HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Geithner refuses to budge...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 10:56 AM

Geithner refuses to budge on higher tax rates for wealthy -- Says republicans 'having a tough time'

from Bloomberg Businessweek: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-12-02/geithner-says-fiscal-cliff-deal-requires-tax-rate-increase


“There’s not going to be an agreement without rates going up,” Geithner said on CNN’s “State of the Union” airing today, according to a transcript. Republicans will “own the responsibility for the damage” if they “force higher rates on virtually all Americans because they’re unwilling to let tax rates go up on 2 percent of Americans.”

“The ball really is with them now,” said Geithner, the administration’s lead negotiator on the fiscal cliff, on CNN. “They’re having a tough time trying to figure out what they can do, what they can get support from their members for.”

. . . Geithner also repeated his case for a long-term extension of the federal debt ceiling after partisan disputes dragged out negotiations over raising the limit last year.

“We are not prepared to let the threat of default on America’s credit, on the savings of Americans, the investments of Americans, be held hostage to the political agenda of a group of people in Congress over time,” he told CBS’s “Face the Nation” program. “It’s not a responsible way to govern.”


read: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-12-02/geithner-says-fiscal-cliff-deal-requires-tax-rate-increase


76 replies, 6104 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 76 replies Author Time Post
Reply Geithner refuses to budge on higher tax rates for wealthy -- Says republicans 'having a tough time' (Original post)
bigtree Dec 2012 OP
lalalu Dec 2012 #1
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #3
lalalu Dec 2012 #7
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #17
lalalu Dec 2012 #20
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #41
lalalu Dec 2012 #64
femrap Dec 2012 #60
lalalu Dec 2012 #63
femrap Dec 2012 #71
lalalu Dec 2012 #76
pscot Dec 2012 #23
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #40
Sekhmets Daughter Dec 2012 #33
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #42
Sekhmets Daughter Dec 2012 #49
phleshdef Dec 2012 #68
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #69
progressoid Dec 2012 #4
lalalu Dec 2012 #5
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #18
lalalu Dec 2012 #25
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #43
lalalu Dec 2012 #65
xtraxritical Dec 2012 #53
lalalu Dec 2012 #66
ProSense Dec 2012 #26
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #44
ProSense Dec 2012 #47
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #50
ProSense Dec 2012 #54
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #56
ProSense Dec 2012 #67
Sekhmets Daughter Dec 2012 #36
SheilaT Dec 2012 #51
ProSense Dec 2012 #6
lalalu Dec 2012 #8
progressoid Dec 2012 #11
ProSense Dec 2012 #16
freshwest Dec 2012 #19
progressoid Dec 2012 #24
ProSense Dec 2012 #28
freshwest Dec 2012 #31
progressoid Dec 2012 #38
ProSense Dec 2012 #46
xtraxritical Dec 2012 #55
progressoid Dec 2012 #61
lalalu Dec 2012 #35
progressoid Dec 2012 #39
RomneyLies Dec 2012 #72
democrattotheend Dec 2012 #9
freshwest Dec 2012 #21
lalalu Dec 2012 #27
roguevalley Dec 2012 #70
geckosfeet Dec 2012 #2
heaven05 Dec 2012 #10
magical thyme Dec 2012 #15
freshwest Dec 2012 #22
magical thyme Dec 2012 #74
freshwest Dec 2012 #75
SHRED Dec 2012 #12
ananda Dec 2012 #13
cali Dec 2012 #29
City Lights Dec 2012 #30
Panasonic Dec 2012 #14
hfojvt Dec 2012 #32
SHRED Dec 2012 #34
ProSense Dec 2012 #37
hfojvt Dec 2012 #48
ProSense Dec 2012 #52
hfojvt Dec 2012 #57
ProSense Dec 2012 #62
hfojvt Dec 2012 #73
Zorra Dec 2012 #45
underthematrix Dec 2012 #58
DallasNE Dec 2012 #59

Response to bigtree (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 10:59 AM

1. Geithner also stated social security is off the table.

 

He stated that should be dealt with separately. This is starting to sound hopeful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lalalu (Reply #1)


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #3)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 11:31 AM

7. So? It has been on the table for decades with republicans.

 

They have been fighting social security since Roosevelt first signed it into law and they vowed to take it down. They have never been successful in singular attacks on social security.

