I couldn't think of a better way.

    Your link had nothing to do with that statement. Are you so sensitive that if the world doesn't fall at your feet you must become angry and attack them?

    So you distort. So please ignore.

    But you can't. Stalkers can't.


    You need to get your quarrels straight (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by sj on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 02:01:56 PM EST
    I didn't provide you with a link in this thread. I pointed out -- when someone else urged you to read a link -- that you don't feel obliged to read links that are provided.  

    It's true that I don't agree with some of your positions.  It's even true that I disagree with most of your positions.  But I wasn't commenting on your positions, but rather your tactics.

    But, speaking of stalkers who can't ignore: this is my last comment to you on this thread.  But, knowing that in advance, I wonder if you can refrain from responding to it.  

    So go ahead, have the last word -- no matter how distorted it might be.


    Quit snarking (none / 0) (#179)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 11:34:50 PM EST
    You were claiming I didn't read a link.

    And yes, I will respond to your false claims you make when stalking me.


    I read the link (none / 0) (#150)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 01:33:07 PM EST
    I also did an actual return and stand by what I wrote.

    Plus, as the families income goes down they will receive earned income tax credit...

    Is this good? Bad? I dunno. It is what it is.

    Maybe we should lower everybody's taxes making less than $250K 5% and increase the above'rs.


    I am... (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by DebFrmHell on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 09:57:49 PM EST
    officially poor.  I make around 11.5k per yr.  I have been working 4 days a week because I am not the most well person in the US but I can't get any help from Medicare/Medicaid and SS denied me.

    I can't keep insurance because I can't afford it.  As a result, I am rarely medically compliant for my issues.  Without being medically compliant, I have problems working full time.

    I have picked up a fifth shift despite of all of it.  The biggest difference for me?  I can go to the store and grocery shop for better quality foods rather than fillers like Ramen noodles.  So instead of trying to ration a meal for under 2.00 per serving, I can push it up to $3.00.  I am so not a vegetarian so that makes me excited.

    Every so often, I eat out but that is a real treat.  Most of the time, if I am eating out it is on my relative's dime.

    The big financial windfall for me is that instead of making around $200-250 per week and $800-1000p/month I am up to $250-300p/week so that is 1000-1200.00 p/month.  YAY!, right?  No.  Because my insurance is based on income, my rate is virtually doubled to around $40.00.  And that is not including the $70.00p/month for medications.  All of that sounds sweet and on the cheep until you factor in my costs of living expenses.  

    My house note and insurance is around $300.00 p/month only because my aunt bought me this house and put enough down to keep my payments low enough to afford.  Utilities are around 150-200.  Gas to get to and from work, appr 120.00 p/month.  Groceries around $120.00 p/month.

    Now, I have a student loan.  It is in arrears the same as much of the other things that I used to be able to afford when I was making 45k p/yr and until I got sick (I am bipolar) one too many times and my company can't put me back in that position.  I can't file a bankruptcy.  Can't afford the 2k it would take to do it.

    I don't pay FIT.  I qualify for earned income credit so I am supposed to get back around $400.00 a year.  I feel kind of bad about EIC because there are families who need it more than I do.  But every year, my refund gets taken because of the student loan. I can't even afford insurance much less the $50.00 p/mo I need to pay to keep that account current.

    I try desperately not to be "on the dole." Some misplaced sense of pride for what I was vrs. what I am now keeps me from it, I guess.  Food stamps will make me less of a person.

    I was very excited about Obamacare so much so that I thought maybe I could get some help with Medicare, get in to see a doctor and get back on my psychiatric medications.  I do well on them.  

    Rick Perry said "No Way!" today.  That means I will get just denied again.  So tonight I am having a pity party for myself because there is never any sign of real hope.  That is just the way it is and I will have to work through it.  Same as it has been for years.

    Sorry. y'all (none / 0) (#115)
    by DebFrmHell on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 11:20:10 PM EST
    all the talk about tax cuts got my goat.

    Feel free to delete for being off topic.


    Why are YOU apologizing (none / 0) (#127)
    by sj on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 12:49:19 AM EST
    This whole country ought to be apologizing to you.  

    I don't think that... (none / 0) (#133)
    by DebFrmHell on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 09:28:49 AM EST
    is quite right.  There are many ways this could be much worse.  Right now I am on the Depressive side of the Bipolar so it is tough.  The Manic side is much more interesting though it sometimes gets me into trouble.  

