Obama’s Democratic Base Unhappy About Deal

Politics • Views: 29,251

Greg Sargent notes a new Survey USA poll showing that many of Obama’s strongest supporters are extremely unhappy about his deal with the GOP to extend the Bush-era tax cuts.

Okay, we now have our first poll measuring the impact on the Democratic base of Obama’s support for a temporary extension of all the Bush tax cuts. Suffice it to say this is a major, make-or-break issue with them that could have real political ramifications for the President and Congressional Democrats.

The poll, done by the respected non-partisan firm Survey USA, surveyed over 1,000 people who contributed time or money to Obama in 2008, and found intense, overwhelming opposition among them to Obama’s support for a temporary extension of the tax cuts for the rich. This supports the notion that there may indeed be a serious liberal revolt in reaction to it.

Indeed, majorities of people who contributed to Obama in 2008 say they are less likely to support Obama and Democrats because of his backing for the temporary extension.

Jump to bottom

259 comments
1 schnapp  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 11:34:58am

yeah, but like they’re going to back the GOP instead! ahh no thanks!

2 wrenchwench  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 11:35:53am

I am entertaining the Fozzie Bear Conjecture: Could he be that fucking smart?

3 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 11:36:19am

re: #1 schnapp

yeah, but like they’re going to back the GOP instead! ahh no thanks!

No, they’ll just end up staying home or backing third parties.

4 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 11:36:20am

When they had control of both houses it seemed the best the Dems could do was bend over and ask the GOP to be gentle when they weren’t squabbling amongst themselves. Now that they have lost, the Dems seem to be in a “thank you sir may I have another” mode.

Real winning strategy there.

5 RurouniKenshin  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 11:36:34am

Yes, we are extremely unhappy.

I’ve called both of my senators and urged them to join with the Progressive Caucus in opposing it, even using a filibuster if they need to.

6 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 11:37:51am

re: #4 LudwigVanQuixote

When they had control of both houses it seemed the best the Dems could do was bend over and ask the GOP to be gentle when they weren’t squabbling amongst themselves. Now that they have lost, the Dems seem to be in a “thank you sir may I have another” mode.

Real winning strategy there.

They still have control of both houses. They didn’t have to compromise anything here. Or am I missing something?

7 RurouniKenshin  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 11:38:45am

re: #6 Walter L. Newton

They still have control of both houses. They didn’t have to compromise anything here. Or am I missing something?

You aren’t missing anything, and that’s why we’re so pissed.

8 schnapp  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 11:38:47am

re: #5 RurouniKenshin

its probably better to accept it and at least ensure that UI gets extended.

9 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 11:38:57am

re: #6 Walter L. Newton

They still have control of both houses. They didn’t have to compromise anything here. Or am I missing something?

They never had control of the Senate, and are soon to lose control of the house. Control implies 60+ votes for their agenda, which has not been the case this lass congressional session.

10 Gus  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 11:39:05am

Obama’s base didn’t get him elected in 2008. It was the independents. Obama is also governing the USA and not his base. This country is not populated by people that read Daily Kos. Far from it.

11 [deleted]  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 11:39:53am
12 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 11:40:05am

re: #9 Fozzie Bear

They never had control of the Senate, and are soon to lose control of the house. Control implies 60+ votes for their agenda, which has not been the case this lass congressional session.

I should restate myself… they still have the majority… they should be using it.

13 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 11:40:53am

re: #3 Fozzie Bear

No, they’ll just end up staying home or backing third parties.

Yes, there is always Ralph Nader to split the vote.

14 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 11:41:27am

re: #12 Walter L. Newton

I should restate myself… they still have the majority… they should be using it.

Well, as you know, the majority gets nothing but the credit/blame. Majorities don’t matter in the senate. Only supermajorities do.

15 Charles Johnson  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 11:41:48am

re: #11 LudwigVanQuixote

Er, nope — not this time.

16 researchok  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 11:42:05am

re: #6 Walter L. Newton

They still have control of both houses. They didn’t have to compromise anything here. Or am I missing something?

They have had control for the past 4 years.

17 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 11:42:06am

re: #5 RurouniKenshin

Why didn’t you pressure the legislators to act on this before now?

This is what I don’t get about this. The Democratic legislators are acting like they couldn’t have done something about this before now. They could have. They punted. And now they’re in a lame-duck session and with fewer senators than they had before.

I think the Democratic legislators accomplished a hell of a lot. I’m really not sure why this wasn’t a bigger priority for them, and why they’ve left it until now.

18 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 11:43:11am

re: #12 Walter L. Newton

They attempted to get the GOP to vote up or down on tax cuts for everyone but the highest percentile. The GOP filibustered that.

Do you understand that?

19 Varek Raith  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 11:44:02am

Compromise.
Such an evil word to partisans.
I like compromise.
/Realist

20 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 11:44:07am

re: #16 researchok

They have had control for the past 4 years.

No, no they didn’t. Control implies the ability to pass legislation consistent with their agenda, which requires a supermajority in the senate, given the GOP’s willingness to filibuster everything brought to the floor by the DNC.

21 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 11:44:08am

re: #18 Obdicut

They attempted to get the GOP to vote up or down on tax cuts for everyone but the highest percentile. The GOP filibustered that.

Do you understand that?

No… that’s why I made the statement… “Or am I missing something.”

Do you understand that?

22 abbyadams  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 11:44:09am

I’m part of that base, but I’m the vile creature known as the pragmatic lefty. All that hope n changey stuff? I see it. I see someone trying to compromise. Someone who’s trying to lead everyone, not half the country (even if we all don’t like it, or everything we see.)

23 JeffM70  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 11:44:12am

It’s as if Democrats don’t want to take ownership of anything where they risk baring all the blame if things don’t work out. I mean my God, if you take the shot you might miss, sure, but you also might make it.

24 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 11:45:38am

re: #21 Walter L. Newton

No… that’s why I made the statement… “Or am I missing something.”

Do you understand that?

It’s amazing how often you’re missing something, Walter.

Now that you understand that the GOP filibustered the Democrats attempts for an up-or-down vote on extending the tax cuts for everyone but the highest percentile, will you stop using the foolish “They have control of both houses, they didn’t have to compromise on anything” meme?

It’s really amazing how often you forget about things like the filibuster. Uncanny.

25 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 11:47:19am

re: #15 Charles

Er, nope — not this time.

OK fair enough. I withdraw the comment and apologize. Please feel free to delete my remarks. But please keep my apology posted.

26 researchok  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 11:47:48am

re: #20 Fozzie Bear

No, no they didn’t. Control implies the ability to pass legislation consistent with their agenda, which requires a supermajority in the senate, given the GOP’s willingness to filibuster everything brought to the floor by the DNC.

Are you saying the Dems have always voted on party lines?

27 lawhawk  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 11:51:45am

re: #17 Obdicut

It’s all about the elections. If they voted on this before November 2010, it becomes an election issue in 2010 and Democrats were already wary of being hammered and losing House and Senate seats. Waiting until the lame duck enables them to deal with it without worrying about the immediacy of the election (now just under 2 years away), but the flipside is that it gets tied with the national general election. By extending the tax law for 2 more years with some adjustments, this guarantees to be an issue in the 2012 election.

It becomes something on which Obama can run - as a tax cutter (extender).

Obama’s political calculus is different than that of the legislators in the House and Senate.

28 Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 11:52:29am

I’m not necessarily happy with this “compromise” it could have been better but you work with the congress you have not the congress you wish you had. Want to make things better? Vote out the ones causing problems and don’t vote 3rd party because you didn’t get rainbows and unicorns.

29 schnapp  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 11:52:45am

re: #27 lawhawk

smart cookie

30 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 11:52:59am

re: #24 Obdicut

It’s amazing how often you’re missing something, Walter.

Now that you understand that the GOP filibustered the Democrats attempts for an up-or-down vote on extending the tax cuts for everyone but the highest percentile, will you stop using the foolish “They have control of both houses, they didn’t have to compromise on anything” meme?

It’s really amazing how often you forget about things like the filibuster. Uncanny.

Ok… I will adjust that statement… “they should have stuck to their agenda… they didn’t have to compromise on anything.”

31 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 11:53:04am

re: #26 researchok

Are you saying the Dems have always voted on party lines?

No, to the contrary, if they did vote on party lines, they would have had the ability to pass legislation without GOP help. I.e., they would have had control of the legislature, as you implied in your post 16.

32 Gus  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 11:53:10am

It’s a lameduck session and congress still hold Democratic party majorities. So I would be curious as to how the Democrats would filibuster themselves? I doubt Pelosi or Reid would even allow it.

33 engineer cat  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 11:53:51am

my friend echidne adds this:

This new definition of a “compromise” is a most unusual one. For instance, the Republicans got concessions on inheritance tax so that someone being left 5,000,001 dollars gets to pay a federal inheritance tax totaling 35 cents. That was exchanged for what part of the package? And when did we discuss this in the open? It may have slipped past me, what with all the other compromises I’ve tried to understand.

34 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 11:53:54am

re: #30 Walter L. Newton

Ok… I will adjust that statement… “they should have stuck to their agenda… they didn’t have to compromise on anything.”

If they didn’t compromise, they would have passed literally no legislation.

35 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 11:54:01am

re: #27 lawhawk

I don’t think that’s anywhere near the whole story.

For example, Obama was able to extract a lot of concessions out of the GOP. The unemployment insurance extension is a huge thing, vitally important to many, many Americans, and a real necessity for the economy, as well. The payroll tax was another important concession.

This wasn’t simply Obama giving things away. He got things as well, important things.

I think if you’re looking at it only in terms of election issues, you’re ignoring the actual effects of what Obama got concessions on.

36 palomino  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 11:55:27am

re: #6 Walter L. Newton

They still have control of both houses. They didn’t have to compromise anything here. Or am I missing something?

Yeah, it’s called a filibuster.

Dems had to compromise, or get blocked and nothing else done (no unemployment benefits, no DADT, no START, etc.)

37 Gus  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 11:55:52am

That would be something too. Democrats filibustering the tax compromise which would lead to the Bush tax cuts expiring and a tax increase for the middle class. That would be political suicide.

38 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 11:55:57am

Its astounding how often people who know better “forget” about the filibuster.

39 researchok  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 11:57:17am

re: #38 Fozzie Bear

Its astounding how often people who know better “forget” about the filibuster.


What’s wrong with the filibuster?

40 Gus  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 11:58:11am

Oh I get it now. The compromise is unpalatable and it’s the Republicans fault that Obama arrived at this compromise.

Yes or no?

41 JeffM70  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 11:58:55am

re: #27 lawhawk

It’s all about the elections. If they voted on this before November 2010, it becomes an election issue in 2010 and Democrats were already wary of being hammered and losing House and Senate seats. Waiting until the lame duck enables them to deal with it without worrying about the immediacy of the election (now just under 2 years away), but the flipside is that it gets tied with the national general election. By extending the tax law for 2 more years with some adjustments, this guarantees to be an issue in the 2012 election.

It becomes something on which Obama can run - as a tax cutter (extender).

Obama’s political calculus is different than that of the legislators in the House and Senate.

Nice fantasy but … Obama lowered taxes two years ago and most Americans either don’t know that or think he’s raised taxes. His political calculus is woefully inadequate when it comes to combating Republican propaganda.

42 researchok  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 11:59:00am

re: #40 Gus 802

Oh I get it now. The compromise is unpalatable and it’s the Republicans fault that Obama arrived at this compromise.

Yes or no?

Is that t shirt XXXL?
/

43 palomino  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:01:12pm

re: #22 abbyadams

I’m part of that base, but I’m the vile creature known as the pragmatic lefty. All that hope n changey stuff? I see it. I see someone trying to compromise. Someone who’s trying to lead everyone, not half the country (even if we all don’t like it, or everything we see.)

Exactly. Compromise is the essence of democracy, especially one with a Senate set up like ours.

For all the hosannas given to people like Reagan and Clinton as extraordinary leaders, compromise was a major part of their governing style.

And an attainable good is usually preferable to an unattainable perfect.

Disgruntled Dems will flock back to the Party soon. Especially if DADT gets struck down and any other Dem goals pass later this month. Dems will also return to the fold once it becomes obvious that the dominant voices for the GOP nod belong to Palin, Gingrich and other far right blowhard non-pragmatists.

44 Gus  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:01:41pm

OK I think we should have two polls. One regarding Assange and another regarding Obama’s tax compromise.

45 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:02:01pm

re: #40 Gus 802

Oh I get it now. The compromise is unpalatable and it’s the Republicans fault that Obama arrived at this compromise.

Yes or no?

Well, I do think that it’s really, really, really stupid that the GOP blocked an up or down vote on extending the tax cuts for everyone but the upper percentile.

Voting to extend those tax cuts would have not meant that they couldn’t then vote to extend the tax cut for the upper percentage too.

And as usual, the Democrats were absolutely terrible at communicating to the public what was going on.

46 wrenchwench  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:03:03pm

re: #44 Gus 802

OK I think we should have two polls. One regarding Assange and another regarding Obama’s tax compromise.

Ron Paul!
Rand Paul!

47 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:03:49pm

re: #45 Obdicut

Well, I do think that it’s really, really, really stupid that the GOP blocked an up or down vote on extending the tax cuts for everyone but the upper percentile.

Does “stupid” imply they didn’t know what they were doing, or is that a more general expression like “it sucks”?