It is why they resorted to bundling it with other issues such as a so called fiscal cliff. Keeping the issue of social security as an isolated issue is a victory.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lalalu (Reply #7)


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #17)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 12:16 PM

20. Social Security will always be on the table and a target.

 

The point is who controls the table.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lalalu (Reply #20)


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #41)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 04:03 PM

64. On that we agree.

 

We need to take control.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lalalu (Reply #20)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 01:45 PM

60. Me and all of my

 

fellow workers who paid into SS OWN THE F*CKING TABLE. We built the damn table....the sooner the politicians realize that, the sooner we can put down our pitchforks and play nice. Cuz I want my f*cking money back! With interest!

It's that simple.

Off topic....but hey, did you see this?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101783663

Made me laugh so hard I had tears running down my face.

ETA: If Geithner is all in a dither about raising taxes on the top 2%, some of the rich folks at 740 Park Ave. may be getting a bit worried about all of the 99% or 47% who know where they live. One of the Kochs lives there. Richest place of real estate in the World. Oh, and Koch only gave the Doorman $50....and it was a check!!!! Koch really deserves a public humiliation....like eating some money and washing it down with a bit of crude.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to femrap (Reply #60)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 04:03 PM

63. On target as usual with Black.

 



I saw that documentary on PBS. I love the former doorman who hid his identity like he was hiding from the mob.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lalalu (Reply #63)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 05:14 PM

71. Yes, I must have

 

seen it on PBS. I just looked up 740 Park and there are 3 residents that I'm sending Holiday Greetings to.

I always buy one box of cards that I can easily change the words from a cheery message to one of doom! So David Koch, Stephen Schwarzman (of Blackstone) and John Thain (previous CEO of Merrill Lynch) are on my list. I get my cards at a discount store for 99 cents per box! So I'm not out much money. And I keep the postal employees busy. And for some reason, sending these cards to such cruel and evil people puts me in a merry mood of giving to the needy.

My card will read:

"May your holidays overflow with JEERS, TEARS, and everything you FEAR!"

Maybe I'll sign it 'The all powerful Mother Nature.'

Anyone you'd like me to send a card to? I have Norquist, Boehner, Lyin' Ryan, Eric Cantor so far. Oh, I should send one to that Adelson dude who owns casinos and gave millions to the repugnants. Maybe Pat Robertson, too. I like to send to the rich, the paid for and the hypocritical religious. I suppose McConnell of KY deserves one too. Donald Trump? I only have 16 cards so I have to be picky. Oh, one is personal....the administrator of the nursing home that my mom had to stay in for a month this past year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to femrap (Reply #71)

Mon Dec 3, 2012, 02:58 PM

76. That's a great list.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #17)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 12:18 PM

23. You'd complain if we used a new rope to hang you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pscot (Reply #23)


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #3)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 12:31 PM

33. Why assume the negative?

It could be as simple as removing the cap on wages taxed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #33)


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #42)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 01:07 PM

49. LOL. Good point. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #3)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 04:27 PM

68. As it should be. Social Security eventually has to be tweaked to expand its solvency.

And that does not necessarily mean draconic benefit cuts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phleshdef (Reply #68)


Response to lalalu (Reply #1)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 11:21 AM

4. But Medicare is on the slate for a 350 billion cut.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Reply #4)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 11:26 AM

5. That is misleading.

 

The cuts are really coming from the massive curtailing of practices that lead to fraud. This is long overdue and must occur before Medicare can be expanded and opened as an exchange.

Medicare is a great program and one of the great success stories in America. It is why many doctors love it but its success at reimbursing doctors and hospitals has also opened it up to fraud. Those complaining are health servers who can no longer engage in questionable practices and will be more accountable for treatment and billing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lalalu (Reply #5)


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #18)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 12:21 PM

25. They have and more is on the way now that

 

healthcare reform can continue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lalalu (Reply #25)


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #43)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 04:05 PM

65. I am glad someone else said this.

 

I have always felt if Madoff just screwed poor people he would be free.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lalalu (Reply #25)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 01:26 PM

53. Fla's. Governor Rick Scott was prosecuted for Medicare fraud and walked away with

 

a minimal, "hand slap", fine. Also, hiring medically trained auditors to watch Medicare will be a whole new boondoggle. I don't have much faith...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xtraxritical (Reply #53)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 04:08 PM

66. That's just the point.

 

One of the reasons they have delayed reform is because it would be harder for someone like Scott to commit fraud and there would be harsher penalties.

