Obama, Republicans reach deal to extend tax cuts, unemployment benefits

[MaggieMae]

I see nothing absurd about keeping what is rightfully ours and not having to surrender it over to the government so they can distribute it out to people who did not earn and therefore do not deserve it.

I specifically referred to Mr. T because he's one of those who doesn't think anyone should be taxed at all. And he said so in so many words again. Get it now? (I guess you would have had to know that about him.)

You didn't ask me, but I do now.

Clearly we still disagree on whether tax increases help the economy. I don't think they do. If tax increases are needed (something I still don't think is true at this tax level), the time to do it is during a recovery not during a stagnation.

The Deficit Commission recommends raising taxes through tax reforms that eliminate or reduce deductions such as mortgage interest, which so far, has been met with more outrage than acquiescence. They also would raise the gasoline tax. BUT, the top income tax rate for both individuals and corporations would be dramatically lowered from 35% to 29%, which makes everyone happy. Translation: No, no, yes.

So once more, no one wants to sacrifice. It's gonna be painful folks, and we all should just bite the bullet and get used to it.

 

[Trajan]

Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power

Press Releases - Press - U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee

I don''t see how this addresses my comment....
income equality or inequality is equal to what you're willing or not to do to accrue some. There is no finite amount/supply of money in this context.

The first link is long but it discusses your statement that "no one controls wealth." Of course they do.

I never said no one controls wealth, they all control their own, I said to RW that no one controls wealth so that others cannot accrues their own.

There is no finite amount of money, in that when warren buffet earns another billion there is none left for you me or you or.....

 

[MaggieMae]

Poor Governing by the Democrats. Waiting till the last minute on this was stupid and incompetent. The Democrats really are much better at being the Opposition Party. They cannot Govern.

I can't wait to have you around next year when your people get their chance to fix this giant mess. It shall be interesting to say the least. Will you give them more than a year for their magic to work or will you start demanding results after the first 100 days?

 

[MaggieMae]

I don''t see how this addresses my comment....
income equality or inequality is equal to what you're willing or not to do to accrue some. There is no finite amount/supply of money in this context.

The first link is long but it discusses your statement that "no one controls wealth." Of course they do.

I never said no one controls wealth, they all control their own, I said to RW that no one controls wealth so that others cannot accrues their own.

There is no finite amount of money, in that when warren buffet earns another billion there is none left for you me or you or.....

Okay.

 

[asterism]

I specifically referred to Mr. T because he's one of those who doesn't think anyone should be taxed at all. And he said so in so many words again. Get it now? (I guess you would have had to know that about him.)

You didn't ask me, but I do now.

Clearly we still disagree on whether tax increases help the economy. I don't think they do. If tax increases are needed (something I still don't think is true at this tax level), the time to do it is during a recovery not during a stagnation.

The Deficit Commission recommends raising taxes through tax reforms that eliminate or reduce deductions such as mortgage interest, which so far, has been met with more outrage than acquiescence. They also would raise the gasoline tax. BUT, the top income tax rate for both individuals and corporations would be dramatically lowered from 35% to 29%, which makes everyone happy. Translation: No, no, yes.

So once more, no one wants to sacrifice. It's gonna be painful folks, and we all should just bite the bullet and get used to it.

The issue is that "sacrifice" isn't necessarily needed, won't fix squat until the spending issue is fixed, and raising taxes in a recession or a stagnation is a bad idea. Playing Three Card Monty with the tax code doesn't change the situation, the Simpson-Bowles tax recommendations are still calling for a net tax increase on just about everyone above median income.

And let's also look at tax increases that supposedly reduce the deficit but don't reduce the debt. If we can increase revenue to the government but increase spending also, isn't the tax increase then wasted on more government programs? Mind you, Bush was horrible and Obama is worse but Clinton wasn't exactly a saint on spending either. He "cut" the government and yet year after year the debt total went up. How exactly was that a cut?

(It wasn't)

 

[asterism]

Poor Governing by the Democrats. Waiting till the last minute on this was stupid and incompetent. The Democrats really are much better at being the Opposition Party. They cannot Govern.

I can't wait to have you around next year when your people get their chance to fix this giant mess. It shall be interesting to say the least. Will you give them more than a year for their magic to work or will you start demanding results after the first 100 days?

I'm gonna demand results from the first 10 days. Some BIG indicators better start improving just on the news of their election and the recent move to not increase taxes. If that doesn't show in the results, they have already failed in my opinion.

 

[NYcarbineer]

President Obama was hardly in office when he signed a stimulus bill that added about a trillion dollars to the deficit...

...and the Republicans beat him over the head with it all the way to their win in November.

(here comes the irony part)

NOW, the Republicans are forcing him into doing the same thing.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The Deficit Commission recommends raising taxes through tax reforms that eliminate or reduce deductions such as mortgage interest, which so far, has been met with more outrage than acquiescence. They also would raise the gasoline tax. BUT, the top income tax rate for both individuals and corporations would be dramatically lowered from 35% to 29%, which makes everyone happy. Translation: No, no, yes.