48 Gus  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:05:23pm

re: #45 Obdicut

Well, I do think that it’s really, really, really stupid that the GOP blocked an up or down vote on extending the tax cuts for everyone but the upper percentile.

Voting to extend those tax cuts would have not meant that they couldn’t then vote to extend the tax cut for the upper percentage too.

And as usual, the Democrats were absolutely terrible at communicating to the public what was going on.

Yes. And the Democrats shouldn’t have waited until the end of the session to decide on the Bush tax cuts, etc. That would have been the responsibility of Reid and Pelosi. Reid however was very busy this year running for re-election.

And now if they extend it for another 2 years they’re going to have this on their lap during an election year: 2012.

49 engineer cat  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:05:25pm

the astonishing thing to me is that the part of the package that the republicans are conceding on is the extension of unemployment insurance

this is something that they need to be convinced of???

what is this? “we’ll keep collecting money amongst ourselves to feed you cake if you promise to not actually kick the orphans”?

50 abbyadams  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:05:37pm

re: #43 palomino

I hope you’re right about this:

Disgruntled Dems will flock back to the Party soon. Especially if DADT gets struck down and any other Dem goals pass later this month. Dems will also return to the fold once it becomes obvious that the dominant voices for the GOP nod belong to Palin, Gingrich and other far right blowhard non-pragmatists.

‘Cause they’re still beating people up about Nader in 2000.

I just think a lot of the base got taken in by the Right’s OMG MOST LIBRUL SENATOR EVER!!! thing, and are disappointed. I saw candidate Obama…he said on HCR, he would ask ALL parties who had a stake to contribute…he specifically said the drug companies and insurance companies. So, not sure why the Disappointed Left thought he was going to, like, totally dismantle the corporations.

51 palomino  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:06:08pm

re: #47 Sergey Romanov

Does “stupid” imply they didn’t know what they were doing, or is that a more general expression like “it sucks”?

The GOP knows exactly what it’s doing in Congress. They’re far more disciplined than the Dems, who hardly ever get unanimous votes from their caucuses. Hard to explain why, except that the GOP is a more homogeneous group.

52 JeffM70  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:07:35pm

re: #45 Obdicut

Well, I do think that it’s really, really, really stupid that the GOP blocked an up or down vote on extending the tax cuts for everyone but the upper percentile.

Voting to extend those tax cuts would have not meant that they couldn’t then vote to extend the tax cut for the upper percentage too.

And as usual, the Democrats were absolutely terrible at communicating to the public what was going on.

I think that’s the source of frustration right there. Democrats wanted to make the Bush tax cuts permanent for 98% of Americans, but Republicans said no and it gets very little publicity. Dems suck at messaging.

53 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:07:45pm

re: #51 palomino

The GOP knows exactly what it’s doing in Congress. They’re far more disciplined than the Dems, who hardly ever get unanimous votes from their caucuses. Hard to explain why, except that the GOP is a more homogeneous group.

I know that Senate GOP is mostly a bunch of disciplined ***, I just wonder what Obdicut meant.

54 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:09:23pm

re: #44 Gus 802

OK I think we should have two polls. One regarding Assange and another regarding Obama’s tax compromise.

Well… on the tax compromise… it’s not really a yes/no issue for me. The good parts, it continues offering some relief for the middle class and the poorer citizens.

The down side, the rich keep avoiding paying their fair share… it’s the status quo all over again. And I guess that’s good for many of the politicians who are rich, big business, the rich lobbyist, what ever.

55 engineer cat  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:09:33pm

re: #51 palomino

The GOP knows exactly what it’s doing in Congress. They’re far more disciplined than the Dems, who hardly ever get unanimous votes from their caucuses. Hard to explain why, except that the GOP is a more homogeneous group.

“I don’t belong to any organized political party - I’m a Democrat!”

- Will Rogers

56 Gus  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:09:53pm

re: #52 JeffM70

I think that’s the source of frustration right there. Democrats wanted to make the Bush tax cuts permanent for 98% of Americans, but Republicans said no and it gets very little publicity. Dems suck at messaging.

I’m not sure if that percentage is right. A good percentage of Americans don’t pay any taxes no? Plus I’m pretty sure that more than 2 percent of Americans earn 200K and above.

57 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:10:07pm

re: #45 Obdicut

Well, I do think that it’s really, really, really stupid that the GOP blocked an up or down vote on extending the tax cuts for everyone but the upper percentile.

Voting to extend those tax cuts would have not meant that they couldn’t then vote to extend the tax cut for the upper percentage too.

And as usual, the Democrats were absolutely terrible at communicating to the public what was going on.

The thing is, Obama is SO bad at this, that I find it hard to believe he actually gives a shit. It’s practically political malpractice to NOT make the GOP wear this as a hair shirt.

58 comradebillyboy  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:10:42pm

re: #38 Fozzie Bear

Yes, filibuster abuse has made the senate non functional. But I still don’t like the lop-sided deals that Obama is too willing to settle for.

In general the folks here can write off the democratic base in election success, but do recall Bush Jr won 2 elections by catering to his base. The Republicans took back the House by running to their base, with no platform of compromise. I feel that Obama comes off looking weak in all of his engagements with McConnell and Boner (I can’t remember how to spell his name properly).

The appearance of weakness in our leaders is not an electoral asset.

59 palomino  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:10:52pm

re: #50 abbyadams

I hope you’re right about this:

‘Cause they’re still beating people up about Nader in 2000.

I just think a lot of the base got taken in by the Right’s OMG MOST LIBRUL SENATOR EVER!!! thing, and are disappointed. I saw candidate Obama…he said on HCR, he would ask ALL parties who had a stake to contribute…he specifically said the drug companies and insurance companies. So, not sure why the Disappointed Left thought he was going to, like, totally dismantle the corporations.

Good point. It should be emphasized to the party base that these tax extensions are only temporary. The base gets easily upset, but usually returns to the fold once it sees the nature of the opposition. Remember that Obama at one point was expected to have a hard time beating McCain because many of the Hillary supporters were so disappointed? They returned to the fold, as will the Dems of today. The horror show on the right, constantly moving further right, pretty much insures that.

60 researchok  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:11:28pm

re: #48 Gus 802

Yes. And the Democrats shouldn’t have waited until the end of the session to decide on the Bush tax cuts, etc. That would have been the responsibility of Reid and Pelosi. Reid however was very busy this year running for re-election.

And now if they extend it for another 2 years they’re going to have this on their lap during an election year: 2012.

My take: The tax cuts will become ‘permanent’ in the same way the unemployment benefits will become ‘permanent’. To get rid of one program will require the other side to give in on the other program- and that won’t happen. Once an entitlement of any kind is handed out it is very hard to take it back.

Both sides will be able to tell their base they ‘won’.

Of course in the end, the taxpayer will have gotten screwed over. Again.

61 reine.de.tout  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:11:59pm

The job of President of the US must be one of the most thankless jobs on the face of the earth.

Well, probably the leader of any country has a job that’s just as thankless.

At least half the people will be upset with you; another fourth or more won’t care; and if you’re lucky, if you’re really really lucky, a full one-fourth will be happy with you, and everybody under the sun wlll be second-guessing your decisions.

62 palomino  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:12:31pm

re: #55 engineer dog

“I don’t belong to any organized political party - I’m a Democrat!”

- Will Rogers

Will Rogers was the Stephen Colbert/Jon Stewart of his day.

63 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:12:33pm

re: #57 Fozzie Bear

I guess in his bipartisan mind this will prevent the agenda from moving forward because it will make the GOP cry and they will stall. Which may be true for all I know. I don’t _like_ this bipartisanship thingie. At all. But for all I know it may be a lesser evil.

64 researchok  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:13:19pm

re: #56 Gus 802

I’m not sure if that percentage is right. A good percentage of Americans don’t pay any taxes no? Plus I’m pretty sure that more than 2 percent of Americans earn 200K and above.

47% of Americans pay no taxes.

65 Flounder  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:13:24pm

The Democrats and President Obama did get their message out, that is why they lost BIG in the last election. Elections have consequences.

66 Gus  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:13:50pm

It’s a Move On poll and frankly some of the responses are rather silly:

• More than half, 51% of former Obama contributors, say striking such a deal
would make them less likely to contribute to the Obama re‐election campaign
in 2012.

• And 57% of former Obama contributors surveyed said that they would be
less likely to support Democrats in 2012 who support this deal.

Yep, don’t support Obama in 2012 and vote for the Republican candidate by default. Take your toys and go home. Typical.

67 researchok  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:15:46pm

FactCheck:

Roughly one in 50 households will take in more than $250,000 next year.

…For simplicity, we’ll just focus on the over-$250,000 group. Those reporting adjusted gross income of more than $250,000 to the IRS are projected to make up 2 percent of households next year, when the new president will take office. Those folks will earn 24.1 percent of all income, and pay 43.6 percent of all personal federal income taxes, the Tax Policy Center figures. Under either Obama or Clinton, they might pay even more.

68 engineer cat  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:16:50pm

re: #66 Gus 802

It’s a Move On poll and frankly some of the responses are rather silly:

Yep, don’t support Obama in 2012 and vote for the Republican candidate by default. Take your toys and go home. Typical.

everything will look very different by two years from now. it always does

69 palomino  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:16:53pm

re: #56 Gus 802

I’m not sure if that percentage is right. A good percentage of Americans don’t pay any taxes no? Plus I’m pretty sure that more than 2 percent of Americans earn 200K and above.

Only about 2-3% of American households make 250k+ (or 200k if individual). It’s hard to believe sometimes if you live in an upper class suburb in a big city, but it’s true.

And most of those who are just a little above 250k would feel little impact from a tax increase of 36% to 39%. The first 250k are taxed at the lower rate. So a family making 300k only pays the higher rate on 50k of the total 300k.

70 Gus  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:17:09pm

re: #67 researchok

FactCheck:

OK, so that’s roughly 2 percent.

Now, I’m having a hard time equating people that make 250K a year with those making, say, 5 million a year. It’s not the same.

71 JeffM70  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:17:15pm

re: #56 Gus 802

I’m not sure if that percentage is right. A good percentage of Americans don’t pay any taxes no? Plus I’m pretty sure that more than 2 percent of Americans earn 200K and above.

According to FactCheck.org in 2009 1 out of 50 households were expected to earn more than $200,000. So that’s 2%.

72 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:18:00pm

A voice of reason…

Obama-GOP Tax Deal ‘an Absolute Disaster,’ Says Bernie Sanders, as Filibuster Talk Stirs

Dismissing President Obama’s embrace of Republican demands for tax breaks for billionaires and a massive estate-tax exemption for millionaires as “an absolute disaster and an insult to the vast majority of the American people,” Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders has promised to “do whatever I can to see that 60 votes are not acquired to pass this piece of legislation.”

[Link: www.thenation.com…]

73 JeffM70  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:18:10pm

I meant $250,000, not $200,000.

74 engineer cat  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:18:48pm

re: #65 Shropshire_Slasher

The Democrats and President Obama did get their message out, that is why they lost BIG in the last election. Elections have consequences.

i have a sneaking feeling that if you told me what the ‘message’ was, it would look very different from what i think the message of the democratic party is

(and please don’t use the word ‘socialist’ without providing a definition first)

75 Gus  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:19:19pm

re: #72 Walter L. Newton

A voice of reason…

Obama-GOP Tax Deal ‘an Absolute Disaster,’ Says Bernie Sanders, as Filibuster Talk Stirs

Dismissing President Obama’s embrace of Republican demands for tax breaks for billionaires and a massive estate-tax exemption for millionaires as “an absolute disaster and an insult to the vast majority of the American people,” Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders has promised to “do whatever I can to see that 60 votes are not acquired to pass this piece of legislation.”

[Link: www.thenation.com…]

Ah, OK. So Bernie Sanders want American’s tax rates to go up during a recession out of spite. Good thinking.

76 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:20:33pm

re: #63 Sergey Romanov

To illustrate the point - I didn’t like at all when Obama didn’t do anything about Lieberman after his shameful (as far as I’m concerned) behavior during the campaign, and the left was all like WTF, why does he still have the chairmanship and all the perks. And behold, just some time later Lieberman’s vote was critical to pass the HCR. So give Obama benefit of doubt by default. Let’s see what happens.

77 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:21:18pm

re: #76 Sergey Romanov

So I give Obama benefit of doubt by default. Let’s see what happens.

PIMF.

78 researchok  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:21:34pm

re: #70 Gus 802

OK, so that’s roughly 2 percent.

Now, I’m having a hard time equating people that make 250K a year with those making, say, 5 million a year. It’s not the same.

I do not disagree.

The fact remains the numbers are in reality, fungible, in the sense that 250k in NY/NJ/CT is not the same as 250k in Idaho or ND.

I read that if the tax cuts were limited to those making 1M and above, about 80% of the desired tax revenue would be realized.

I just wanted to make the point that a relatively few earners would be assuming a large burden- and that is before adding the costs of longer unemployment benefits.

79 palomino  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:21:41pm

re: #61 reine.de.tout

The job of President of the US must be one of the most thankless jobs on the face of the earth.

Well, probably the leader of any country has a job that’s just as thankless.

At least half the people will be upset with you; another fourth or more won’t care; and if you’re lucky, if you’re really really lucky, a full one-fourth will be happy with you, and everybody under the sun wlll be second-guessing your decisions.