    I have a job.  I have a roof over my head with many thanks to my aunt.

    There are so many that don't have that much.


    Peace to you (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by sj on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 11:55:13 AM EST
    I'm so sorry (none / 0) (#125)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 11:48:01 PM EST
    for your situation.  Seems to me you need to find a way to move out of Texas, one the the absolute worst places in the country to be low-income, and to some state that's a little more humane.

    Texas just isn't going to change significantly on this kind of stuff in our lifetimes.


    You're not being ignored (none / 0) (#126)
    by NYShooter on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 11:49:38 PM EST
    Your post requires more than a quickie, knee jerk response, and I will do so when I have the time to reflect, and respond, appropriately.

    Be prepared:)


    why the gradual Buffett? (1.00 / 1) (#94)
    by diogenes on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 05:49:07 PM EST
    He can give it all away NOW and live on fifty thousand dollars a year.

    If he was really smart... (none / 0) (#1)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 11:47:17 AM EST
    he'd propose even further decreases for the under 100k set, to offset the potential healthcare tax/fine/penalty/whateveryacallit for the uninsured in 2014, take away the "massive tax increase" meme coming from the GOP.  

    Paid for by drug war spending cuts and/or an increase in taxes on those making more than 5 million a year.

    It is election season...get your tax cut pander on hardcore Obama, this ain't your first rodeo;)

    Nothing would (none / 0) (#113)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 11:13:50 PM EST
    take away the "massive tax increase" meme of the GOPers.  They'd say it anway.  It's not true now, either.

    The Republicans (none / 0) (#2)
    by jbindc on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 11:51:15 AM EST
    Want to make the tax cut permanent - not have another year extension.

    It also puts him against Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, who want to extend the tax cut to those making up to a $1 million.

    Nancy & Chuckie... (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 11:59:02 AM EST
    from the high cost of living states/districts.

    It's high but sh*t it ain't that high for over 250k's to be crying.  But thats how ya pander like the wiley veterans of this racket that Nancy & Chuckie are.


    I haven't been crying till now..... (none / 0) (#11)
    by vml68 on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 12:19:55 PM EST
    It's high but sh*t it ain't that high for over 250k's to be crying.

    but now that I am trying to buy a house, I really do feel like crying... :-)!


    Good luck... (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 12:57:24 PM EST
    on the house hunt, you know if it was up to me I'd abolish all the agencies in the tyranny sector of the federal government, legalize and tax all drugs, and give everybody another income tax cut, sh*t even the Koch Bros...happy days are here again!

    But it ain't up to me, Nancy and Chuckie and the GOP ain't selling any of that common sense...so if Nancy & Chuckie and/or the GOP cost me my cut pandering to the 250k and overs, I'm hitting you up for a couple hundo;)


    ha! (none / 0) (#26)
    by sj on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 01:00:21 PM EST
    Housing is pretty d@mn pricey around here (none / 0) (#16)
    by nycstray on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 12:26:13 PM EST
    and going up. Silicon Valley, SF and Marin especially, but it's trickling out to other BA counties :( Luckily, tech is doing well, the downside is, housing is at a premium. People are paying above asking price and renters are just plain scr*wed.

    I think NYC is better on the housing end . . .


    Hi Nycstray! (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by vml68 on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 12:46:48 PM EST
    I have heard the same from friends in the Bay area.
    Out here in NJ, three of the houses I was ready to make an offer on received offers well over their asking prices as soon as they came on the market. I decided against getting into bidding wars on any of them. Since my husband works in the city, our housing choices are limited to areas with direct train lines to NYC. We also don't want his commute to be much over an hour either way because he works really long hours as it is.
    Even though we have lived in NJ for seven years now, I still get sticker shock when I see the prices of homes. The property taxes are just icing on the cake!

    P.S.- Loving the pics of your new sweet baby!!!


    *waves* My friend and I both got in (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by nycstray on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 12:56:10 PM EST
    under the wire it seems (she bought, I rent). I went with where I live because I could get more space/house/yard compared to other cities around here (and the weather!), but I think this option is falling by the wayside also. Perhaps they should look at the tax cuts like they do with other things, go not only by income, but with COL included in the equation?  