So once more, no one wants to sacrifice. It's gonna be painful folks, and we all should just bite the bullet and get used to it.

I would be willing to "sacrifice" and support the elimination of the mortgage deduction if I thought the government as a result would actually balance the budget and stop adding to the national debt and stop spending our tax dollars on bullshit. Since I know none of the that will happen, I'm not willing to sacrifice. Why should I sacrifice if the government won't?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

President Obama was hardly in office when he signed a stimulus bill that added about a trillion dollars to the deficit...

...and the Republicans beat him over the head with it all the way to their win in November.

(here comes the irony part)

NOW, the Republicans are forcing him into doing the same thing.

What do you mean the same thing? The two are not even related.

 

[DiveCon]

The Deficit Commission recommends raising taxes through tax reforms that eliminate or reduce deductions such as mortgage interest, which so far, has been met with more outrage than acquiescence. They also would raise the gasoline tax. BUT, the top income tax rate for both individuals and corporations would be dramatically lowered from 35% to 29%, which makes everyone happy. Translation: No, no, yes.

So once more, no one wants to sacrifice. It's gonna be painful folks, and we all should just bite the bullet and get used to it.

I would be willing to "sacrifice" and support the elimination of the mortgage deduction if I thought the government as a result would actually balance the budget and stop adding to the national debt and stop spending our tax dollars on bullshit. Since I know none of the that will happen, I'm not willing to sacrifice. Why should I sacrifice if the government won't?

exactly, i'd want to see the SPENDING cuts come first
since i have seen them promise spending cuts many times before, only to see spending continue to rise

 

[NYcarbineer]

President Obama was hardly in office when he signed a stimulus bill that added about a trillion dollars to the deficit...

...and the Republicans beat him over the head with it all the way to their win in November.

(here comes the irony part)

NOW, the Republicans are forcing him into doing the same thing.

What do you mean the same thing? The two are not even related.

They're both stimulus bills aimed at job creation. They both add a trillion to the deficit.

 

[georgephillip]

Poor Governing by the Democrats. Waiting till the last minute on this was stupid and incompetent. The Democrats really are much better at being the Opposition Party. They cannot Govern.

I can't wait to have you around next year when your people get their chance to fix this giant mess. It shall be interesting to say the least. Will you give them more than a year for their magic to work or will you start demanding results after the first 100 days?

I'm gonna demand results from the first 10 days. Some BIG indicators better start improving just on the news of their election and the recent move to not increase taxes. If that doesn't show in the results, they have already failed in my opinion.

How much worse would this economy have to become for 90% of Americans before you would consider FLUSHING all elected Republicans AND Democrats from the Federal Government in November of 2012?

 

[georgephillip]

MoveOn.org commissioned Survey USA to poll over 1,000 people who contributed time or money to Obama in 2008. What the sampling revealed doesn't bode well for Obama or Democrats in general in 2012:

"The poll shows clearly that these contributors are deeply opposed (74%) to a deal with Republicans to extend the Bush-era tax breaks for those making over $250,000 a year.

"The depth of opposition to a deal is severe with former Obama contributors saying that they are less likely (57%) to support Democrats who support this deal in 2012.

"A majority of the former Obama contributors surveyed also say that the President's deal also makes them less likely (51%) to contribute to his reelection campaign in 2012.

So 57 percent of Obama contributors say they are less likely to support Congressional Dems for reelection if they back the temporary extension, meaning there could be a political cost for Dems for embracing it.

"And more than half, 51 percent, say they are less likely to shell out cash for Obama's reelection in 2012, suggesting it could damage his ability to turn out the same coalition that elected him in 2008"

Obama Supporters...

A Moveon poll? That's going to be about as accurate in representation as a Rasmussen poll. Here's the Gallup poll, which indicates two-thirds of ALL party persuasions approve of the deal.

Americans Support Two Major Elements of Tax Compromise

Maggie:

I think the point MoveOn wanted to make when it commissioned Survey USA to poll 1000 Obama supporters was that he has risked alienating the base that helped elect him in 2008.

If these 1000 supporters and millions of others who have been sorely disappointed by Obama so far see a viable third party option in 2012, Obama is one and done.

Based on what I've seen so far, I would have to add "good riddance."

 

[Trajan]

President Obama was hardly in office when he signed a stimulus bill that added about a trillion dollars to the deficit...

...and the Republicans beat him over the head with it all the way to their win in November.

(here comes the irony part)

NOW, the Republicans are forcing him into doing the same thing.

What do you mean the same thing? The two are not even related.

They're both stimulus bills aimed at job creation. They both add a trillion to the deficit.

so the other way is we give them our money to spend uselessly plus they still borrow and we wind up in the shitter anyway...thx but I'll spend myself into the shitter than you. I'll have a better time of it than billy bob leaning on shovel paving a road that doesn't need paving.

 

[georgephillip]

they'll come back george that is the mid range to large contributor libs will, they have now here else to go and obama knows it. UNLESS hes challenged din a primary by a viable candidate........then it could get really dicey.