I agree we still have a long way to go. I really wanted to see a public option but we have been fighting this for decades and this is the first time we have moved the line. This is far from perfect and I think we should criticize and demand more changes. Think of this as just the beginning where we are just starting to turn the battle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #18)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 12:22 PM

26. Here

"If 'the massive curtailing of practices that lead to fraud,' the Administration could have been prosecuting the massive fraudulent practices during the last four years."

...FYI:

DOJ Sets Medicare Fraud Enforcement Record
http://www.mainjustice.com/2011/02/17/doj-sets-medicare-fraud-enforcement-record/

Medicare Fraud Strike Force Charges 91 Individuals for Approximately $295 Million in False Billing
http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/September/11-ag-1148.html

Medicare Fraud Strike Force Charges 107 Individuals for Approximately $452 Million in False Billing
http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2012/May/12-ag-568.html

Texas TBagger Doctor Indicted In Largest Medicare Fraud In History
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002361246

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #26)


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #44)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 01:01 PM

47. And isn't it great that the administration has not intention of doing that? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #47)


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #50)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 01:28 PM

54. Clearly,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #54)


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #56)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 04:13 PM

67. Don't be ridiculous.

Geither made the comment about Social Security. The poster's opinion you posted is not what Geithner said.

Geithner clearly indicated that there are at least two tables, and that SS would be on a second table.

No one in the Administration has ever said that SS will be off the second table. No poster with any credibility has ever said that.

What's on the third table?

Stop inventing nonsense. Social Security is not part of the current negotiations. Period.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #18)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 12:34 PM

36. They have been...

There is also widespread abuse that has to be stopped.


http://www.hhs.gov/asl/testify/2012/04/t20120424a.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #18)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 01:25 PM

51. When doctors or hospitals are nailed for Medicare fraud, it

rarely makes more than a tiny blip in the news.

It does happen. Perhaps not as much as it should, but it happens.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Reply #4)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 11:26 AM

6. These are savings

"But Medicare is on the slate for a 350 billion cut."

...not cuts to benefits, which is exactly the mischaracterization Mitt and Republicans used to try to confuse people relating to the more than $700 billion in Medicare savings achieved by the President.

Obama offers GOP an ambitious, progressive debt-reduction plan
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021905787

Krugman: What Defines A Serious Deficit Proposal?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021914963

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #6)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 11:31 AM

8. Thank You

 

I can't believe people are still buying that lie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #6)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 11:52 AM

11. Savings/cuts.


Your links do not support your claim of no cuts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Reply #11)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 12:03 PM

16. Well, it certainly

"Your links do not support your claim of no cuts."

...shows that the cuts aren't to benefits. Is that what you're trying to argue (against facts)?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #16)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 12:16 PM

19. I don't think you're going to get through, ProSense. The media has pushed the GOP lie too long.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #16)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 12:19 PM

24. No it doesn't.

From your links:

What Defines A Serious Deficit Proposal?

Just a thought: if you follow the pundit discussion of matters fiscal, you get the definite impression that some kinds of deficit reduction are considered “serious”, while others are not. In particular, the Obama administration’s call for higher revenue through increased taxes on high incomes — which actually goes considerably beyond just letting the Bush tax cuts for the top end expire — gets treated with an unmistakable sneer in much political discussion, as if it were a trivial thing, more about staking out a populist position than it is about getting real on red ink.

On the other hand, the idea of raising the age of Medicare eligibility gets very respectful treatment — now that’s serious.

So I thought I’d look at the dollars and cents — and even I am somewhat shocked. Those tax hikes would raise $1.6 trillion over the next decade; according to the CBO, raising the Medicare age would save $113 billion in federal funds over the next decade.