Yes, in this polarized atmosphere no matter what Obama (or any president) does one-third of the country hates him. This is why the predictions of Obama as another FDR were an unrealistic fantasy. There’s probably no one in either party now who could govern like FDR. It’s 80 years later, and we’re just so much bigger and more fractured as a nation for that to repeat itself.

And much of Obama’s base is also likely to (temporarily) scream bloody murder when he compromises with what they see as the devil.

80 Gus  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:22:09pm

re: #72 Walter L. Newton

A voice of reason…

Oops. Forgot to ask. You’re being sarcastic right?

Let not forget that Bernie Sanders is one of those “audit the Fed” loons.

81 Gus  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:22:46pm

re: #78 researchok

I do not disagree.

The fact remains the numbers are in reality, fungible, in the sense that 250k in NY/NJ/CT is not the same as 250k in Idaho or ND.

I read that if the tax cuts were limited to those making 1M and above, about 80% of the desired tax revenue would be realized.

I just wanted to make the point that a relatively few earners would be assuming a large burden- and that is before adding the costs of longer unemployment benefits.

Or estate taxes that the government rightfully earns.

//

82 JeffM70  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:23:11pm

re: #65 Shropshire_Slasher

The Democrats and President Obama did get their message out, that is why they lost BIG in the last election. Elections have consequences.

Too simplistic. Republicans were more unpopular than Democrats going into the election. Democrats simply didn’t get the job done and got punished. That’s what happened to Republicans in 2006 and 2008. Voters didn’t vote for Republicans so much as they voted against Democrats.

83 palomino  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:23:27pm

re: #65 Shropshire_Slasher

The Democrats and President Obama did get their message out, that is why they lost BIG in the last election. Elections have consequences.

And the consequence of this election will be the most fervently ideological, farthest right Congress we’ve ever had.

The cooperation we just saw is likely to be rare given these circumstances.

84 researchok  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:23:44pm

re: #72 Walter L. Newton

A voice of reason…

Obama-GOP Tax Deal ‘an Absolute Disaster,’ Says Bernie Sanders, as Filibuster Talk Stirs

Dismissing President Obama’s embrace of Republican demands for tax breaks for billionaires and a massive estate-tax exemption for millionaires as “an absolute disaster and an insult to the vast majority of the American people,” Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders has promised to “do whatever I can to see that 60 votes are not acquired to pass this piece of legislation.”

[Link: www.thenation.com…]

Yeah, beloved Bernie Sanders.

The guy who makes Howard Dean look rational.

85 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:24:21pm

re: #83 palomino

And the consequence of this election will be the most fervently ideological, farthest right Congress we’ve ever had.

The cooperation we just saw is likely to be rare given these circumstances.

I have to agree… because the ideology of the left just fell apart.

86 Flounder  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:24:40pm

re: #74 engineer dog

Its either that or the Tea Party got their message out, which is it?

87 palomino  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:25:05pm

re: #66 Gus 802

It’s a Move On poll and frankly some of the responses are rather silly:

Yep, don’t support Obama in 2012 and vote for the Republican candidate by default. Take your toys and go home. Typical.

Now THAT’S political suicide. As opposed to striking a deal with the opposition party, which is an essential part of democracy (especially when you don’t have 60 votes).

88 JeffM70  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:25:55pm

re: #70 Gus 802

OK, so that’s roughly 2 percent.

Now, I’m having a hard time equating people that make 250K a year with those making, say, 5 million a year. It’s not the same.

They aren’t. Also don’t forget Democrats offered to raise the ceiling from $250,000/year to incomes of $1 million/year and Republicans still said no.

89 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:26:03pm

re: #69 palomino

Only about 2-3% of American households make 250k+ (or 200k if individual). It’s hard to believe sometimes if you live in an upper class suburb in a big city, but it’s true.

And most of those who are just a little above 250k would feel little impact from a tax increase of 36% to 39%. The first 250k are taxed at the lower rate. So a family making 300k only pays the higher rate on 50k of the total 300k.

This is really, really, really important to understand. The tax cuts on the lower brackets were a tax cut for everyone, including the rich. Income is what’s taxed.

Say the bracket is at $250,000. If someone made $300,000, and we let the taxes increase to 37% from 35%, that person would pay $1,000 more in tax.

If they made $260,000, they’d pay $200 more in tax.

90 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:26:45pm

U.S. to Host World Press Freedom Day in 2011

The United States is pleased to announce that it will host UNESCO’s World Press Freedom Day event in 2011, from May 1 - May 3 in Washington, D.C. UNESCO is the only UN agency with the mandate to promote freedom of expression and its corollary, freedom of the press.

[Link: www.state.gov…]

I wonder if Jullian is invited?

91 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:27:10pm

re: #78 researchok

I do not disagree.

The fact remains the numbers are in reality, fungible, in the sense that 250k in NY/NJ/CT is not the same as 250k in Idaho or ND.

Part of the reason for that is that more people want to live in NY than in Idaho, and that’s why the price is higher. You’re paying for something; you’re paying for being in New York.

92 palomino  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:27:48pm

re: #72 Walter L. Newton

A voice of reason…

Obama-GOP Tax Deal ‘an Absolute Disaster,’ Says Bernie Sanders, as Filibuster Talk Stirs

Dismissing President Obama’s embrace of Republican demands for tax breaks for billionaires and a massive estate-tax exemption for millionaires as “an absolute disaster and an insult to the vast majority of the American people,” Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders has promised to “do whatever I can to see that 60 votes are not acquired to pass this piece of legislation.”

[Link: www.thenation.com…]

Consider the source. Sanders is the only avowed socialist in the US Congress. There’s a reason why he’s not a Dem; he thinks they’re too far to the right.

93 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:29:03pm

re: #92 palomino

Consider the source. Sanders is the only avowed socialist in the US Congress. There’s a reason why he’s not a Dem; he thinks they’re too far to the right.

And Conyers…

House Judiciary Committee chairman John Conyers, D-Michigan, said that “this is a fight for the heart and soul of the Democratic Party and the Nation. I can tell you with certainty that legislative blackmail of this kind by the Republicans will be vehemently opposed by many if not most Democrats, progressives, and some Republicans who are concerned with the country’s financial budget. I for one will do everything in my power to make certain that legislation along these lines does not pass during the lame duck session.”

94 Gus  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:29:28pm

re: #88 JeffM70

They aren’t. Also don’t forget Democrats offered to raise the ceiling from $250,000/year to incomes of $1 million/year and Republicans still said no.

I know. Well, that’s not going to happen so the compromise is better than having the tax cuts expire for the middle class IMO. And unemployment will be extended alongside a bunch of other things for working families.

Downside? It’s going to add roughly another 1 trillion to the debt. Last night I read close to 800 billion. The means starting next year there has to spending cuts once and for all. We can’t keep spending like drunken sailors on leave.

95 engineer cat  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:30:00pm

re: #86 Shropshire_Slasher

Its either that or the Tea Party got their message out, which is it?

false dichotomy in spades

listen, the republican party got its ass kicked but good in 2006 and 2008, so what did that mean?

since we are still in the pit of the biggest recession since the great depression, and the president’s party almost always looses seats in the midterms, there are a lot of powerful factors besides “messages”

you have heard, haven’t you, that voters are generally less than pleased when the economy is fucked up?

anyway, my question was also meant to perhaps get you to tell us what you thought the “democratic message” was…

96 palomino  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:30:42pm

re: #80 Gus 802

Oops. Forgot to ask. You’re being sarcastic right?

Let not forget that Bernie Sanders is one of those “audit the Fed” loons.

It’s where the far left and far right converge. Ron Paul and Sanders don’t often agree, but their mutual hatred of govt leads to occasional agreement.

97 Gus  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:30:59pm

re: #92 palomino

Consider the source. Sanders is the only avowed socialist in the US Congress. There’s a reason why he’s not a Dem; he thinks they’re too far to the right.

I doubt he’ll get much traction. He’s like the left wing Ron Paul.

98 researchok  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:31:22pm

re: #91 Obdicut

Part of the reason for that is that more people want to live in NY than in Idaho, and that’s why the price is higher. You’re paying for something; you’re paying for being in New York.

True- but the numbers still matter.

If you live in ID, the almost additional $7,000 the Baucus unemployment extention will cost 250k taxpayers there is far less onerous than the burden will be on 250k NY/NJ/CT taxpayers.

99 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:31:43pm

re: #97 Gus 802

I doubt he’ll get much traction. He’s like the left wing Ron Paul.

Vermont Congressman Peter Welch called the plan “fiscally irresponsible” and “grossly unfair.”

Welch is circulating a letter to House speaker Nancy Pelosi—which quickly attracted signatures from by a number of his fellow House Democrats—that declares: “We oppose acceding to Republican demands to extend the Bush tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires for two reasons:

100 Gus  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:32:58pm

re: #99 Walter L. Newton

Vermont Congressman Peter Welch called the plan “fiscally irresponsible” and “grossly unfair.”

Welch is circulating a letter to House speaker Nancy Pelosi—which quickly attracted signatures from by a number of his fellow House Democrats—that declares: “We oppose acceding to Republican demands to extend the Bush tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires for two reasons:

Oh. I see. So now they’re fiscally responsible?

101 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:33:07pm

re: #81 Gus 802

Or estate taxes that the government rightfully earns.

//

This is the thing. The government can’t rightfully earn anything. They have no way of simply going out and making money. It’d be really unfair if they did. The way the government gains money is through taxation— fees play a very small role and, as the threads on the firefighters-for-a-fee showed, should have a very limited role.

So when you compare a hardworking schlub to the government, the government of course looks like some sort of thief. Even when you compare the dissolute son of that worker to the government, the government doesn’t really look any better.

That’s because the government isn’t a human being, and can’t prove itself through sweat and work. However, the government is a collection of human beings, and many of those human beings really do put in hard days work, day in and day out, providing us with what we need in order to keep our society going.

I swear, we need a “Dirty Jobs” for the government.

Estate taxes, to me, are a no-brainer of a good idea. They prevent the kind of wealth stratification and aristocracy that our founding fathers were so concerned about, they aren’t a tax on someone’s hard-earned wealth but on wealth that the recipient did not actually earn.

I am likely to be hit by a gigantic estate tax since my family owns a nice big house in San Francisco. I hope to make enough money to be able to pay the taxes, whatever they are, on that. But if we have to sell the house to pay the taxes— I’m still going to be a millionaire afterwards. So it’s hard to cry to hard about the cruel, cruel blow that fate has delivered to me. Especially when I know so many people who have nothing, and get by on nothing.

I really like the estate tax. It’s bootstrappy as fuck.

102 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:33:43pm

This bill really is fiscally irresponsible. Call Sanders a loon all you want, that doesn’t make the tax cuts paid for. It was an unfunded tax cut then, and it still is, and somehow that’s being lost in the conversation.

103 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:34:06pm

re: #100 Gus 802

Oh. I see. So now they’re fiscally responsible?

I don’t know… I’m just the messenger. (Graduate - Assange School of Scoundrels and Journalist)

104 Gus  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:34:13pm

No wonder I stopped registering as a Democrat years ago.

105 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:34:13pm

re: #98 researchok

True- but the numbers still matter.

If you live in ID, the almost additional $7,000 the Baucus unemployment extention will cost 250k taxpayers there is far less onerous than the burden will be on 250k NY/NJ/CT taxpayers.

I’m not sure what you’re talking about. The additional burden on someone making $250,000 would be zero.

106 palomino  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:34:19pm

re: #85 Walter L. Newton

I have to agree… because the ideology of the left just fell apart.

It’s never been a strong enough or consistent enough ideology within the party to get things done. The GOP just has more discipline, maybe because it’s a smaller, less diverse tent.

Even the big Dem triumphs of the 60’s required some gop support (back when the party had a fair number of liberals and moderates) because the Dems had a sizeable blue dog contingent back then just like today.

107 researchok  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:35:16pm

re: #105 Obdicut

I’m not sure what you’re talking about. The additional burden on someone making $250,000 would be zero.

I don’t know about that- someone has to pay for the additional 13 months of unemployment and related benefits.

108 Amory Blaine  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:35:35pm

Republicans aren’t interested in fiscal discipline and neither are the rest of Americans.

109 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:36:34pm

re: #107 researchok

I don’t know about that- someone has to pay for the additional 13 months of unemployment and related benefits.

I have no idea what you’re talking about now.

We’re not paying for that, in the current plan. The people making $250,000 and above are getting the tax cut extended. We’re spending into a larger deficit. That’s the whole point.

But if we did, in fact, raise taxes on people making above $250,000— then the additional burden on someone making $250,000 would be zero.

110 palomino  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:38:19pm

re: #93 Walter L. Newton

And Conyers…

House Judiciary Committee chairman John Conyers, D-Michigan, said that “this is a fight for the heart and soul of the Democratic Party and the Nation. I can tell you with certainty that legislative blackmail of this kind by the Republicans will be vehemently opposed by many if not most Democrats, progressives, and some Republicans who are concerned with the country’s financial budget. I for one will do everything in my power to make certain that legislation along these lines does not pass during the lame duck session.”

Conyers is like Sanders and Kucinich—far to the left. Once they’re done preening for the cameras and venting, things will get back to normal. The party won’t fall apart because top rates stayed at 36% instead of rising “all the way” to 39%. Something else invariably comes along to outrage the base of either party and bring them back into the fold.