    Sorry to here NJ is the same :(

    Glad you've seen the pics of my new baby! She'll be 1 on the 20th! Oy!~ She's a BIG baby :)


    C'mon out... (none / 0) (#27)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 01:00:33 PM EST
    to the ghetto burbs VML...an hour outta Penn on the LIRR, still plenty of foreclosures you could get for a song...well, a relative song.

    Though if your beau's co-workers found out where you bought they might disown him;)


    I definitely need to expand my search to (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by vml68 on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 01:55:40 PM EST
    the NY suburbs. I am not as familiar with LI, so hadn't considered it.

    Though if your beau's co-workers found out where you bought they might disown him;)

    No worries there. Neither of us are the kind who worry about keeping up with the Joneses. We get a lot of grief from family and friends about that. I still drive my 16 year old Toyota Camry (I love that car), over the years my family has gone from snarky comments to pleading with me to upgrade to offering to buy me a new car..... :-)

    When we first told our realtor how much we were willing to spend on a house, he did not question us too much about income, etc. He just said make sure you get your mortgage approval so you know what you can afford. I think based on my car, he probably decided that we were stretching our budget a bit. After, he found out what we were approved for, he couldn't believe we were limiting ourselves so much. It was kinda funny to see.

    Sorry for the silly griping over the taxes. I am just frustrated with the whole home buying process. I want a small house with a big yard (for my dogs to run and for me to garden). But in the places we have been looking, it is either small house+small yard or big house+big yard. Can't seem to find the combination we are looking for... :-(
    Now, I will stop my whining and remind myself that we are very lucky to have as much as we do and paying more in taxes is definitely not going to put us in the poor house.


    I'm no better... (none / 0) (#45)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 02:23:41 PM EST
    I'm whining while spending approx. 1/6th of my weekly take home on herbal recreation, and another 1/12th on concerts and stuff.  Like I always say, livin' the good life on peanuts...thank god for birth control;)  

    My rental is a 3 bedroom 1 1/2 bath split ranch finished basement on a 1/2 acre...nice big yard for the notorious D.O.G.  Quick googling shows 'em running from 170k for a fixer upper to 300k plus for fully renovated in my "bad" neighborhood.  Lots of those on LI in "nice" neighborhoods at higher prices, but the property taxes are at varying rates of ridiculous.  Alotta cops making 100 grand a year out here doing d*ck;)


    Come buy in VT (none / 0) (#116)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 11:21:17 PM EST
    The money you'll save on property (minimum 10 acres outside our "cities"), you could buy a small plane for commuting and some flying lessons.

    I'm comfortable (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by CST on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 12:06:16 PM EST
    not making it permanent.

    When the economy gets better we should all start paying for the programs we want.


    Sure (none / 0) (#12)
    by jbindc on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 12:20:01 PM EST
    But you are most people who hear "permanent tax cut".

    You AREN'T (none / 0) (#13)
    by jbindc on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 12:20:13 PM EST
    The Republicans want to (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 11:17:47 PM EST
    make all the Bush tax cuts permanent.  They won't do it piece by piece because they know it would be impossible to pass an extension of the wealthy tax cut all by itself.  Their only recourse is to keep the lower-income cut hostage.

    Timing (none / 0) (#14)
    by christinep on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 12:22:06 PM EST
    The portrayal & the reality of Mr. Romney continues to unfold.  From the Bain story & the predatory practices with Romney at the helm to the Cayman Is, Bermuda, Switzerland accounts reporting (together with the publicized questions "secret" stashes/accounts raise) to the images of Fat Cats Trump & last night's soiree at the Koch's Hampton mega-estate --all bracketed with revealing examples of Romney as The Outsourcer/Offshorer in Chief--to the playing of the Tax Card in a time & way to define the central issue prior to the upcoming conventions.

    IMO this political strategy and how the President announced it this a.m. Is pitch-perfect...for a number of reasons.  One: The announcement places an issue that most people can relate to and are likely to "hear" front & center as we move into the most active phases of the campaign.  Two: Romney is pushed back in terms of self-definition...who is this Romney? (Maybe Mr. potter from a long ago wonderful, well-known film OR the Great Gatsby?  Reports from Gallup now show that the Dems' ads are having more effect...mu h more effect, to the detriment of Romney.). Three:  There may be a dilemma for Repubs in that--with the President taking the initiative on the $$$ issue (involving, of course, implications for deficit) --it should expose their position as protecting the wealthy in time of need and/or increasing the debt if they openly oppose Obama's framing of the issue.  Four: it is payback time for the Administration to focus on this popular, populist message today...and to tie it to the practical goal of wanting the above $250K  2 percent to the tax rate during the Clinton years...all at a time when people are starting to tune into the campaign.  Five: Not only is this clear I'm-for-the-Miiddle Class proposal a natural culmination of several themes in the past few years, but--& most important--it is the right thing to do.