So, the non-serious proposal would reduce the deficit 14 times as much as the serious proposal.

- more -

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/01/what-defines-a-serious-deficit-proposal/


Obama offers GOP an ambitious, progressive debt-reduction plan

By Steve Benen

President Obama had to endure some deeply unpleasant experiences with Congress over the last couple of years, but the result of the incidents taught him valuable lessons. It's clear, especially after last year's debt-ceiling crisis, that the president now knows exactly how to negotiate with reckless, radicalized Republicans.

Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner presented the House speaker, John A. Boehner, a detailed proposal on Thursday to avert the year-end fiscal crisis with $1.6 trillion in tax increases over 10 years, $50 billion in immediate stimulus spending, home mortgage refinancing and a permanent end to Congressional control over statutory borrowing limits.

The proposal, loaded with Democratic priorities and short on detailed spending cuts, met strong Republican resistance. In exchange for locking in the $1.6 trillion in added revenues, President Obama embraced the goal of finding $400 billion in savings from Medicare and other social programs to be worked out next year, with no guarantees.


For years, Obama hoped to strike deals by being conciliatory, starting with opening offers designed to satisfy Republican demands. These efforts repeatedly failed miserably, and only emboldened GOP leaders to demand agreements tilted heavily in their favor.

Fine, the president is now saying. Let's start with an ambitious plan designed to make Democrats happy, and see how that works out...Republicans seemed stunned late yesterday while condemning Obama's offer, as if the president shouldn't have the audacity to present a plan he knows they won't like. But I'd remind GOP lawmakers that everything in Obama's proposal is consistent with his previous budget plans and the policies he presented to the public during the recent national campaign (which he won fairly easily).

Indeed, Obama is acting like a confident, re-elected president who expects congressional Republicans to start moving in his direction, not the other way around. GOP leaders aren't accustomed to this dynamic, but it's probably time they adapt to their new surroundings.

- more -

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/11/30/155685


Please be so kind to show me where it says the "$700 billion in Medicare savings achieved by the President" are not cuts.

Krugman is only discussing raising taxes. While Brenen says "President Obama embraced the goal of finding $400 billion in savings from Medicare and other social programs to be worked out next year, with no guarantees". No where does is say where these supposed savings come from.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Reply #24)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 12:25 PM

28. Are you serious?

"Please be so kind to show me where it says the '$700 billion in Medicare savings achieved by the President' are not cuts."

The more than $700 billion in savings are cuts in spending (on fraud and waste), they are not cuts in benefits.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #28)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 12:28 PM

31. That's been disproven for months. Why are we still having this discussion?

It was gone over thoroughly, it's Lyin' Ryan's lie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #28)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 12:40 PM

38. You keep saying that

but your links don't support your statements.

Saving 700 billion in fraud and waste would be great. However, fraud isn't a line item in the budget. That problem can be prosecuted without the cooperation of the Republicans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Reply #38)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 12:56 PM

46. "Saving 700 billion in fraud and waste would be great."

Well, then you should be happy because that is exactly what the savings were.

As for the rest, Medicare costs are directly linked to health care costs and is a "line item in the budget."

<...>

Medicare, on the other hand, is a big budget problem. But raising the eligibility age, which means forcing seniors to seek private insurance, is no way to deal with that problem....The answer is to do what every other advanced country does, and make a serious effort to rein in health care costs. Give Medicare the ability to bargain over drug prices. Let the Independent Payment Advisory Board, created as part of Obamacare to help Medicare control costs, do its job instead of crying “death panels.” (And isn’t it odd that the same people who demagogue attempts to help Medicare save money are eager to throw millions of people out of the program altogether?) We know that we have a health care system with skewed incentives and bloated costs, so why don’t we try to fix it?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/16/opinion/life-death-and-deficits.html


Bending The Curve

<...>



In other words, the Medicare actuaries believe that the cost-saving provisions in the Obama health reform will make a huge difference to the long-run budget outlook. Yes, it’s just a projection, and debatable like all projections. And it’s still not enough. But anyone who both claims to be worried about the long-run deficit and was opposed to health reform has some explaining to do. All the facts we have suggest that health reform was the biggest move toward fiscal responsibility in a long, long time.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/bending-the-curve/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #46)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 01:29 PM

55. Raise, or eliminate, the ceiling on withholding - all problems solved.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #46)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 01:49 PM

61. OK, so now were talking about ACA?

What about the cuts/savings in relation to the dreaded fiscal cliff?