111 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:39:47pm

re: #110 palomino

I wish the Democrats would show as much fire and determination going after the Republicans as they show going after Obama.

112 JeffM70  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:39:54pm

re: #94 Gus 802

I know. Well, that’s not going to happen so the compromise is better than having the tax cuts expire for the middle class IMO. And unemployment will be extended alongside a bunch of other things for working families.

Downside? It’s going to add roughly another 1 trillion to the debt. Last night I read close to 800 billion. The means starting next year there has to spending cuts once and for all. We can’t keep spending like drunken sailors on leave.

It will add roughly $800 billion from what I’ve read, too. So the absurdity is extending the tax cuts to those making under $250,000 will cost $3.2 trillion and we can afford that, but we can’t afford the extra $800 billion by extending all of them. It’s a case of if I like it we can afford it, but if I don’t like it we can’t.

113 researchok  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:40:16pm

re: #109 Obdicut

I have no idea what you’re talking about now.

We’re not paying for that, in the current plan. The people making $250,000 and above are getting the tax cut extended. We’re spending into a larger deficit. That’s the whole point.

But if we did, in fact, raise taxes on people making above $250,000— then the additional burden on someone making $250,000 would be zero.

Of course we’re paying for it.

The CBO estimates the cost to be $56,485,000,000. The how and when are not germane because one way or the other, we will be paying for it.

114 engineer cat  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:40:40pm

re: #107 researchok

I don’t know about that- someone has to pay for the additional 13 months of unemployment and related benefits.

in the end, the percentage of the budget in deficit is borrowed and never paid back

the interest on the debt is usually about 6% of the federal budget. the debt itself accumulates and has never been paid off

115 palomino  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:40:50pm

re: #94 Gus 802

I know. Well, that’s not going to happen so the compromise is better than having the tax cuts expire for the middle class IMO. And unemployment will be extended alongside a bunch of other things for working families.

Downside? It’s going to add roughly another 1 trillion to the debt. Last night I read close to 800 billion. The means starting next year there has to spending cuts once and for all. We can’t keep spending like drunken sailors on leave.

But what to cut, if military, social security and medicare are off the table? That leaves only about 30% of the budget left for cutting, and much of that provides essential things like interstate hiways and food and industrial safety. For better or worse, tax hikes are likely to play a role in any serious deficit reduction effort.

116 researchok  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:42:11pm

re: #114 engineer dog

in the end, the percentage of the budget in deficit is borrowed and never paid back

the interest on the debt is usually about 6% of the federal budget. the debt itself accumulates and has never been paid off

And therein lies the rub.

The deficit keeps expanding and we keep spending.

At some point, we’ll have to pay the piper.

117 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:42:14pm

re: #113 researchok

You’re intentionally missing my point.

We’re not paying for it. We’re going into debt for it. Saying that there’s a burden on those making above $250,000 because of the additional months of unemployment insurance (which I always first write as uninsurance employment) is not true. If this plan is adopted, they are not going to have any more of a burden than they do right now.

The burden is being passed on down the line. Maybe it will be people making above $250,000 paying it, in the future. Maybe not. We have no idea, because once again, we’re giving people tax cuts when we can’t afford to give people tax cuts.

118 engineer cat  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:43:26pm

re: #116 researchok

And therein lies the rub.

The deficit keeps expanding and we keep spending.

At some point, we’ll have to pay the piper.

i wonder about that myself, but it never seems to happen

for one thing, who would provide the strongarm to make us pay?

119 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:45:21pm

It’s kind of like the Democrats are still stuck in the old mode of politics, when the ‘enemy’ wasn’t the other party, it was the other branch and the other chamber of congress.


When someone referred to the House Republicans as “the enemy,” Tip O’Neill said “The House Republicans are not the enemy, they’re the opposition. The Senate is the enemy.”

120 Amory Blaine  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:45:26pm

Maybe Obama could tell us all to go out shopping..

121 blueraven  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:46:06pm

re: #76 Sergey Romanov

To illustrate the point - I didn’t like at all when Obama didn’t do anything about Lieberman after his shameful (as far as I’m concerned) behavior during the campaign, and the left was all like WTF, why does he still have the chairmanship and all the perks. And behold, just some time later Lieberman’s vote was critical to pass the HCR. So give Obama benefit of doubt by default. Let’s see what happens.

Lieberman is also the main one pushing for a vote on DADT. Vote or dont break for Christmas!

122 recusancy  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:48:02pm

re: #6 Walter L. Newton

They still have control of both houses. They didn’t have to compromise anything here. Or am I missing something?

You are missing something. Obama’s plan lost in the senate with a 53-37 vote. 53 voted for. There’s something wrong with that.

123 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:52:06pm

If Obama doesn’t start actually digging in his heels on issues important to the left, he will lose in 2012. The left is perfectly capable of shooting itself in the face over this, and if they do, we all pay.

124 blueraven  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:52:39pm

re: #122 recusancy

You are missing something. Obama’s plan lost in the senate with a 53-37 vote. 53 voted for. There’s something wrong with that.

And five of the no votes were from Democrats. Ten senators didn’t bother to vote at all.

125 Amory Blaine  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:53:05pm

re: #123 Fozzie Bear

If Obama doesn’t start actually digging in his heels on issues important to the left, he will lose in 2012. The left is perfectly capable of shooting itself in the face over this, and if they do, we all pay.

Maybe it was too early for democratic victories.

126 researchok  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:53:54pm

re: #117 Obdicut

You’re intentionally missing my point.

If I am missing your point, forgive me. Allow me the following.

We’re not paying for it. We’re going into debt for it. Saying that there’s a burden on those making above $250,000 because of the additional months of unemployment insurance (which I always first write as uninsurance employment) is not true. If this plan is adopted, they are not going to have any more of a burden than they do right now.

The burden is being passed on down the line. Maybe it will be people making above $250,000 paying it, in the future. Maybe not. We have no idea, because once again, we’re giving people tax cuts when we can’t afford to give people tax cuts.

My point is as follows: While we may not be paying for it outright, it is still a part of our national debt.

You’ve seen the debt clocks, I’m sure. While they represent each individuals burden, they do not represent who will carry and pay for that burden. As it stands, 48% of all Americans do not pay taxes at all. Thus, 52% will have to assume the entire national debt burden.

People making over 250k per year- 2% of income earners- earn 24% of all income. They pay 43.6 of all federal income taxes.

Those earning less than 250k- represent 28% of all citizens. That group- 98% of all taxpayers- forks over the other 56% of the taxes paid.

127 Amory Blaine  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:54:54pm

I reject the lie that 48% the country pays no taxes at all.

128 jamesfirecat  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:55:31pm

re: #106 palomino

It’s never been a strong enough or consistent enough ideology within the party to get things done. The GOP just has more discipline, maybe because it’s a smaller, less diverse tent.

Even the big Dem triumphs of the 60’s required some gop support (back when the party had a fair number of liberals and moderates) because the Dems had a sizeable blue dog contingent back then just like today.

I’m not a member of an organized political party, I’m a democrat!

129 engineer cat  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:55:36pm

re: #123 Fozzie Bear

If Obama doesn’t start actually digging in his heels on issues important to the left, he will lose in 2012. The left is perfectly capable of shooting itself in the face over this, and if they do, we all pay.

unemployment is predicted to be still in the 8% range by the summer of 2012

the question will be, i think, who will the voters be most angry with about this?

130 jamesfirecat  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:56:30pm

re: #126 researchok

My point is as follows: While we may not be paying for it outright, it is still a part of our national debt.

You’ve seen the debt clocks, I’m sure. While they represent each individuals burden, they do not represent who will carry and pay for that burden. As it stands, 48% of all Americans do not pay taxes at all. Thus, 52% will have to assume the entire national debt burden.

People making over 250k per year- 2% of income earners- earn 24% of all income. They pay 43.6 of all federal income taxes.

Those earning less than 250k- represent 28% of all citizens. That group- 98% of all taxpayers- forks over the other 56% of the taxes paid.

“48% of all Americans do not pay taxes at all. Thus, 52% will have to assume the entire national debt burden.”

Do not pay income taxes you mean, correct?

Or have my neighbors figured out a way to get around sales tax and nobody has told me?

131 Vicious Babushka  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:57:17pm

re: #127 Amory Blaine

I reject the lie that 48% the country pays no taxes at all.

When did Walmart stop charging sales tax?

132 researchok  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:57:39pm

re: #130 jamesfirecat

“48% of all Americans do not pay taxes at all. Thus, 52% will have to assume the entire national debt burden.”

Do not pay income taxes you mean, correct?

Or have my neighbors figured out a way to get around sales tax and nobody has told me?

Yes, i was referring to federal income tax.

Thank you for allowing me to clarify.

133 engineer cat  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:58:06pm

48% of all Americans do not pay taxes at all

everybody pays sales taxes, and everybody who works pays payroll taxes

134 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:58:20pm

re: #126 researchok

My point is as follows: While we may not be paying for it outright, it is still a part of our national debt.

Yes. That is also my point. We’re not paying for it. That’s why it’s part of our debt.

48% of all Americans do not pay taxes at all.

This is dead wrong and you should really, really, really, really stop saying it.

It is a terrible and unfair meme.


People making over 250k per year- 2% of income earners- earn 24% of all income. They pay 43.6 of all federal income taxes.

Yes. 2% of people make a quarter of all the income in the US. It’s kind of insane.

I’m really unsure why people focus on how much they pay in taxes, instead of being staggered that 2% of people make 1/4th of all the income in the US, and realizing that that is a terribly dangerous thing for the nation and the economy.

No, I’m not saying we need to grab that wealth and redistribute it and run around screaming.

But a society with an increasing wealth disparity is not a stable society. And that’s what we are.

135 jamesfirecat  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:58:21pm

re: #132 researchok

Yes, i was referring to federal income tax.

Thank you for allowing me to clarify.

Its sort of a big point… do we have any statistics on how much of the governments revenue comes from federal income tax?

136 researchok  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:58:38pm

re: #127 Amory Blaine

I reject the lie that 48% the country pays no taxes at all.

I was not clear. I was referring to federal income taxes.

Sorry for the confusion.

137 JEA62  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:58:38pm

It doesn’t matter what Obama does or doesn’t do - he will remain the devil incarnate to the right.

138 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:59:15pm

re: #135 jamesfirecat

Its sort of a big point… do we have any statistics on how much of the governments revenue comes from federal income tax?

The lion’s share of it does. It is the most important source of income for the government.

However, there is a big difference between ‘some’ and ‘none’.

139 lawhawk  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 12:59:16pm

re: #127 Amory Blaine

I reject the lie that 48% the country pays no taxes at all.

They are paying no federal income tax. They are still going to pay fuel taxes, state taxes (if not linked to the federal income tax), sales and use taxes, property taxes, and other misc taxes (cigarette/tobacco, liquor/alcoholic beverages, etc.), as applicable.

140 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 1:00:13pm

re: #139 lawhawk

And payroll tax and social security tax, which are both taxes on income.

141 Amory Blaine  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 1:00:13pm

When a tax lawyer goes to college, is he unaware that the inflated income he will be receiving will require paying of federal income tax? Yes? Too fucking bad. Work at a car wash then.

142 jamesfirecat  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 1:00:19pm

re: #137 JEA62

It doesn’t matter what Obama does or doesn’t do - he will remain the devil incarnate to the right.

And not always in the metaphorically sense either….

143 researchok  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 1:00:43pm

re: #134 Obdicut

Yes. That is also my point. We’re not paying for it. That’s why it’s part of our debt.

This is dead wrong and you should really, really, really, really stop saying it.

It is a terrible and unfair meme.

Yes. 2% of people make a quarter of all the income in the US. It’s kind of insane.

I’m really unsure why people focus on how much they pay in taxes, instead of being staggered that 2% of people make 1/4th of all the income in the US, and realizing that that is a terribly dangerous thing for the nation and the economy.

No, I’m not saying we need to grab that wealth and redistribute it and run around screaming.

But a society with an increasing wealth disparity is not a stable society. And that’s what we are.

Yes, on that last part I am in agreement.

I also believe the estate taxes you referred to earlier are no more than a PR exercise.

Most people of means circumvent those taxes rather easily by way of early gifting, family trusts, estate trusts, etc.

144 jamesfirecat  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 1:00:53pm

re: #141 Amory Blaine

When a tax lawyer goes to college, is he unaware that the inflated income he will be receiving will require paying of federal income tax? Yes? Too fucking bad. Work at a car wash then.

You never know who might meet….

145 opal  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 1:01:03pm

Heh…Obama said that tax cuts for the rich is the Republicans’ (in Congress) “Holy Grail”. I think he might be right.

146 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 1:01:59pm

re: #143 researchok

Most people of means circumvent those taxes rather easily by way of early gifting, family trusts, estate trusts, etc.

It is entirely true that we also need to simplify our tax code to take out many of the current tax shelters that only benefit the ultrawealthy.

That doesn’t mean my basic point— that the estate tax works very well with a bootstrappy form of capitalism— isn’t true.

147 researchok  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 1:02:07pm

re: #135 jamesfirecat

Its sort of a big point… do we have any statistics on how much of the governments revenue comes from federal income tax?

Good question- I’ll have to look that up.

That said, isn’t virtually all the government’s revenue from taxes?

148 jamesfirecat  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 1:02:38pm

re: #143 researchok

Yes, on that last part I am in agreement.