    Really? (none / 0) (#161)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 02:21:33 PM EST
    Reports from Gallup now show that the Dems' ads are having more effect...mu h more effect, to the detriment of Romney

    He's gotten no bounce from his immigration policy change.

    His approval rating on dealing with immigration issues is no better (nor worse) than it was two years ago, and he runs evenly with former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney on who people trust to handle the issue. Fewer than one in five voters -- 18 percent -- say immigration is an extremely important issue in their vote.

    The Bain attacks aren't working:

    For all the attention paid to the effectiveness of President Obama's Bain-themed attacks, it's remarkable how Obama has been stuck right around 47 percent for a very long time. As the Washington Post's Chris Cillizza documented, the president's team has handily outspent Romney and his allied super PACs, pouring in $91 million into eight swing states in an early spending barrage intended to make Romney seem an unacceptable challenger. But for all that effort, the numbers haven't moved much at all: The latest ABC News/Washington Post poll out today shows the race deadlocked at 47 percent. Yesterday'sUSA Today/Gallup swing state poll showed Obama statistically tied with Romney, the exact same result the survey showed one month ago.

    Americans see more economic harm than good in the health care law.

    Views of the economic impact of the ACA are, as is true with everything else about the legislation, bound up with politics. Republicans, who generally oppose the ACA, overwhelmingly think it will hurt the economy, while Democrats, who generally favor it, think it will help. Independents tilt toward the "hurt" rather than the "help" position.

    Democrats are a little less likely to say the ACA will help the economy than Republicans are to say it will hurt it. The fact that independents are more likely to say it will hurt than help the economy -- by a 14-percentage-point margin -- is important in the context of the current presidential election.

    So where are these ads that are to the "detriment of Romney" taking place?


    Read the Washington Post poll out today (none / 0) (#164)
    by christinep on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 03:59:38 PM EST
    Therein:  after SCt decision, those surveyed split 47 to 47 on approval/non approval of ObamaCare.  That represents a substantial change from the earlier 56 non approval to 36 approval.  Also: check several stories appearing in the WP , noted on First Read, and highlighted on CNN Ticker about the Repubs growing concern as to the effect that the methodical Bain & related ads are having especially in the so-called battleground states.  The phrase being tossed around is "gaining traction.". If that is so, I suspect the reports together with top-line numbers will begin to reflect that.

    I just gave you (none / 0) (#168)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 05:00:15 PM EST
    WaPo info out from today.

    But as usual, in your Pollyanna style, you ignore what's in front of you.

    Obama's not "gaining traction".  He's stuck in the mud.  That could change before November, but it's been months and nothing is making him move - even spending almost $100 million in ad buys.


    Then, see new Reuters poll this evening (none / 0) (#175)
    by christinep on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 09:48:25 PM EST
    Signed. Pollyanna.

    ESteel you are correct. (none / 0) (#28)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 01:01:09 PM EST
    Quote of the Day: (none / 0) (#44)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 02:18:22 PM EST
    "I don't think the common person is getting it. Nobody understands why Obama is hurting them. We've got the message. But my college kid, the baby sitters, the nails ladies -- everybody who's got the right to vote -- they don't understand what's going on. I just think if you're lower income -- one, you're not as educated, two, they don't understand how it works, they don't understand how the systems work, they don't understand the impact." (Emphasis is mine.)
    -- An unidentified Mitt Romney donor attending a fundraiser in The Hamptons, from the passenger seat of a Range Rover stamped with East Hampton beach permits.

    Yeah, that about sums it up. We're simply not educated, so we can't really understand how the system works. Those poor baby sitters and nail ladies just don't know what's good for them.

    Damn right it's class warfare (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by Dadler on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 03:02:46 PM EST
    We're "at war" with people who have no class, whose mothers and fathers never taught them the meanings of the words 'share' and 'enough.'

    The irony... (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by huzzlewhat on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 10:20:21 AM EST
    I just think if you're lower income -- one, you're not as educated, two, they don't understand how it works, they don't understand how the systems work, they don't understand the impact."