You know what would be great? If the administration would show us the actual numbers being proposed rather than getting opinions and theories from NYT or MSNBC of what they think might be happening. Just a thought.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Reply #24)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 12:34 PM

35. What you are missing is that these so called "cuts"

 

are reimbursements due to fraud and a lack of coordinated benefits. Medicare is a victim of its own success and some doctors and hospitals have used this. The "cuts" will be to nefarious practices many of which were done against the elderly with no benefits to them. Healthcare reform calls for updating our system and better accountability for treatment proposals.

One example is an elderly or disabled person going back and forth to the hospital, never getting full treatment when in the hospital, and not getting coordinated treatment when he/she leaves the hospital. Under the old method this person was billed over and over again at a profit to the hospital and treating physicians. Under new proposals that would change and technically would be a "cut" because hospitals and doctors would have to detail their treatment in the hospital and at home to prevent repeated returns. Technically that is a "cut" in the number of times a patient is hospitalized and treated for the same illness. In reality it is cutting waste and getting better treatment for the patient.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lalalu (Reply #35)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 12:44 PM

39. What I'm missing is how this is a line item budget issue.

Sounds more like administrative procedure or criminal enforcement problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #6)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 05:56 PM

72. They can easily cut $350 billion from Medicare PArt D by simply allowing the government

 

to negotiate drug prices.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Reply #4)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 11:47 AM

9. Aren't these the same cuts that are already part of the ACA?

I read yesterday that the cuts to Medicare proposed by the Administration are the same cuts that are already part of Obamacare, that mostly involve going after fraud and reducing certain payments to doctors and hospitals. Is that right, or are these additional cuts beyond the cuts in the ACA?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to democrattotheend (Reply #9)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 12:17 PM

21. The cuts are to the profits of the insurers. They pay the media to obfuscate the issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #21)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 12:23 PM

27. Exactly.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lalalu (Reply #1)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 05:05 PM

70. he even looks evil. I would love to tell him where he can take that finger ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 11:19 AM

2. Stand your ground. Better yet, advance on the weak flanks as they retreat.

Hammer tax cuts for the rich and corporate welfare. Keep those out front. Move stimulus and refi proposals in behind to support them.

Do not even mention social security or medicare unless it is in the context of reducing the retirement age and increasing medicare coverage to everyone within US borders.

Keep your proposal in the news and make it clear that your proposal is viable, that you have a mandate, and that this needs to move forward. Republicans need to stop obstructing and do what they were elected to do. The republicans leaked your proposal to demonize it, but it is having the reverse affect. It is highlighting their obstructionism and their support for unpopular tax policies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geckosfeet (Reply #2)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 11:52 AM

10. charge!!!!!!!!!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geckosfeet (Reply #2)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 11:59 AM

15. they can also *lift the cap* on SSN contributions

but otherwise, right on!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to magical thyme (Reply #15)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 12:18 PM

22. That is the only change the President and the Democrats support. Sanders and Begich wrote the bill.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #22)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 06:30 PM

74. if President Obama supports that change, then he's got my vote!

oh, wait a minute

Seriously, I hope you are right. I've been hoping that was the one change he would support.

I would also like to see full retirement back to where it used to be, to free up jobs for more younger people, and so I can get on with what I *really* want to do with my life, but...one step at a time!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to magical thyme (Reply #74)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 07:00 PM

75. Everything I wrote has been posted here on DU from reputable news sources, and from the official

websites of Sanders, Reid and Obama. I've posted these numerous times with all the links and exactly as stated, so have others.

I've also posted, like others, that retirement age is not set in stone, that there are various ways to leave when one can't go anymore. The fact that older, less healthy workers have added to their chances for being considered unemployable, is counted in their case for disability to retire early, I've also posted with links.