I also believe the estate taxes you referred to earlier are no more than a PR exercise.

Most people of means circumvent those taxes rather easily by way of early gifting, family trusts, estate trusts, etc.

Then maybe we should do something to close off those loop holes? Since to me nothing seems more fair than taxing money that the son/daughter is about to inherit without having done any work for it.

I’d even be willing to make it so that estates are only taxed the second time they’re handed down, you can give as much as you want to your kids, but there’s a tax when they try to give it to their kids…

149 lawhawk  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 1:02:39pm

re: #135 jamesfirecat

[Link: www.usgovernmentrevenue.com…] provides a decent overview.

150 albusteve  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 1:02:50pm

re: #91 Obdicut

Part of the reason for that is that more people want to live in NY than in Idaho, and that’s why the price is higher. You’re paying for something; you’re paying for being in New York.

link?….sounds a bit over the top

151 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 1:03:39pm

re: #150 albusteve

link?…sounds a bit over the top

Link to what, Steve?

152 jamesfirecat  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 1:03:53pm

re: #147 researchok

Good question- I’ll have to look that up.

That said, isn’t virtually all the government’s revenue from taxes?

Yes, but everyone living hear including illegal immigrants pay sales taxes and what not, so if only 48% pay taxes that make up only 10% of the fed’s total payroll, it’s not as big a deal as if they pay something that makes up 98 %…

153 Vicious Babushka  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 1:04:03pm

re: #91 Obdicut

Part of the reason for that is that more people want to live in NY than in Idaho, and that’s why the price is higher. You’re paying for something; you’re paying for being in New York.

You couldn’t pay me enough to live in New York.

154 HappyWarrior  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 1:04:30pm

Don’t know how to feel about it having not read much yet. I do hope Obama realizes that for a good chunk of the country, there is nothing he can do to satisfy them. And I expect the Republicans to still act like Obama is this rabid partisan Marxist even with this deal.

155 researchok  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 1:05:00pm

re: #146 Obdicut

It is entirely true that we also need to simplify our tax code to take out many of the current tax shelters that only benefit the ultrawealthy.

That doesn’t mean my basic point— that the estate tax works very well with a bootstrappy form of capitalism— isn’t true.

No argument there.

What is interesting though is that nowadays, even middle class earners are availing themselves of these tax loopholes.

Unless and until we get to a flat tax situation without exceptions, these loopholes will flourish.

156 recusancy  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 1:05:42pm

re: #155 researchok

Flat tax = good buy middle class.

157 jamesfirecat  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 1:05:48pm

re: #138 Obdicut

The lion’s share of it does. It is the most important source of income for the government.

However, there is a big difference between ‘some’ and ‘none’.

Actually if this is correct

[Link: www.usgovernmentrevenue.com…]

You may be wrong. I’d hardly call 31% “The lion’s share”

158 Amory Blaine  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 1:06:07pm

Is the corporate personhood relevant to the flat tax?

159 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 1:06:10pm

re: #153 Alouette

Heh. And I would hate to live in Denver or Boston, both also pricey cities. But the market determines the price.

Hell, I’m in a weird situation since I’m living in the Upper East Side when I’d really rather not, but we have to so my wife has easy access to school and labs. So I’m paying one of the highest possible rents in the country to be somewhere I don’t really want to be. But the reason I’m paying that is because of all the other people that want to live here.

160 engineer cat  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 1:06:11pm

re: #135 jamesfirecat

Its sort of a big point… do we have any statistics on how much of the governments revenue comes from federal income tax?

43% in 2009

[Link: en.wikipedia.org…]

161 researchok  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 1:06:12pm

re: #152 jamesfirecat

Yes, but everyone living hear including illegal immigrants pay sales taxes and what not, so if only 48% pay taxes that make up only 10% of the fed’s total payroll, it’s not as big a deal as if they pay something that makes up 98 %…

Sales tax is local- state, county, municipal. Right?

162 jamesfirecat  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 1:06:18pm

re: #155 researchok

No argument there.

What is interesting though is that nowadays, even middle class earners are availing themselves of these tax loopholes.

Unless and until we get to a flat tax situation without exceptions, these loopholes will flourish.

Or we could you know, just plug the loop holes rather than imposing a regressive flat tax system….

163 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 1:07:05pm

re: #155 researchok

Unless and until we get to a flat tax situation without exceptions, these loopholes will flourish.

No, that’s not true. It doesn’t have to be a flat tax. A progressive tax doesn’t naturally allow for loopholes. The reason we have loopholes is because we have loopholes.

164 researchok  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 1:07:12pm

re: #158 Amory Blaine

Is the corporate personhood relevant to the flat tax?

Sure- why wouldn’t it be?

What the entity earns and ‘consumes’ would be what they pay taxes on.

165 Vicious Babushka  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 1:07:58pm

re: #163 Obdicut

No, that’s not true. It doesn’t have to be a flat tax. A progressive tax doesn’t naturally allow for loopholes. The reason we have loopholes is because we have people will always find loopholes.

166 jamesfirecat  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 1:08:03pm

re: #160 engineer dog

43% in 2009

[Link: en.wikipedia.org…]

Great, now we need to go find a chicken so we can gut it and read its entrails to figure out exactly what that number means in the bigger scope of things as it applies to our current discussion.

(Not sarcastic just admitting that 43% is a number that can be use by either side to boost their argument, its not all that small but its not the majority either…)

167 lawhawk  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 1:08:06pm

re: #157 jamesfirecat

That site lumps together federal and state tax revenue sources and therefore distorts the percentages that come from income tax and from other sources - the federal govt doesn’t impose real property taxes (ad valorem tax), but the states do.

168 okonkolo  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 1:08:09pm

If this gets him to a DADT vote and a START vote, the calculus will look different in the rearview mirror. I don’t like the deal, but i find the arguments persuasive that even if the rates need to up that now is not the time. Given the fragility of the Democratic senate and how DADT and START are hanging by a thread, a deal makes sense. If he gets both DADT or START through (very uncertain at this point), it will be amazing; if he gets one through that will be good. I hope he extracted an agreement to hold votes on those issues; i think he senses that it is now or never (at least the foreseeable future) on both of those issues. Given that the senate wouldn’t pass the house plan, I understand the President’s logic.

169 recusancy  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 1:08:16pm

re: #164 researchok

Sure- why wouldn’t it be?

What the entity earns and ‘consumes’ would be what they pay taxes on.

As soon as you define ‘consume’ and ‘earn’ you get loopholes. There will always be loopholes.

170 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 1:08:23pm

re: #157 jamesfirecat

The lion’s share just means “of all these portions, this is the largest”.

171 jamesfirecat  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 1:08:54pm

re: #167 lawhawk

That site lumps together federal and state tax revenue sources and therefore distorts the percentages that come from income tax and from other sources - the federal govt doesn’t impose real property taxes (ad valorem tax), but the states do.

I heard 43% from another site, is that closer to the correct number?

172 HappyWarrior  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 1:09:59pm

re: #168 okonkolo

If this gets him to a DADT vote and a START vote, the calculus will look different in the rearview mirror. I don’t like the deal, but i find the arguments persuasive that even if the rates need to up that now is not the time. Given the fragility of the Democratic senate and how DADT and START are hanging by a thread, a deal makes sense. If he gets both DADT or START through (very uncertain at this point), it will be amazing; if he gets one through that will be good. I hope he extracted an agreement to hold votes on those issues; i think he senses that it is now or never (at least the foreseeable future) on both of those issues. Given that the senate wouldn’t pass the house plan, I understand the President’s logic.

Hmmm that’s a good point. If he can get either START ratified or DADT repealed, it will be huge. Hopefully he can get them to budge on both. Being overly idealistic there but those would be great accomplishments for him.

173 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 1:10:02pm

re: #165 Alouette

It is possible to simplify the tax laws and to reduce loopholes by simply not having them.

If we had a simple progressive tax on all income, and didn’t allow fancy ways of hiding income in various places, we really, really would reduce loopholes. You can’t find a loophole unless one exists in the tax code for you to find.

174 jamesfirecat  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 1:10:25pm

re: #170 Obdicut

The lion’s share just means “of all these portions, this is the largest”.

Oh yeah, sorry my bad. Have to feed the entire pack after all, need to get my metephores straight.

175 researchok  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 1:10:38pm

re: #163 Obdicut

No, that’s not true. It doesn’t have to be a flat tax. A progressive tax doesn’t naturally allow for loopholes. The reason we have loopholes is because we have loopholes.

I wish it were that easy.

Progressive taxes are what initiate the special interests- boats, planes and all kinds of luxury item manufacturers to seek exemptions- as if a guy buying a 35 million dollar jet would walk away from the deal if there were an extra 2% added on, or the guy who wants to buy his wife a 5 carat ring will be forced to buy a 4 carat ring…ad infinitum.

176 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 1:11:06pm

re: #169 recusancy

There will not always be loopholes in the same number, or the same degree, though. So it’s a good idea to look at the loopholes that exist, and ask if they’re useful or doing more harm than good.

177 researchok  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 1:11:20pm

re: #169 recusancy

As soon as you define ‘consume’ and ‘earn’ you get loopholes. There will always be loopholes.

That’s why I like flat taxes.

178 jamesfirecat  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 1:11:23pm

re: #172 HappyWarrior

Hmmm that’s a good point. If he can get either START ratified or DADT repealed, it will be huge. Hopefully he can get them to budge on both. Being overly idealistic there but those would be great accomplishments for him.

I’ve got my fingers crossed for DADT I’d like to hope the Pentagon breifing made some progress and if memory serves one of the Mane Senator’s has already said she’s for it and I think Brown said he was also….

179 recusancy  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 1:11:51pm

re: #177 researchok

That’s why I like flat taxes.

You will still need to define consume and earn to impose a flat tax on them.

180 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 1:11:57pm

re: #175 researchok

It really is that simple. It doesn’t mean that it’s easy.

181 jamesfirecat  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 1:12:05pm

re: #175 researchok

I wish it were that easy.

Progressive taxes are what initiate the special interests- boats, planes and all kinds of luxury item manufacturers to seek exemptions- as if a guy buying a 35 million dollar jet would walk away from the deal if there were an extra 2% added on, or the guy who wants to buy his wife a 5 carat ring will be forced to buy a 4 carat ring…ad infinitum.

Can you explain further?

182 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 1:12:23pm

re: #177 researchok

A flat tax does absolutely nothing to address the problem of loopholes that a simple progressive tax does. They’re just different equations.

183 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 1:12:31pm

re: #177 researchok

That’s why I like flat taxes.

Loopholes have absolutely nothing to do with either flat tax plans or progressive tax plans. They are just that, loopholes, and we could eliminate many of them without touching the underlying tax code.

184 researchok  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 1:12:51pm

re: #159 Obdicut

Heh. And I would hate to live in Denver or Boston, both also pricey cities. But the market determines the price.

Hell, I’m in a weird situation since I’m living in the Upper East Side when I’d really rather not, but we have to so my wife has easy access to school and labs. So I’m paying one of the highest possible rents in the country to be somewhere I don’t really want to be. But the reason I’m paying that is because of all the other people that want to live here.

Where will you go when you are paroled?
/

185 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 1:13:38pm

re: #184 researchok

Back to San Francisco, in seven years.

I like New York, I really do. But the Upper East Side and I are not a good match.

186 albusteve  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 1:14:03pm

re: #151 Obdicut

Link to what, Steve?

how could you know that more people want to live in NY than Idaho?…I’d like to see that poll but alas I’m off to surgery so you needn’t reply

187 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 1:14:35pm

re: #182 Obdicut

A flat tax does absolutely nothing to address the problem of loopholes that a simple progressive tax doesn’t do.

PIMF, though I figure y’all got my meaning.

188 HappyWarrior  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 1:14:41pm

re: #178 jamesfirecat

I’ve got my fingers crossed for DADT I’d like to hope the Pentagon breifing made some progress and if memory serves one of the Mane Senator’s has already said she’s for it and I think Brown said he was also…

Brown I know did since I read about it here, had not heard about Collins or Snowe but it wouldn’t shock me. This is an issue I don’t get why the Republicans are holding this up. I mean you’d think they’d want all the military members they could get since after all they like to pride themselves as being “strong on defense.” Telling someone they can’t join the miltiary because they’re gay is pathetic.

189 researchok  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 1:15:05pm

re: #183 Fozzie Bear

Loopholes have absolutely nothing to do with either flat tax plans or progressive tax plans. They are just that, loopholes, and we could eliminate many of them without touching the underlying tax code.

Yes- but getting rid of tax loopholes would be a lot easier with a flat tax scenario.

I like the Simpson-Bowles idea- three tax rates, no exemptions, no loopholes- really a combination of flat and progressive taxes.

12%, 14%, and 18%.

190 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 1:15:08pm

re: #186 albusteve

how could you know that more people want to live in NY than Idaho?…I’d like to see that poll but alas I’m off to surgery so you needn’t reply

Seriously?

It’s kind of easy.

Count the number of people living in New York vs. in Idaho.