    This woman is lamenting about the less educated, and I'm itching to correct her grammar and usage. What a horrifying failure of sentence structure.


    Isn't that a kick? (none / 0) (#124)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 11:45:11 PM EST
    What a quote.  

    You can almost hear the lament... (none / 0) (#131)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 09:15:54 AM EST
    in the "everybody who's got the right to vote" bit, can't ya? I hope somebody took a picture of that guy so we can put it next to "rich tool" in the dictionary.

    Imagine the rich man's sorrow if our prole voting actually accomplished something...he wouldn't see the point of getting out of bed so his maid can make it.


    There is very little money (none / 0) (#139)
    by Doug1111 on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 10:59:17 AM EST
    in erasing the Bush tax cuts for those earning more than $250k if single, about $340 if married.  It's almost all class resentments.

    We already have a hugely skewed to the higher earners tax system

    Ah, the good old days (none / 0) (#140)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 11:25:22 AM EST

    Published: November 23, 2008

    WASHINGTON -- President-elect Barack Obama has signaled that he will pursue a far more ambitious plan of spending and tax cuts than anything he outlined on the campaign trail -- a plan "big enough to deal with the huge problem we face," a top adviser said Sunday -- setting the tone for a recovery effort that could absorb and define much of his term.

    A member of the Obama economic advisory team, William M. Daley, acknowledged that because of the gravity of the situation, Mr. Obama was leaning toward letting a Bush tax cut for the wealthy expire on schedule in 2011 rather than repealing it sooner.

    November 23, 2008 - already breaking a promise and he wasn't even inaugurated yet.

    So in the summer of 2008 when the GDP is growing (none / 0) (#145)
    by Farmboy on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 01:17:55 PM EST
    Obama wants to repeal tax cuts early. Six months later, after the GDP has collapsed nearly 10%, employment has dropped like a brick, and we're heading into the worst recession since the 1930s,
    "he might instead let those tax cuts expire as scheduled in 2011, effectively delaying any tax increase while he gives his stimulus plan a chance to work."

    Truly, Obama is history's greatest monster.


    Not a monster (none / 0) (#153)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 01:42:43 PM EST
    But a lying politician - just like the rest of them.

    Certainly no savior.


    Why is it that those who hate Obama keep bringing (2.00 / 1) (#165)
    by Farmboy on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 04:02:01 PM EST
    up the whole "Savior" nonsense started by Catherine Glick? Sure the media had fun with it, but there wasn't anything in the campaign that pushed that meme. After the primaries the only place you heard it was from the usual suspects like Fox, Rush, and PUMA dead-enders.

    Regardless, "holding the course" despite reality was Shrub's shtick, not Obama's. Changing tax policy in response to a collapsed economy shows that he's working for a solution, not that he's a liar. And proposing to extend the cuts next year for the working classes doesn't make him a liar either. It simply means things have improved some but not enough.

    Here's an illustration about lying: today, when I post this, is Tuesday. Tomorrow, when somebody reads it, it'll be Wednesday. And after that it'll be some other day. Am I a liar for saying today is Tuesday? No, because it is - today.

    All that being said, enjoy your Mitt time. I expect he'll be gone off the national stage after early November. (I can only assume you're voting for Mitt - it would be rather disingenuous of you to vote for Obama after weeks/months/years of trying to convince folks to not support him)


    No (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 04:27:41 PM EST
    you still heard it. The campaign even did a "conversion thing" where voters were "converted" to Obama like a religious experience. It was a complete turn off to me because it reminded me so much of the Bush campaign. Now we're going to have a repeat of the Bush '04 campaign with Obama playing Bush. Just lovely.

    Do me a favor then, and find a link to an (none / 0) (#169)
    by Farmboy on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 05:07:55 PM EST
    official 2008 campaign conversion ad, or document, or something real like that. Or an official campaign artifact with Obama as the Messiah or Savior.

    Because Google doesn't show evidence of anything real or official, just various right (and left) wing blogs, blog comments, mocking articles in the media, etc.



    An official campaign ad? (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by Yman on Wed Jul 11, 2012 at 09:18:17 AM EST
    How stupid would Obama's campaign have to be to do something like that?

    OTOH - it wasn't merely people mocking Obama.  He had many supporters adopting messiah themes and rhetoric:

    Is Obama an enlightened being?

    "What Barack Obama has accomplished is the single most extraordinary event that has occurred in the 232 years of the nation's political history. ... The event itself is so extraordinary that another chapter could be added to the Bible to chronicle its significance."- Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr.


    Lordy, I remember that article (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by sj on Wed Jul 11, 2012 at 10:16:47 AM EST
    I just checked to see if he ever apologized for that piece of tripe, but no, he just doubled down.

    Ew.  I took a chance and peeked at some of his other columns.  The linked articles are paragons of insight and rational thought by comparison.

    I hope he's at least a good yoga teacher.


    Wow - sometimes it's easier ... (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by Yman on Wed Jul 11, 2012 at 10:32:37 AM EST
    ... to just climb further out on the crazy limb than to admit you were wrong.

    It was (none / 0) (#170)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 06:11:12 PM EST
    not an ad. It was something that campaign workers were doing using religious methods to "convert" voters to Obama. It was an article in one of the newspapers but I don't remember which one.

    There was also a photo of (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 08:50:22 PM EST
    candidate Obama speaking to a large group. The light above  was reminiscent of Sallman's "Head of Christ."

    There were/are many more than one (none / 0) (#180)
    by sj on Wed Jul 11, 2012 at 12:17:24 AM EST
    Google image "Obama halo" and then throw out about half the images.  There are still a lot of them.

    Good tip. (none / 0) (#181)
    by oculus on Wed Jul 11, 2012 at 12:45:27 AM EST
    Whaaa . . . ? You didn't post your (none / 0) (#172)
    by nycstray on Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 08:36:27 PM EST
    conversion to Obama story over at the orange blog?!  :D

    Stop it. Seriously (none / 0) (#185)
    by sj on Wed Jul 11, 2012 at 10:27:07 AM EST
    All that being said, enjoy your Mitt time ... (I can only assume you're voting for Mitt - it would be rather disingenuous of you to vote for Obama after weeks/months/years of trying to convince folks to not support him)
    Stop acting is if Mitt is "naturally" getting any vote that Obama does not.  I am personally really, really offended by that.  And while I realize that granting a candidate unearned votes has a precedent in the dealings of the DNC, I'm pretty sure the actual, you know, voters didn't intend for that to happen.

    If you have a gripe, take it up with TPTB.  In the meantime stop pretending that there is even a prayer that jb will vote for Mitt.  She's an equal opportunity non-supporter and has said so often, repeatedly, ad nauseum, etc.

    Note to Anne:  I may be wrong, but I think I understand why jb makes a stronger effort to criticize O than Mitt.  She expects more from Democrats.  Garbage from the GOP is expected.  Why complain about the noise of the trash truck when it is showing up right on time?  

    ::sigh:: and at least the trash truck hauls it away.


    It's not an unreasonable assumption (none / 0) (#187)
    by Farmboy on Wed Jul 11, 2012 at 11:27:41 AM EST
    History shows that in most cases, people vote for a candidate because they support that candidate (for whatever reason), or support the party (for whatever reason), or they are voting against the other party (for whatever reason), or voting against the other candidate (for whatever reason).

    So logically, if you vote for one of the two major candidates in this election, and you're against Obama being elected, you'll be voting for Romney (or vice-versa).

    I'm not sure how to read your statement about jb, though. Are you saying she has stated that she won't be voting, or is so against both that she's going third party? I ask because to me if a person is not voting, that person is choosing to voluntarily not exercise a right that I think is valuable.

    But it's a free country. Whatever makes a person happy.

    BTW: tax cuts. (just to stay on topic)


    It a COMPLETELY unreasonable assumption (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by sj on Wed Jul 11, 2012 at 11:41:11 AM EST
    So logically, if you vote for one of the two major candidates in this election, and you're against Obama being elected, you'll be voting for Romney (or vice-versa).
    That right there is your big, bright, glaring flawed assumption.  Because YOU apparently feel obligated to vote for "one of the two major candidates" you shout out that EVERYONE must be voting for "one of the two major candidates".

    I'll let jb speak for herself as she has repeatedly.  Her vote belongs to her.  Period.  And anyway the information is there for you to find if you cared.  Or you could just continue to cast unfounded accusations.

    As to your sanctimonius:

    BTW: tax cuts. (just to stay on topic)
    I remind you that you were the one who careened off-topic.  But here it is:  I still maintain that all the tax cuts will be extended and that I hope I'm wrong.

    I guess we'll have to disagree about how binary (none / 0) (#191)
    by Farmboy on Wed Jul 11, 2012 at 12:24:57 PM EST
    logic works. I did say "if you vote for one of the two," "if" being the operative conditional. To me, "if" doesn't mean "must."

    The only person shouting, and speaking in anger, is you. And I'm sorry you think a bit of humor (admittedly, a small bit) appears sanctimonious.



    Stop it. Seriously (none / 0) (#192)
    by sj on Wed Jul 11, 2012 at 12:39:51 PM EST
    I'll circle back to your first [extremely offensive] comment.
    All that being said, enjoy your Mitt time. I expect he'll be gone off the national stage after early November.  (I can only assume you're voting for Mitt - it would be rather disingenuous of you to vote for Obama after weeks/months/years of trying to convince folks to not support him)
    Don't see a single "if" in that sneering little statement.

    And I apologize regarding your BTW.  I didn't recognize the humor.  When I read it, it sounded of a part with the rest of your comments on this thread.


    Well, as someone who has often been (none / 0) (#194)
    by Anne on Wed Jul 11, 2012 at 01:20:22 PM EST
    told that my expectations for Democrats are unreasonable and unattainable, whatever it is that jb is doing doesn't have that feel to me; she doesn't come across as someone who is passionate about what I think of as Democratic ideals and agenda as much she seems hell-bent on tit-for-tat.  I don't mind when people slam the GOP - they deserve it - but for some reason, jb feels compelled to mitigate the terrible awful of the GOP by bringing up the just-plain-terrible of the Dems.  Is it a kind of weird way of making the lesser-of-two-evils argument?  I don't know.

    And her comments never seem to express any actual goals/desires/expectations for what Dems should be doing or proposing; it's mostly bad news on polling and countering anyone who suggests Obama might be able to win, and it's all built around the "who" instead of the "what."  

    The one thing her comments have done for me is make me take a look at what I'm posting - and whether I'm offering anything other than constant negativity.

    I guess, too, I'm just not into the whole horse-race thing, dissecting the minutiae of winning has always gotten on my nerves - I hate the whole what-does-he-have-to-do-to-win thing that overrides the focus on what could be done from a governance perspective.  If Obama had had an economic team that was more Krugman/Stiglitz than Geithner/Summers, there's a good chance all that would be being discussed is how big Obama's margin of victory would be, instead of what can he say that will get people to vote for him.

    I think the whole thing just makes me cranky, mainly because I don't see the American people - we average folks - winning much of anything no matter how this race turns out.


    I'm not into the horse race thing, either (none / 0) (#195)
    by sj on Wed Jul 11, 2012 at 03:31:00 PM EST
    I'm completely on board with your last two paragraphs.  And would add to this:
    I hate the whole what-does-he-have-to-do-to-win thing that overrides the focus on what could be done from a governance perspective.
    I would say that not only do I hate it, but it's pretty irrelevant, because O is unlikely to do anything of the sort, anyway.

    jb, however, is into the horse race aspect.


    Anne, thank you for this comment (none / 0) (#199)
    by christinep on Thu Jul 12, 2012 at 12:09:36 AM EST
    Even tho I get up to my eyeballs in electoral minutiae (at times, driving both my husband & self up two trees) I find myself relating to a substantial part of your statement tonight. The genuine feel of what you said now jumped out at me despite the distancing mechanism that is my iPad.

    I definitely agree with farmboy (none / 0) (#198)
    by christinep on Wed Jul 11, 2012 at 11:55:03 PM EST
    As to the reference to "mitt time" & jbindc.  Despite protestations to the contrary, I have rarely seen such a concentrated critique by any supposed neutral.  When the critiques align almost precisely with Repub talking-points, arguments & often using the language of the RW talk, it is hard to conclude otherwise.  It doesn 't track, sj...it doesn't track.  

    He was criticizing Obama ... (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by Yman on Thu Jul 12, 2012 at 06:54:07 AM EST
    When the critiques align almost precisely with Repub talking-points, arguments & often using the language of the RW talk, it is hard to conclude otherwise.

    ... for breaking his promise to repeal the Bush tax cuts and pointing out that Obama is weak in the polls and his numbers aren't being helped by the Bain ads or his immigration policy.

    Those aren't Republican talking points.