I'm not faulting you, or anyone for not knowing, but won't post these again. Ten times per story is enough. The media lies are repeated so often, the truth won't be believed anymore. I'm just getting a bit tired of all of this is my problem.

Thanks, magic thyme, for supporting President Obama despite doubts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 11:53 AM

12. I do not trust Geithner

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SHRED (Reply #12)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 11:56 AM

13. Me either.

Let Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren take over.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ananda (Reply #13)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 12:25 PM

29. She just got elected. I don't want to lose either.

Geitner is an appointee. They are elected. There is no way either could take over without leaving the Senate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SHRED (Reply #12)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 12:27 PM

30. Ditto. eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 11:57 AM

14. Geithner needs to tender his resignation effective immediately

 

and Obama nominate someone like Krugman to become the SoT.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 12:30 PM

32. I wish he would not describe "letting the Bush tax cuts expire" as "damage"

They all should expire and we should be promoting more progressive alternatives.

I think keeping 78% of them will be the thing that causes "damage" to our society, as the rich will continue to get big tax breaks compared to the good old days of 1995.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #32)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 12:33 PM

34. He is a Wall Streeter...that's how they view it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #32)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 12:37 PM

37. No,

"I think keeping 78% of them will be the thing that causes "damage" to our society, as the rich will continue to get big tax breaks compared to the good old days of 1995."

...because there are also tax increases built into the health care law.



Under Clinton, the top 1 percent paid 33.4 percent; under Bush it paid 29.8 percent; and under Obama it would go back up to 35.3 percent, less than two points than under Clinton.

Meanwhile, under Clinton, the top 0.1 percent paid 36.9 percent; under Bush it paid 32.8 percent; and under Obama it would go back up to 39.7 percent. By contrast, every other group would be paying lower rates under Obama’s proposals than under Clinton. (A table detailing these numbers is right here.)

It’s true that the top 1 percent and the top 0.1 percent would be paying more. But the significance of those hikes shrivel dramatically when you consider how much better these folks have fared over time than everyone else has. The highest end hikes shrivel in the context of the towering size of their after-tax incomes — and the degree to which they dwarf those of everyone else, something that has increased dramatically in recent years.

- more -

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/how-obamas-tax-hikes-will-really-impact-the-rich-in-three-easy-charts/2011/03/03/gIQAmbbLIL_blog.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #37)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 01:07 PM

48. yes, note on your chart

how the 80-95th percentile still gets tax breaks. As I said before, those people are NOT the middle class.

"But politicians like Bush, and now Obama, always want to include that 80-95th percentile group as part of the "middle class". That way, they can claim that tax cuts which give as much to the top 5% as they do to the middle 20% are really "middle class tax cuts"."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021824827

A state by state analysis

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3860

I have to note though - they look at two income gaps

1. The gap between the lowest quintile (20% of the population) and the highest quintile
2. The gap between the lowest quintile and the top 5%

$83 billion in tax cuts to the 80-95th percentile and $14 billion in tax cuts to the bottom 20%. Mandated insurance payments don't really make up for that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #48)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 01:26 PM

52. Huh?

"But politicians like Bush, and now Obama, always want to include that 80-95th percentile group as part of the "middle class".

Ridiculous. That captures people making under $60,000 (80 percent) to under $75,000 (88 percent).

Your goal to liken President Obma to Bush is a serious fail.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #52)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 01:39 PM

57. it can capture people making under $40,000

if they are making more than 80% of the rest of us, then they are not in the "middle".

As for the comparison, well if the shoe fits....

Politician says "Policy X will benefit the middle class".

Or let me us a REAL example - the accursed payroll tax cuts.

Out of $112 billion in tax cuts, $91.7 billion goes to the 20th - 95th percentile.

(Whoops, hit reply before I finished calculating. )

That's 81.9%

But of that amount, $36 billion or almost 40% goes to the top 15% - the 80th to 95th percentile. Only $30 billion goes to the bottom 60% while another $15.8 billion goes to the top 5%.

$51.8 billion (or 46% of the total) to the top 20%
$30 billion (or 27%) to the bottom 60%.

What a gift to the "middle class".