191 okonkolo  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 1:16:07pm

re: #172 HappyWarrior

Yes, i really believe that if there wasn’t some kind of deal that there would not be even the hope of a vote on DADT or START. The GOP said so, and if they are good at anything it is obstruction. Plus they know their numbers will go up in another month and they were holding the impending sunsetting of the Bush tax codes over the Democrats’ heads. The GOP said no vote unless there is a tax deal. Well, now’s there’s a tax deal, the GOP got mostly what they wanted, so I hope that the President extracted an agreement to get to those other issues in the remaining time of the lame duck session. If that is so, and if the WH shares that info with the Democratic leadership, things may happen. But it is always troubling to write about politics with a bunch of “ifs” in one’s sentences.

192 researchok  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 1:16:24pm

re: #190 Obdicut

Seriously?

It’s kind of easy.

Count the number of people living in New York vs. in Idaho.

Of course, not a lot of ships landed in Boise…
/

193 jamesfirecat  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 1:17:08pm

re: #39 researchok

What’s wrong with the filibuster?

It takes an already undemocratic institution the Senate in which Wyoming one of the few places less populated than Alaska (if I remember correctly) and gives it as much weight as Texas or New York, and then makes it even more undemocratic by doing away with any pretext of majority rule even among its own members.

194 Amory Blaine  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 1:17:11pm

re: #192 researchok

Of course, not a lot of ships landed in Boise…
/

Or Las Vegas for that matter. Didn’t seem to stop that population from exploding.

195 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 1:17:40pm

re: #189 researchok

That would be a progressive tax, actually. Unless those are on different forms of income.

196 recusancy  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 1:17:45pm

re: #192 researchok

Of course, not a lot of ships landed in Boise…
/

People can travel over land nowadays. How many people are deciding to move to Idaho vs NY?

197 researchok  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 1:18:35pm

re: #194 Amory Blaine

Or Las Vegas for that matter. Didn’t seem to stop that population from exploding.

Good point.

Time for casinos in Boise?

198 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 1:18:44pm

A note on Egyptian claims that the Mossad has trained Sharks to attack tourists:

This was the perfect cover story to misdirect the Egyptians.

While they are busy looking for trained sharks (doesn’t work, it’s a fish for crying out loud!) the Egyptians will never notice the legions of tiny cybernetic ants that have slowly trekked across the Sinai and hitched rides on ferries to cross the Suez.

They are ants with supercomputer brains that get more intelligent the more of them are together. Yes we bragged about this concept with our Game Mass Effect.

One cyber ant on its own is pretty much just a bug (with a particle beam in its abdomen!). 100 together is smarter than the average teabag. 40,000 together is a semi sentient miniature army with supercompeter intelligence.

Ants are the perfect infiltrator. No one notices them. If they do notice them, they don’t think twice.

40,000 can demolish a tank in minutes with their adiamantine pincers.

One of them can crawl into the nose of a sleeping terrorist and make a nest in the terrorist’s brain. From there, the ant is either set to simply eat and poop its way through the cranium of the terrorist, lay eggs, or use its onboard nano-fabricators to rewrite neurons.

Seriously, have you ever wondered why they have so many “work accidents?”

Sharks are so bourgeois.

Unless, you are talking about the cyborg sharks with lasers in their heads that my cousin Mendel has been working on. And yes, that meme was placed in the Austin Powers movie as a misdirect. Now that the idea is a joke, no one will believe the reports of cyborg, genetically enhanced sharks sinking vessels with megawatt laser pulses.

Watch out for us Jews, we are smart!

199 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 1:19:04pm

re: #193 jamesfirecat

It takes an already undemocratic institution the Senate in which Wyoming one of the few places less populated than Alaska (if I remember correctly) and gives it as much weight as Texas or New York, and then makes it even more undemocratic by doing away with any pretext of majority rule even among its own members.

But, if we do away with it, and the republicans decide to pass the “Abortion and Homosexuality criminalization act of 2013”, we’re fucked.

200 researchok  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 1:19:43pm

re: #194 Amory Blaine

Or Las Vegas for that matter. Didn’t seem to stop that population from exploding.

Actually, all the worlds’ great cities center around seaports.

201 Amory Blaine  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 1:20:02pm

re: #197 researchok

Maybe a gigantic potato theme park.

202 simoom  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 1:20:24pm

re: #39 researchok

What’s wrong with the filibuster?

It’s become the default, along with other procedural gumming up the works maneuvers, and it’s made the Senate completely dysfunctional (all sorts of pressing business backlogged, federal court and admin vacancies unfilled) and no longer a majoritarian legislative body. You can potentially have a group of senators, representing as little as ~12% of the population blocking any legislation (though I doubt it ever is quite that stark since a couple of the low population states are blue).

There’s also the issue of it only requiring a single senator to filibuster, while ending it requires assembling 60+ supportive senators (which has been trouble for the Dems with various members bedridden, hospitalized, attending funerals, or otherwise indisposed). At the very least I’d like to see the rules changed so that the reverse is necessary, where the folks filibustering need 41+ senators on hand.

203 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 1:21:21pm

It’s funny though. LGF is currently much, much more pro-Obama than DK. Who could’ve thought in 2008? :)

204 PT Barnum  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 1:21:28pm

re: #193 jamesfirecat

It takes an already undemocratic institution the Senate in which Wyoming one of the few places less populated than Alaska (if I remember correctly) and gives it as much weight as Texas or New York, and then makes it even more undemocratic by doing away with any pretext of majority rule even among its own members.

The problem isn’t filibuster, it’s that cloture is almost impossible in the Senate given a well disciplined caucus, which the GOP seems to have.

205 researchok  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 1:22:03pm

re: #198 LudwigVanQuixote

A note on Egyptian claims that the Mossad has trained Sharks to attack tourists:

This was the perfect cover story to misdirect the Egyptians.

While they are busy looking for trained sharks (doesn’t work, it’s a fish for crying out loud!) the Egyptians will never notice the legions of tiny cybernetic ants that have slowly trekked across the Sinai and hitched rides on ferries to cross the Suez.

They are ants with supercomputer brains that get more intelligent the more of them are together. Yes we bragged about this concept with our Game Mass Effect.

One cyber ant on its own is pretty much just a bug (with a particle beam in its abdomen!). 100 together is smarter than the average teabag. 40,000 together is a semi sentient miniature army with supercompeter intelligence.

Ants are the perfect infiltrator. No one notices them. If they do notice them, they don’t think twice.

40,000 can demolish a tank in minutes with their adiamantine pincers.

One of them can crawl into the nose of a sleeping terrorist and make a nest in the terrorist’s brain. From there, the ant is either set to simply eat and poop its way through the cranium of the terrorist, lay eggs, or use its onboard nano-fabricators to rewrite neurons.

Seriously, have you ever wondered why they have so many “work accidents?”

Sharks are so bourgeois.

Unless, you are talking about the cyborg sharks with lasers in their heads that my cousin Mendel has been working on. And yes, that meme was placed in the Austin Powers movie as a misdirect. Now that the idea is a joke, no one will believe the reports of cyborg, genetically enhanced sharks sinking vessels with megawatt laser pulses.

Watch out for us Jews, we are smart!

You are one creative scientist.

As an aside, see this: Pi in the Sky: Is mathematics a divine language?

Up your alley, I believe.

206 PT Barnum  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 1:22:42pm

I crossed a Pit Bull with a Shih-Tzu and got a Bullshit

207 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 1:23:12pm

re: #200 researchok

Actually, all the worlds’ great cities center around seaports.

Chicago.

Berlin.

Moscow.

Paris.

208 lawhawk  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 1:23:16pm

re: #189 researchok

Those kinds of proposals have been floating out there for a while, and some states, like Utah have had success in transferring from a progressive system to a flat tax. They accomplished this over a period of four years.

It enabled a simplification of the tax collection and compliance at the same time since credits, deductions, and exemptions were vastly limited (though the calculation of federal taxable income was based on IRS and that forms the basis for the UT tax).

I don’t think the flat tax is the route to take, but a progressive tax rate schedule with three or four brackets and no exemptions, deductions, or credits for the highest bracket, makes sense. Eliminate the AMT and roll that into the top bracket (or top two brackets depending on where you draw the income lines). Then adjust everything for inflation annually.

209 HappyWarrior  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 1:23:19pm

re: #191 okonkolo

Yes, i really believe that if there wasn’t some kind of deal that there would not be even the hope of a vote on DADT or START. The GOP said so, and if they are good at anything it is obstruction. Plus they know their numbers will go up in another month and they were holding the impending sunsetting of the Bush tax codes over the Democrats’ heads. The GOP said no vote unless there is a tax deal. Well, now’s there’s a tax deal, the GOP got mostly what they wanted, so I hope that the President extracted an agreement to get to those other issues in the remaining time of the lame duck session. If that is so, and if the WH shares that info with the Democratic leadership, things may happen. But it is always troubling to write about politics with a bunch of “ifs” in one’s sentences.

I just hope one of those can get passed. They have serious long term costs. Not to say the tax cuts don’t but if this deal can make the Republicans stop obstructing the hell of START which has global ramifications and DADT which if repealed will make us a much more progressive thinking society than I’m ok with it.

210 jamesfirecat  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 1:23:34pm

re: #199 Fozzie Bear

But, if we do away with it, and the republicans decide to pass the “Abortion and Homosexuality criminalization act of 2013”, we’re fucked.

We’re only fucked till 2014.

Getting rid of the filibuster would be like taking a manic depressive country off its meds.

The highs would be amazing highs, and the lows would be insanely pathetically horrible.

But it would make it MUCH easier for the American people to tell what they like and what they don’t if you ask me, and hopefully they’d decide to stop voting for the people who try to make things worse once they were given the power to really do so.

I say lets risk it and if the GOP messes things up too much we can move to Canada.

Where are they gonna go if America gets “too liberal”?

211 b_sharp  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 1:24:46pm

OK, let me get this straight.

The Dems suck big time. The GOP sucks big time. You have no third party of any substance.

It seems that you are fucked.

At least as fucked as we Canucks are, maybe more so.

212 PT Barnum  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 1:25:18pm

re: #210 jamesfirecat

We’re only fucked till 2014.

Getting rid of the filibuster would be like taking a manic depressive country off its meds.

The highs would be amazing highs, and the lows would be insanely pathetically horrible.

But it would make it MUCH easier for the American people to tell what they like and what they don’t if you ask me, and hopefully they’d decide to stop voting for the people who try to make things worse once they were given the power to really do so.

I say lets risk it and if the GOP messes things up too much we can move to Canada.

Where are they gonna go if America gets “too liberal”?

I think some kind of automatic imposition of cloture and the requirement that all debate be about the bill in question would fix a lot of this.

213 Fozzie Bear  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 1:25:19pm

re: #207 Obdicut

Chicago.

Berlin.

Moscow.

Paris.

Chicago sort of counts as a port city.

214 researchok  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 1:25:59pm

re: #202 simoom

It’s become the default, along with other procedural gumming up the works maneuvers, and it’s made the Senate completely dysfunctional (all sorts of pressing business backlogged, federal court and admin vacancies unfilled) and no longer a majoritarian legislative body. You can potentially have a group of senators, representing as little as ~12% of the population blocking any legislation (though I doubt it ever is quite that stark since a couple of the low population states are blue).

There’s also the issue of it only requiring a single senator to filibuster, while ending it requires assembling 60+ supportive senators (which has been trouble for the Dems with various members bedridden, hospitalized, attending funerals, or otherwise indisposed). At the very least I’d like to see the rules changed so that the reverse is necessary, where the folks filibustering need 41+ senators on hand.

The rule change idea is a valid idea.

That said, filibusters do have merit. Here’s an interesting article on the subject.

215 researchok  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 1:27:10pm

re: #208 lawhawk

Those kinds of proposals have been floating out there for a while, and some states, like Utah have had success in transferring from a progressive system to a flat tax. They accomplished this over a period of four years.

It enabled a simplification of the tax collection and compliance at the same time since credits, deductions, and exemptions were vastly limited (though the calculation of federal taxable income was based on IRS and that forms the basis for the UT tax).

I don’t think the flat tax is the route to take, but a progressive tax rate schedule with three or four brackets and no exemptions, deductions, or credits for the highest bracket, makes sense. Eliminate the AMT and roll that into the top bracket (or top two brackets depending on where you draw the income lines). Then adjust everything for inflation annually.

Agreed.

At the very least, we’ll find out just how powerful the special interest lobbies really are.

216 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 1:29:06pm

re: #213 Fozzie Bear

Sort of.

As loathe as I am to call anything in Texas ‘great’: Dallas/Forth Worth.

Denver.

Sau Paulo.

Santiago.

Caracas.

Mexico City.

Sofia.

Florence.

217 jamesfirecat  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 1:29:52pm

re: #214 researchok

The rule change idea is a valid idea.

That said, filibusters do have merit. Here’s an interesting article on the subject.

My other big suggestion is, for every week a filibuster has been in place, you need one fewer vote for cloture on the subject.

The filibuster is suppose to make it so that an issue gets talked about and argued over? Fine.

Two and a half months should be enough time to discuss things to the point that a majority can vote on it safely without anyone being hoodwinked…

218 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 1:31:12pm

re: #217 jamesfirecat

That’s a good point. The filibuster was not supposed to stop votes. It was supposed to stop precipitous action.

219 Opal  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 1:40:47pm

For anyone who wishes to watch Obama’s presser today:

[Link: www.c-span.org…]

220 Jim T. R III  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 1:49:41pm

The wealthiest got many tax breaks and innumerable ways to lower their taxes that didn’t really help… Some even pay an after-breaks rate lower than many middle-class citizens. Obama has announced throughout his candidacy that he would fight the Bush tax cuts. What did he do? Wuss out. Why? He believes he was defeated this year. No, he LOST this year because HE didn’t stand up for what he believed and promised. He waved back and forth, didn’t stand strong against the Republicans’ continual whining and NOs. Now they (the Rs) are complaining that the Dems are complaining?? No, there has not been compromise. There has been conservative baby-crying that Obama gave in to. Republicans have gotten what they wanted for decades (two Bushes and much during Clinton too). Giving them more is NOT COMPROMISE. Polls showing the majority of the public does NOT want these tax breaks extended for the wealthiest then back-tracking and giving them it is NOT listening to the American people and is NOT standing by your principals.

I voted for Obama in 08. He lost my vote for 2012 in Dec of 2010.

221 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 1:50:44pm

re: #220 jimbo2150

You do understand more happened than just the extension of the tax cuts, right?

222 Gus  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 1:52:30pm

re: #220 jimbo2150

…

I voted for Obama in 08. He lost my vote for 2012 in Dec of 2010.

Who are you going to vote for? Sarah Palin or Mitt Romney?

223 Amory Blaine  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 2:11:31pm

re: #211 b_sharp

OK, let me get this straight.

The Dems suck big time. The GOP sucks big time. You have no third party of any substance.

It seems that you are fucked.

At least as fucked as we Canucks are, maybe more so.

At least you can go to the doctor without destroying yourself financially.

224 sagehen  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 2:14:32pm

re: #51 palomino

The GOP knows exactly what it’s doing in Congress. They’re far more disciplined than the Dems, who hardly ever get unanimous votes from their caucuses. Hard to explain why, except that the GOP is a more homogeneous group.

The GOP has that whole think tank/lobbyist matrix; if one of their legislators in a marginal district loses election for holding to party discipline, the party takes care of him — and maybe he can run again later. If a Dem loses their seat, they’re on their own.


Youtube Video
225 Jim T. R III  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 2:14:39pm

re: #222 Gus 802

What? Beck is not running?

226 Talking Point Detective  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 2:17:12pm

re: #220 jimbo2150

In lieu of a compromise, taxes would have effectively been increased for those earning less than $250,000 - which would also have been in contradiction to his campaign platform.

He was damned if he did and damned if he didn’t - and in the end, if taxes for those earning less than $250,000 had increased, the political future for Dems would have been worse than they are with the compromise.

A truly progressive policy would have been that all of Bush’s tax cuts should have been left to expire - but that was a political non-starter, particularly in this economy. The argument that it was a bad move politically for Obama to agree to a compromise ignores what would have happened had he not made the deal. The tax cuts for the rich are bad for the country, but failing to compromise would have been political suicide for a progressive agenda.

Besides, Obama ran as a centrist. It seems that some on the left were holding on to some belief that he would turn into a centrist after getting elected, but there was precious little evidence that would happen.

The propensity on the left to self-destruct is playing true to form, as the GOP sits back and continues to fan the flames.

227 garhighway  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 2:21:43pm

re: #45 Obdicut

Well, I do think that it’s really, really, really stupid that the GOP blocked an up or down vote on extending the tax cuts for everyone but the upper percentile.

I respectfully disagree.

Remember what the GOP is: a device for the delivery of economic benefits to its patrons. Everything else it does (opposition to gay rights, anti-immigrant posturing, Muslim bashing, gun rights, anti-abortion) is the nice orange flavored coating to the pill so that lots of people will take the medicine. (Without socons, they don’t have the votes for their economic agenda, because when it is put simply and without packaging, it isn’t very popular.)

So holding everyone’s tax rate (and the extension f unemployment benefits) hostage in favor of the top earners makes perfect sense, because on a pure up-or-down basis their issue is a loser. You do what you have to do to deliver the goods. You want to get more money from the Kochs, you deliver the goods.

228 Jim T. R III  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 2:25:04pm

re: #226 Talking Point Detective

A truly progressive policy would have been that all of Bush’s tax cuts should have been left to expire - but that was a political non-starter, particularly in this economy. The argument that it was a bad move politically for Obama to agree to a compromise ignores what would have happened had he not made the deal. The tax cuts for the rich are bad for the country, but failing to compromise would have been political suicide for a progressive agenda.

If you believe that then more power to you. I will not back down on principles. Progressives have for quite a while. I don’t see “Give us what we want or we will hold off tax breaks for everyone” as a compromise. That’s more like terrorist demanding what they want just so they wont commit more crimes.

229 Jim T. R III  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 2:26:28pm

re: #221 Obdicut

You do understand more happened than just the extension of the tax cuts, right?

Are you talking about as part of this bill or Obama’s achievements as a whole?

230 sagehen  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 2:28:06pm

re: #78 researchok

I do not disagree.

The fact remains the numbers are in reality, fungible, in the sense that 250k in NY/NJ/CT is not the same as 250k in Idaho or ND.

I read that if the tax cuts were limited to those making 1M and above, about 80% of the desired tax revenue would be realized.

I just wanted to make the point that a relatively few earners would be assuming a large burden- and that is before adding the costs of longer unemployment benefits.

An extra 3% from people making over a million a year is your idea of “a large burden”? When less than 1/10 of that money is needed to pay for the extended unemployment (a whopping $290/wk, to people who wouldn’t otherwise be able to eat?), and the other 9/10 would go to deficit reduction?

Federal income taxes right now, in fact all state and federal taxes from everybody combined (as a share of GDP), are the lowest they’ve been SINCE BEFORE WWII. Stop whining about the sadly put-upon wealthy.

231 Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 2:30:18pm

re: #229 jimbo2150

Are you talking about as part of this bill or Obama’s achievements as a whole?

This bill.

232 Jim T. R III  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 2:36:45pm

re: #231 Obdicut

This bill.

So far I only see a few extensions of unemployment benefits, which could have been put into a separate bill, and absolutely NOTHING in this bill does anything to lower the debt… in-fact this bill will increase the debt and does not guarantee any kind of economic growth. Doesn’t sound like much to me.

233 Talking Point Detective  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 2:43:23pm

re: #228 jimbo2150

If you believe that then more power to you. I will not back down on principles. Progressives have for quite a while. I don’t see “Give us what we want or we will hold off tax breaks for everyone” as a compromise. That’s more like terrorist demanding what they want just so they wont commit more crimes.

I’m confused. It was the Republican who said: “Give us what we want or we will hold off tax breaks for everyone.”

You can’t wish away that political reality. The question is, given that the GOP took that stance, what would be the way to respond that would, in reality, advance a progressive agenda?

Refusing to accept a compromise would have resulted in across-the-board tax increases. Republicans would have hammered Dems and Obama, by saying “See, just like we said, the Dems just want to tax and spend. Obama’s promises to not increase taxes for those earning less than $250,000 were lies.”

Obama and the Dems would have gone down in flames just like Bush I - for reneging on a “read my lips” promise.

In the meantime, Obama’s compromise represents real financial relief for millions of unemployed, and more progressive movement on payroll taxes and inheritence taxes.

Obama couldn’t change the political calculus - particuarly since a significant # of conservative Dems were going to sell him out anyway.

234 sagehen  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 2:46:50pm

re: #233 Talking Point Detective

In the meantime, Obama’s compromise represents real financial relief for millions of unemployed, and more progressive movement on payroll taxes and inheritence taxes.

Obama couldn’t change the political calculus - particuarly since a significant # of conservative Dems were going to sell him out anyway.


It also means, now the Senate can move on to things like START and DADT. Which kind of really matter. A lot.

235 Talking Point Detective  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 2:52:40pm

re: #228 jimbo2150

Ok - now I get what you’re saying: The GOP didin’t compromise. Agreed. Obama was the only one who compromised. I don’t agree that makes him “weak,” or that it wasn’t ultimately the best move.

To the extent that Obama’s “base,” enabled him to win the election (as opposed to independents), it was because he got votes from minorities and young people. Those groups did not come out and vocally support healthcare reform. They didn’t present a solid front. They didn’t vote at high rates in the last election - which allowed the GOP to strengthen their hand. The finger needs to be pointed at those elements of the left. If they had presented a solid front, then Obama would have had more options.

If you want to blame the Obama administration, it’s because they were unsuccessful in getting those constituencies to remain vocal in their support for progressive policies; but you’re bucking historical trends there of low participation from those groups in politics. Their strong support for Obama in the election was a political anomaly, and it was a tall order for the Obama administration keep them active.

Did his administration blow it by not advocating more progressive policies sooner? Maybe. But again, he ran as a centrist. What did people expect?

236 Talking Point Detective  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 2:56:44pm

re: #230 sagehen

Stop whining about the sadly put-upon wealthy.

C’mon now. They might have had to suffer with shower curtains that cost less than $6,000.

[Link: www.usatoday.com…]

237 Talking Point Detective  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 2:57:47pm

re: #234 sagehen

It also means, now the Senate can move on to things like START and DADT. Which kind of really matter. A lot.

Indeed. Those policies are a much better test of Obama’s “progressiveness.”

238 Jim T. R III  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 2:58:42pm

re: #233 Talking Point Detective

I’m confused. It was the Republican who said: “Give us what we want or we will hold off tax breaks for everyone.”

You can’t wish away that political reality. The question is, given that the GOP took that stance, what would be the way to respond that would, in reality, advance a progressive agenda?

Refusing to accept a compromise would have resulted in across-the-board tax increases. Republicans would have hammered Dems and Obama, by saying “See, just like we said, the Dems just want to tax and spend. Obama’s promises to not increase taxes for those earning less than $250,000 were lies.”

So you think backing down on your principles just to appease a few and the people supporting them is a good idea? hm. I would rather see the Republicans start claiming “tax and spend” and having it go down on record that the Republicans continued nothing but NO votes, held the country’s money hostage.

If you think that it was better just because people are just going to listen to what Republicans want to label people (ie. just to politics) then it would seem you have no core principles and anything goes… just as long as everyone will vote for it.

In the meantime, Obama’s compromise represents real financial relief for millions of unemployed, and more progressive movement on payroll taxes and inheritence taxes.

And in the end it will show that the Republicans got their way once again, or possibly that Obama is soft and did not stand on his principles… and what of the debt? It has not been payed for yet and what do you think the Republicans will be looking to go after next? Gutting social programs to pay for it will be their next move.

I see this as a loss for what could have been fought for and won. Republicans have done it many times… put pressure on Dems till they crack before something “expires” maybe its time Dems pull a page from the Republicans book. I don’t think the Republicans will want to go down in history as holding out on the taxes for millions of middle-class Americans just to get an unneeded break for the wealthiest 1-3 percent.

239 Spocomptonite  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 3:04:28pm

re: #51 palomino

The GOP knows exactly what it’s doing in Congress. They’re far more disciplined than the Dems, who hardly ever get unanimous votes from their caucuses. Hard to explain why, except that the GOP is a more homogeneous group.

Republicans represent Republicans only. Democrats represent everyone else. Or at least, many of them try to.

240 Talking Point Detective  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 3:08:02pm

re: #238 jimbo2150


If you think that it was better just because people are just going to listen to what Republicans want to label people (ie. just to politics) then it would seem you have no core principles and anything goes… just as long as everyone will vote for it.

I’m looking long-term at the political realities. A core principle of mine is that you have to weigh out benefits and costs. Going to war on a two-year extension of tax cuts for the rich would have come at a cost. The immediate cost would have been the loss of unemployment benefits for millions of people who need them right now, and that loss would have had an escalating effect on the economy as a whole. Long-term, it would have undermined the political viability of any Dems who really do want to advocate for progressive policies.

Meanwhile, the cuts for the rich have been split off. In order to extend them, the GOP will have to advocate, straight up, without other leverage, tax cuts for the rich.

And in the end it will show that the Republicans got their way once again, or possibly that Obama is soft and did not stand on his principles… and what of the debt? It has not been payed for yet and what do you think the Republicans will be looking to go after next? Gutting social programs to pay for it will be their next move.

I don’t agree that this was an abandonment of his principles. I thought he made a very valid argument in his press conference today for why this was a principled move.

I see this as a loss for what could have been fought for and won. Republicans have done it many times… put pressure on Dems till they crack before something “expires” maybe its time Dems pull a page from the Republicans book. I don’t think the Republicans will want to go down in history as holding out on the taxes for millions of middle-class Americans just to get an unneeded break for the wealthiest 1-3 percent.

What would have been “won” absent the compromise?

And the Republicans wouldn’t have taken the hit for an increase in taxes for people earning under $250,000 - Obama would have. It would have happened under his watch.

As for paying for the tax cuts for the rich - none of the tax cuts would pay for themselves long-term. Tax cuts when the tax rates where they are now don’t pay for themselves. You can’t just argue that the tax cuts for the rich don’t pay for themselves; none of the tax cuts do.

241 Jim T. R III  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 3:09:29pm

re: #235 Talking Point Detective

To the extent that Obama’s “base,” enabled him to win the election (as opposed to independents), it was because he got votes from minorities and young people. Those groups did not come out and vocally support healthcare reform. They didn’t present a solid front. They didn’t vote at high rates in the last election - which allowed the GOP to strengthen their hand. The finger needs to be pointed at those elements of the left. If they had presented a solid front, then Obama would have had more options.

They didn’t come out in this election partially because of the economy and partially because his achievements so far have been minimal. Minimum wage increase? check. Good, but doesn’t affect the middle class as much. Healthcare? egh… While it may help some in the long run it could easily go back to the way it was… so the “fee” for not having healthcare (that Clinton wanted) could end up hurting people big time. And what about choice? If I choose to pay for healthcare… I have to pay the governement. Not so progressive. Social programs? In termoil… Social issues promised so much in the election? Moving forward… but at a snails pace. I am still seeing many high-profile court cases for discrimination going through.

So ask me again why people didn’t vote this time…

If you want to blame the Obama administration, it’s because they were unsuccessful in getting those constituencies to remain vocal in their support for progressive policies; but you’re bucking historical trends there of low participation from those groups in politics. Their strong support for Obama in the election was a political anomaly, and it was a tall order for the Obama administration keep them active.

Actually his constituents did. He hasn’t. :/

Did his administration blow it by not advocating more progressive policies sooner? Maybe. But again, he ran as a centrist. What did people expect?

Perhaps, but promised progressives and liberals a lot. Not something you should do when your main base came from Universities. I am in college and in 08 I saw, for the first time, lines formed at the “sign up to vote” tables around campus. No such luck since then.

242 Jim T. R III  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 3:17:49pm

re: #240 Talking Point Detective

I’m looking long-term at the political realities. A core principle of mine is that you have to weigh out benefits and costs. Going to war on a two-year extension of tax cuts for the rich would have come at a cost. The immediate cost would have been the loss of unemployment benefits for millions of people who need them right now, and that loss would have had an escalating effect on the economy as a whole. Long-term, it would have undermined the political viability of any Dems who really do want to advocate for progressive policies.

Well, I just don’t agree. I would be more willing to vote for someone who is going to stand on their principles than give in. To me I would see that the Republicans would be holding out for the rich. Also, I want to know what compromises are? The country has moved to more conservative principles over the past decades than needed. The biggest issue I had was when Obama got the office and agreed with and continued Bush’s hushing the fact that major telecom companies were selling Americans’ phone data to the gov without warrant. That also killed the whistleblowers’ rights and stomped on the American people’s privacy and freedoms.

243 Talking Point Detective  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 3:21:30pm

re: #241 jimbo2150

And what about choice? If I choose to pay for healthcare… I have to pay the governement. Not so progressive.

What, exactly, do you think might have passed as progressive healthcare reform? The more progressive reform would have meant nationalize healthcare.

So ask me again why people didn’t vote this time…

The youth and minority vote he got last time was an anomaly. It is very tall order to get those groups to remain politically active.



Actually his constituents did. He hasn’t. :/

Perhaps, but promised progressives and liberals a lot. Not something you should do when your main base came from Universities. I am in college and in 08 I saw, for the first time, lines formed at the “sign up to vote” tables around campus. No such luck since then.

Youth and minorities came out to support him, to a large degree, because he was the first African American with a shot at being president. Also, the Republicans had clearly been a disaster, Iraq was a mess, and the economy was going down the toilet. This was an unusual set of circumstances that produced an unusual political climate. It isn’t Obama’s fault that those constituencies faded back into the woodwork after the elecdtion. His administration should have done more to maintain their involvement, no doubt a huge mistake - but these are well-established tendencies.

244 tigger2005  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 3:22:46pm

What exactly are the people who are mad at Obama for making this compromise going to do? Vote Republican instead? Vote for people who have no chance of winning to spite Obama, resulting in more Republicans winning office?

My suggestion is to just deal with it.

245 Talking Point Detective  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 3:27:06pm

re: #242 jimbo2150

I would be more willing to vote for someone who is going to stand on their principles than give in.

So would I. Unfortunately, the # of voters who would agree with us on political policy is not very large.

Obama won because he appealed to constituencies that don’t typically vote in high numbers; if he had motivated those voters through a progressive platform, that would have been great. I’ve been arguing for years that the Dems need to stop “triangulating” and to differentiate themselves from the GOP on economic issues (as argued in What’s the Matter With Kansas?). But he didn’t really run on a progressive platform - he appealed to those voters because of who he was, not his stated political ideology. And I don’t think that now would have been a productive time for him to make a stand on principle.

To me I would see that the Republicans would be holding out for the rich.

That’s what you will see when the tax cuts come up again in two years. As it stands now, that issue would have been coupled with a politically crippling tax increase for middle class Americans.

Also, I want to know what compromises are? The country has moved to more conservative principles over the past decades than needed. The biggest issue I had was when Obama got the office and agreed with and continued Bush’s hushing the fact that major telecom companies were selling Americans’ phone data to the gov without warrant. That also killed the whistleblowers’ rights and stomped on the American people’s privacy and freedoms.

You’ve got no argument from me on any of that.

246 lostlakehiker  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 3:28:05pm

re: #244 tigger2005

What exactly are the people who are mad at Obama for making this compromise going to do? Vote Republican instead? Vote for people who have no chance of winning to spite Obama, resulting in more Republicans winning office?

My suggestion is to just deal with it.

Politics is the art of the possible. It’s no fair being mad at Obama for recognizing this fact. The Republicans shot themselves in the foot nominating ideologically pure candidates for the Senate who had nothing but that purity to recommend them for office. And the purity was pure brass…these candidates were nothing to crow about in their personal lives.

It won’t serve the national interest for Democrats to go and do the same, and name unworthy men and women as candidates, solely because they hew to the pure Party Line. Even if that party line is objectively correct.

If you think something needs to be done, you really should be working toward making as much of it as possible become reality. Not insisting on all or nothing, when the result will be nothing.

247 Jim T. R III  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 3:28:40pm

re: #243 Talking Point Detective

Youth and minorities came out to support him, to a large degree, because he was the first African American with a shot at being president.

Don’t put words in my mouth. I didn’t vote for him “because hes black.” Also dont play the race card. I voted because he actually supported more progressive ideals than Clinton did.

Also, the Republicans had clearly been a disaster, Iraq was a mess, and the economy was going down the toilet. This was an unusual set of circumstances that produced an unusual political climate.

No argument there, but he could have kept them had he not backed down so much or supportd some of the Bush ideas that he did early on.

It isn’t Obama’s fault that those constituencies faded back into the woodwork after the elecdtion. His administration should have done more to maintain their involvement, no doubt a huge mistake - but these are well-established tendencies.

Actually it was his fault. You just disproved your own point within the same paragraph. Also tendencies? Well it might happen often but you are saying everyone should just roll over and accept it? Sorry cant do that.

248 Jim T. R III  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 3:35:42pm

re: #245 Talking Point Detective

So would I. Unfortunately, the # of voters who would agree with us on political policy is not very large.

And there is our difference. I would rather fight for those principles than just accept that we need to compromise when I don’t see compromise. Compromise would be not having conservatives have control and moving tward a conservative country the past few decades. We’ve lost privacy from gov, lost freedom, and principle to conservativism. In the name of safety? I would rather die in a terrorist attack than give up my privacry and freedom just cause some people wouldnt support it.

Obama won because he appealed to constituencies that don’t typically vote in high numbers; if he had motivated those voters through a progressive platform, that would have been great. I’ve been arguing for years that the Dems need to stop “triangulating” and to differentiate themselves from the GOP on economic issues (as argued in What’s the Matter With Kansas?). But he didn’t really run on a progressive platform - he appealed to those voters because of who he was, not his stated political ideology. And I don’t think that now would have been a productive time for him to make a stand on principle.

I think of that as more of a short-term alteration. I still think that the Republicans are going to come back in the long term and continue demanding and holding out on other issues as they are going to see this as a “WE WON BACK THE GOV! WE CAN GET MORE NOW!” When it comes up again in two years you think the Republicans are going to go: “Well, ok we compromised so now we are going to give you the tax breaks for the wealthy now..” No. They are going to fight it even more because they think they can win at it all the time.

249 lostlakehiker  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 4:24:52pm

re: #130 jamesfirecat

“48% of all Americans do not pay taxes at all. Thus, 52% will have to assume the entire national debt burden.”

Do not pay income taxes you mean, correct?

Or have my neighbors figured out a way to get around sales tax and nobody has told me?

There is no federal sales tax. Thus, no one is paying federal sales tax. Your neighbors, you, everyone escapes that nonexistent federal sales tax.

The money that will have to be raised to pay down this national debt will, unless the tax law is changed to target the middle and lower middle class, have to come from the same sources it does today: the upper and upper middle classes.

250 Romantic Heretic  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 4:27:24pm

As I said elsewhere, this is all predicated on the idea that the GOP will keep their word, and I don’t believe they will.

And, because of this, the Dems had better make the tax cut extension the last thing voted. Otherwise the GOP will vote to continue the extensions and then flip the bird to the Dems on everything else.

251 lostlakehiker  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 4:33:16pm

re: #198 LudwigVanQuixote

A note on Egyptian claims that the Mossad has trained Sharks to attack tourists:

This was the perfect cover story to misdirect the Egyptians.

While they are busy looking for trained sharks (doesn’t work, it’s a fish for crying out loud!) the Egyptians will never notice the legions of tiny cybernetic ants that have slowly trekked across the Sinai and hitched rides on ferries to cross the Suez.

They are ants with supercomputer brains that get more intelligent the more of them are together. Yes we bragged about this concept with our Game Mass Effect.

One cyber ant on its own is pretty much just a bug (with a particle beam in its abdomen!). 100 together is smarter than the average teabag. 40,000 together is a semi sentient miniature army with supercompeter intelligence.

Ants are the perfect infiltrator. No one notices them. If they do notice them, they don’t think twice.

40,000 can demolish a tank in minutes with their adiamantine pincers.

One of them can crawl into the nose of a sleeping terrorist and make a nest in the terrorist’s brain. From there, the ant is either set to simply eat and poop its way through the cranium of the terrorist, lay eggs, or use its onboard nano-fabricators to rewrite neurons.

Seriously, have you ever wondered why they have so many “work accidents?”

Sharks are so bourgeois.

Unless, you are talking about the cyborg sharks with lasers in their heads that my cousin Mendel has been working on. And yes, that meme was placed in the Austin Powers movie as a misdirect. Now that the idea is a joke, no one will believe the reports of cyborg, genetically enhanced sharks sinking vessels with megawatt laser pulses.

Watch out for us Jews, we are smart!

I don’t believe it. The cyber-ants would run out of energy trying to cross the Sinai on battery power.

252 Poiks  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 6:40:26pm

re: #32 Gus 802

It’s a lameduck session and congress still hold Democratic party majorities. So I would be curious as to how the Democrats would filibuster themselves? I doubt Pelosi or Reid would even allow it.

I don’t think Pelosi has a say about a Senate process.

253 Poiks  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 6:41:34pm

re: #85 Walter L. Newton

If it did, it last 25 years longer than the ideology of the right.

254 Poiks  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 6:50:39pm

re: #199 Fozzie Bear

But, if we do away with it, and the republicans decide to pass the “Abortion and Homosexuality criminalization act of 2013”, we’re fucked.

Only if you assume the next election won’t have consequences. And actually, given what we’re seeing now, it may not.

255 Poiks  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 6:59:54pm

re: #244 tigger2005

What exactly are the people who are mad at Obama for making this compromise going to do? Vote Republican instead? Vote for people who have no chance of winning to spite Obama, resulting in more Republicans winning office?

My suggestion is to just deal with it.

Become disillusioned enough to either stay home, or throw away votes on a third party or write-in. Everybody has their “line in the sand” and for many, this was it. And yes, it’s cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face, but somethings things just be that way.

256 Poiks  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 7:01:05pm

re: #250 Romantic Heretic

As I said elsewhere, this is all predicated on the idea that the GOP will keep their word, and I don’t believe they will.

And, because of this, the Dems had better make the tax cut extension the last thing voted. Otherwise the GOP will vote to continue the extensions and then flip the bird to the Dems on everything else.

Rest assured, Obama will be clubbed over the head with this $900 billion through November 2012.

257 harrogate  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 8:34:37pm

re: #150 albusteve

link?…sounds a bit over the top

Am I missing something or are you asking for a link that proves that New York’s expensiveness is directly related to the fact that a lot of people want to be there? I mean, really, it’s not an over the top statement at all.

258 Tigger2  Tue, Dec 7, 2010 9:29:59pm

re: #10 Gus 802

Obama’s base didn’t get him elected in 2008. It was the independents. Obama is also governing the USA and not his base. This country is not populated by people that read Daily Kos. Far from it.

I read DK but I agree with you.

259 pyite  Wed, Dec 8, 2010 10:19:37am

As a Ross Perot kind of voter, it is painful to see Congress take any action that doesn’t help reduce the deficit and strengthen the currency. I thought the Tea Party victory was supposed to help reduce spending and the deficit… but instead it is a mad rush to add $a couple trillion more to the national debt.

That aside, it was truly a compromise - and in fact Obama got to charge 2x as much to the credit card (and his spending will have a much bigger economic impact than upper crust tax cuts). So for non-deficit-fanatics it is a win all around. For people whose sole political goal is to make the other side mad, it is a loss.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
The Pandemic Cost 7 Million Lives, but Talks to Prevent a Repeat Stall In late 2021, as the world reeled from the arrival of the highly contagious omicron variant of the coronavirus, representatives of almost 200 countries met - some online, some in-person in Geneva - hoping to forestall a future worldwide ...
Cheechako
4 days ago
Views: 128 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
2 weeks ago
Views: 293 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1