Alexander "Dicey" Cockburn has suggested a third party challenge for Obama from the recently deposed Wisconsin liberal, Russ Feingold.

In Cockburn's best case scenario, Ralph Nader passes the torch (temporarily) to Russ in 2012 with George Soros providing the deep pockets:

"...Last week Soros confided at a private gathering in Washington DC of a group of progressive movers and shakers known as the Democracy Alliance that Democratic donors should direct their support somewhere other than the president.

"Soros told those in attendance that he is 'used to fighting losing battles but doesn't like to lose without fighting.'"

"'We have just lost this election, we need to draw a line," he said.

"'And if this president can't do what we need, it is time to start looking somewhere else.'"

Feingold has the progressive credentials mid-range and large contributor libs could support. Particularly if Obama continues to rot from the head down.

Like a fish with no spine.

Even with Soros backing, Feingold has about as much chance of even winning the primary as another bid from Dennis Kuchinich.

I think the point Cockburn is making is that any primary challenge from within the Democratic Party is doomed, and only an independent challenge in the general election will force Obama to his left within the next year:

"We have just lost this election, we need to draw a line," he (Soros) said. "And if this president can't do what we need, it is time to start looking somewhere else."

"The description of Soros’s sensational remarks appeared in the Huffington Post, citing unnamed sources, presumably at the private meeting.

"The story cited Michael Vachon, an adviser to Soros, as not disputing the story, though 'Vachon also clarified that the longtime progressive giver was not referring to a primary challenge to the president. Mr. Soros fully supports the president as the leader of the Democratic Party. He was not suggesting that we seek another candidate for 2012.'

"So, if Soros doesn’t favor a Democratic primary challenge against Obama and supports the president as head of the Democratic Party, but also says 'it’s time to start looking somewhere else,' what exactly does he want?

"When he denies seeking another candidate for 2012, is he referring only to a rival Democratic candidate?

"As I stressed in my Nation column, any primary opponent to the President inside the Democratic Party is doomed: Obama would survive any such challenge.

"Moreover the White House deserves the menace of a convincing threat now, not some desperate intra–Democratic Party challenge late next year.

"There has to be an independent challenge.

Run, Russ, Run

 

[JakeStarkey]

Liberals best heed the warnings from the Democrat center. (1) You are the tail of the dog, and the dog wags the tail, not the tail the dog. (2) A third party effort by liberals can never elect a president, but it can hurt the Democratic Party. (3) Consider the punishment Harry Truman visited upon the Henry Wallace libs and the Strom Thurmond (Little Saul of the Far Rights', bigrebnc, s hero) cons after the 1948 election. (4) Run a third party candidate, libs, and the Dems will crush you.

The Tea Party people should keep that in mind in case it's leadership is thinking of getting wiggy.

 

[asterism]

I can't wait to have you around next year when your people get their chance to fix this giant mess. It shall be interesting to say the least. Will you give them more than a year for their magic to work or will you start demanding results after the first 100 days?

I'm gonna demand results from the first 10 days. Some BIG indicators better start improving just on the news of their election and the recent move to not increase taxes. If that doesn't show in the results, they have already failed in my opinion.

How much worse would this economy have to become for 90% of Americans before you would consider FLUSHING all elected Republicans AND Democrats from the Federal Government in November of 2012?

None. If it doesn't get better from here, measurably and quickly, throw them ALL out.

 

[asterism]

Liberals best heed the warnings from the Democrat center. (1) You are the tail of the dog, and the dog wags the tail, not the tail the dog. (2) A third party effort by liberals can never elect a president, but it can hurt the Democratic Party. (3) Consider the punishment Harry Truman visited upon the Henry Wallace libs and the Strom Thurmond (Little Saul of the Far Rights', bigrebnc, s hero) cons after the 1948 election. (4) Run a third party candidate, libs, and the Dems will crush you.

The Tea Party people should keep that in mind in case it's leadership is thinking of getting wiggy.

Boehner best listen to the Tea Party people though, without them he wouldn't be where he is. That said, Sarah Palin is a great fundraiser. She's not much for a Commander In Chief, and the Tea Party people need to heed that too.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

President Obama was hardly in office when he signed a stimulus bill that added about a trillion dollars to the deficit...

...and the Republicans beat him over the head with it all the way to their win in November.

(here comes the irony part)

NOW, the Republicans are forcing him into doing the same thing.

What do you mean the same thing? The two are not even related.

They're both stimulus bills aimed at job creation. They both add a trillion to the deficit.

Keeping the current tax rates does not add to the deficit. Spending too much money adds to the deficit.

 

[rightwinger]

What do you mean the same thing? The two are not even related.

They're both stimulus bills aimed at job creation. They both add a trillion to the deficit.

Keeping the current tax rates does not add to the deficit. Spending too much money adds to the deficit.

Fine

Then show us the spending cuts that will pay for this tax cut before you extend it for another two years

Sounds fair