But that is a change, because Candidate Obama from 2007, proposed a making work pay tax credit, and THAT proposal gave 49% of its benefits to the bottom 60% and only 23.4% of its benefits to the top 20%.

Candidate Obama

23.4% to the top quintile
49% to the bottom 60%

changed to

46% to the top quintile
27% to the bottom 60%

That isn't a change for the better.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #57)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 02:25 PM

62. Wait

if they are making more than 80% of the rest of us, then they are not in the "middle". can capture people making under $40,000

...are you trying to define the middle class as people earning under $40,000?

What's the purpose of that: So that Republicans can claim the middle class are low income Americans?

I mean, given the subsidies for low income Americans in the health care law, you argument seems to imply that incomes should be eliminated from subsidies.

"Out of $112 billion in tax cuts, $91.7 billion goes to the 20th - 95th percentile. "

What the hell is your point? The tax structure is progressive. Even if you cut taxes on people earning only $20,000, those in the upper income brackets would receive a tax cut.

that is a change, because Candidate Obama from 2007, proposed a making work pay tax credit, and THAT proposal gave 49% of its benefits to the bottom 60% and only 23.4% of its benefits to the top 20%.

Candidate Obama

23.4% to the top quintile
49% to the bottom 60%

The Making Work Pay Credit was in effect from 2009 through the end of 2010. He was President Obama then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #62)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 06:26 PM

73. no, you stated $60,000 like it was some kind of low income

Well even $15,000 is NOT a low income IF it is more than 80% of the population makes.

So if 80% of the population makes less than $60,000 then $60,000 is not a low income, nor a middle income.

and this

"What the hell is your point? The tax structure is progressive. Even if you cut taxes on people earning only $20,000, those in the upper income brackets would receive a tax cut."

is just false.

One example being the making work pay tax cut, which Obama has abandoned in favor of tax cuts tilted to the well off.

Other examples, again, which would not favor the wealthy (although the wealthy would get SOMEthing from some of these proposals, they would not get much more than those at the bottom.

1. Increase the standard deduction by $5,000 per couple. This will save people at the bottom about $750 a year without being a windfall for the rich. (most of the rich, don't use the standard deducton because they itemize).

3. increase the personal exemption by $500. Unfortunately the rich will benefit from that, but not by much more than the poor. It means $75 for the poor and only $197 for the rich. It would be a $2,000 automatic deduction for a family of four.

4. Re-introduce lower brackets. Say, a 5% bracket on the first $3,000 and a 10% bracket on the first $7,000 for individuals. The first would be a $300 tax cut for most taxpayers and the second would be another $200 for most taxpayers.

A payroll tax cut on the first $10,000 of income would give most people $520 instead of the 2% tax cut which gives the guy making $10,000 a $200 break and the guy making $100,000 a $2,000 break. I'm not sure why we have to push tax cuts at all, but if we do, $520 for each seems much better than $200 for the poor and $2,000 for the rich.

Tax policies don't have to favor the rich, they don't have to favor the upper middle class, and it is a betrayal of the supposed principles of the Democratic Party when they do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 12:55 PM

45. You can only support a complete epic fail policy for so long.

If Treasury Secretary Geithner supported the extension of this epic failure progressives would be be sharpening their pitchforks and lighting their torches.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 01:41 PM

58. Oh yes Tim Geithner is speaking truth

to crazy. I support PBO na dhis team 1000%

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 01:41 PM

59. The Problem With The Debt Ceiling

Is that nothing positive comes from it. Congress authorizes the spending in the appropriation bills it passes and sends to the President. The debt ceiling is the wrong tool.

The debt ceiling has come to the point where the only two things is accomplishes is to roil the markets by introducing uncertainty in the government paying its obligations and it has resulted in the AAA credit rating being lost which adds to the cost of borrowing on the national debt. Remove the debt ceiling and the AAA rating would likely come back and save billions in interest payments the government makes.

If memory serves, the debt ceiling was from Republican isolationists wanting to tie the hands of President Wilson over World War I (along with not passing the League of Nations). Republicans were wrong then and they are wrong now. The debt ceiling is strictly a political tool that actually hampers government operations. Since is serves no public policy function it is past time to get rid of it and the Republican obstruction it empowers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread