HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » SELLOUT! This is NOT what...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:34 PM

SELLOUT! This is NOT what we voted for! He ran on $250k and now is pushing $450K. Guess who is going

to pick up the difference. Yes, you guessed it, the working class will.

172 replies, 13582 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 172 replies Author Time Post
Reply SELLOUT! This is NOT what we voted for! He ran on $250k and now is pushing $450K. Guess who is going (Original post)
In Truth We Trust Dec 2012 OP
phleshdef Dec 2012 #1
Wind Dancer Dec 2012 #35
phleshdef Dec 2012 #39
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2012 #83
Bake Dec 2012 #115
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2012 #132
Bake Jan 2013 #163
freshwest Jan 2013 #162
bunnies Dec 2012 #2
BeyondGeography Dec 2012 #3
Comrade_McKenzie Dec 2012 #4
In Truth We Trust Dec 2012 #8
NYC Liberal Dec 2012 #10
CatWoman Dec 2012 #72
Number23 Dec 2012 #120
Egalitarian Thug Dec 2012 #5
alcibiades_mystery Dec 2012 #19
Report1212 Dec 2012 #25
Egalitarian Thug Dec 2012 #26
alcibiades_mystery Dec 2012 #29
Egalitarian Thug Dec 2012 #63
leveymg Dec 2012 #112
alcibiades_mystery Dec 2012 #114
leveymg Dec 2012 #116
alcibiades_mystery Dec 2012 #118
leveymg Jan 2013 #156
Sekhmets Daughter Jan 2013 #159
SpartanDem Dec 2012 #33
Egalitarian Thug Dec 2012 #45
AldoLeopold Dec 2012 #40
monmouth3 Dec 2012 #6
CJCRANE Dec 2012 #12
bowens43 Dec 2012 #7
In Truth We Trust Dec 2012 #9
backscatter712 Dec 2012 #14
bama_blue_dot Dec 2012 #32
bluestate10 Dec 2012 #93
dionysus Dec 2012 #129
dionysus Dec 2012 #128
global1 Dec 2012 #11
backscatter712 Dec 2012 #13
In Truth We Trust Dec 2012 #16
phleshdef Dec 2012 #18
In Truth We Trust Dec 2012 #22
phleshdef Dec 2012 #27
FSogol Dec 2012 #24
bluestate10 Dec 2012 #95
MH1 Jan 2013 #167
dionysus Dec 2012 #61
billh58 Dec 2012 #84
JTFrog Dec 2012 #119
Marrah_G Dec 2012 #15
In_The_Wind Jan 2013 #155
alcibiades_mystery Dec 2012 #17
SpartanDem Dec 2012 #21
peacebird Dec 2012 #28
Harmony Blue Dec 2012 #23
In Truth We Trust Dec 2012 #34
Kolesar Jan 2013 #151
In Truth We Trust Jan 2013 #165
In Truth We Trust Jan 2013 #169
alcibiades_mystery Jan 2013 #170
frazzled Dec 2012 #20
bluestate10 Dec 2012 #97
Walk away Dec 2012 #113
Recursion Dec 2012 #30
kiranon Dec 2012 #31
Harmony Blue Dec 2012 #36
bluestate10 Dec 2012 #99
davidpdx Jan 2013 #160
JoePhilly Dec 2012 #37
dionysus Dec 2012 #60
GoCubsGo Dec 2012 #94
bluestate10 Dec 2012 #100
RomneyLies Dec 2012 #38
polmaven Dec 2012 #41
In Truth We Trust Dec 2012 #43
babylonsister Dec 2012 #46
In Truth We Trust Dec 2012 #48
RomneyLies Dec 2012 #49
randome Dec 2012 #54
In Truth We Trust Dec 2012 #58
RomneyLies Dec 2012 #64
In Truth We Trust Dec 2012 #68
RomneyLies Dec 2012 #69
In Truth We Trust Dec 2012 #82
RomneyLies Dec 2012 #85
In Truth We Trust Dec 2012 #96
billh58 Dec 2012 #90
In Truth We Trust Dec 2012 #104
billh58 Dec 2012 #123
Number23 Dec 2012 #121
billh58 Dec 2012 #125
NYC Liberal Jan 2013 #147
bluestate10 Dec 2012 #103
greatauntoftriplets Dec 2012 #107
DevonRex Jan 2013 #142
RomneyLies Dec 2012 #47
In Truth We Trust Dec 2012 #50
RomneyLies Dec 2012 #51
In Truth We Trust Dec 2012 #56
RomneyLies Dec 2012 #57
In Truth We Trust Dec 2012 #66
RomneyLies Dec 2012 #67
In Truth We Trust Dec 2012 #87
RomneyLies Dec 2012 #88
freshwest Jan 2013 #143
Jennicut Dec 2012 #42
In Truth We Trust Dec 2012 #44
Shivering Jemmy Dec 2012 #79
billh58 Dec 2012 #131
DevonRex Jan 2013 #141
still_one Dec 2012 #52
bluestate10 Dec 2012 #105
In Truth We Trust Dec 2012 #108
still_one Dec 2012 #110
Pretzel_Warrior Dec 2012 #53
dionysus Dec 2012 #62
Robb Dec 2012 #81
dionysus Dec 2012 #127
Indykatie Dec 2012 #55
dionysus Dec 2012 #59
In Truth We Trust Dec 2012 #70
dionysus Dec 2012 #117
fadedrose Dec 2012 #65
SidDithers Dec 2012 #71
Hekate Dec 2012 #73
CatWoman Dec 2012 #74
CitizenPatriot Dec 2012 #77
Hekate Dec 2012 #91
Skittles Jan 2013 #144
CitizenPatriot Dec 2012 #75
Number23 Dec 2012 #124
CitizenPatriot Jan 2013 #172
Ian David Dec 2012 #76
tritsofme Dec 2012 #78
bluestate10 Dec 2012 #109
MjolnirTime Dec 2012 #80
Trajan Dec 2012 #86
bluestate10 Dec 2012 #89
Hekate Dec 2012 #92
Robb Dec 2012 #98
Number23 Dec 2012 #126
jberryhill Dec 2012 #101
ZRT2209 Dec 2012 #102
JoeyT Dec 2012 #106
In Truth We Trust Dec 2012 #111
Hekate Dec 2012 #122
In Truth We Trust Dec 2012 #134
DainBramaged Dec 2012 #130
Zoeisright Dec 2012 #133
WilliamPitt Dec 2012 #135
In Truth We Trust Dec 2012 #137
WilliamPitt Dec 2012 #139
xxxsdesdexxx Dec 2012 #136
In Truth We Trust Dec 2012 #138
NYC_SKP Dec 2012 #140
steve2470 Jan 2013 #145
stultusporcos Jan 2013 #146
In_The_Wind Jan 2013 #148
stultusporcos Jan 2013 #150
Kolesar Jan 2013 #152
stultusporcos Jan 2013 #166
trumad Jan 2013 #149
Kolesar Jan 2013 #153
bitchkitty Jan 2013 #154
Sekhmets Daughter Jan 2013 #157
In Truth We Trust Jan 2013 #168
Sekhmets Daughter Jan 2013 #171
serbbral Jan 2013 #158
RBInMaine Jan 2013 #161
msanthrope Jan 2013 #164

Response to In Truth We Trust (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:34 PM

1. I hope you have someone to help you change your diaper.

I heard its hard to do on your own.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phleshdef (Reply #1)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:27 PM

35. How does this childish response add anything...

... to a political discussion?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wind Dancer (Reply #35)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:36 PM

39. My response was no more or less childish than the post I was responding to.

Don't try to pretend that this OP deserves any serious regard or mature response. Spare me the disingenious lecture. It doesn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phleshdef (Reply #39)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 07:01 PM

83. +1 ...

But ... but ... but ... He gave an inch!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #83)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 08:37 PM

115. I'd call it just a bit more than an inch, really

Damn near doubled the figure -- 250K to 450K is more than an "inch." And there's no deal yet anyway.

Bake

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bake (Reply #115)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 10:11 PM

132. You really don't understand, do you ...

there really is no difference between $250k and $450, for the wealthy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #132)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 10:10 AM

163. I understand math.

If there's really no difference, why not make it $1 million?

Because there really IS a difference.

But pardon me for daring to point out the obvious, which you take as a criticism of the President. Helluva negotiator there.

Bake

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #83)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 10:06 AM

162. At least he's *using his words* this year...


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to In Truth We Trust (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:35 PM

2. Oh goody.

Im in time for the hair-lighting ceremony!

on edit: gotta run to physical therapy. Nobody light till I get back!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to In Truth We Trust (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:35 PM

3. C'est la lutte finale!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to In Truth We Trust (Original post)


Response to Comrade_McKenzie (Reply #4)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:42 PM

8. classic! insult and attack the messenger. Lame asslicking stenographer apologist!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to In Truth We Trust (Reply #8)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:47 PM

10. That's not an insult. It's a good suggestion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC Liberal (Reply #10)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 06:33 PM

72. bwahahahahaha

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC Liberal (Reply #10)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:13 PM

120. (spits cranberry juice on keyboard) +a million

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to In Truth We Trust (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:40 PM

5. I'm far less concerned with the income tax rate than with those of capital gains and inheritance.

 

those will make a big difference and allow the precedence to remain.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egalitarian Thug (Reply #5)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:04 PM

19. NBC reporting

Inheritance goes from 35% to 40% for estates over $5 million.

Elsewhere says Dems insisting on 20% cap gains for $250,000 and above.

Together, those probably come close to cancelling the revenue reductions of the move from $250,000 to $450,000.

Not bad, all things considered, if it comes off.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #19)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:14 PM

25. No, not really

Estate taxes if we do NOTHING will be 55% on estates worth $1 and more.

That's the most progressive tax in a generation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #19)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:14 PM

26. Cliff = 55% over $1M inheritance, 25% cap gains from $0.

 

And this in exchange for no cuts and another temporary, undetermined extension to UI benefits with no progress in employing unemployed people.

A huge win for the rich at the expense of everybody else, with the added bonus of allowing the pols to avoid addressing the issues on the record.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egalitarian Thug (Reply #26)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:19 PM

29. if you're measuring against the cliff

We should also measure the rate increases for everybody from zero, the end of a slew of tax credits that affect middle class families and the like.

That's fine as a perspective, so long as we own it: we trade 55% estate tax from $1 million for across the board tax hikes. OK, if that's what you want. Here's what we get instead with a deal: 40% estate tax (up from 35%) on $5 million and over. What do we get in exchange? No tax increases for anybody under $400,000 in income. Listen, it's nothing to do somersaults over, but I need that extra $150 or $200 in my biweekly, and that would be gone without a deal. So, for me, that's a pretty good deal.

I'm happy to measure against the cliff, but I want to measure against the WHOLE cliff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #29)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 05:25 PM

63. Well, that's the crux of the biscuit, isn't it? The whole thing is another in the series of

 

net gains for those with everything at the expense of, and a net loss for, everybody else, You get your two dinners out every couple of weeks and the nation continues to swirl around the drain.

Do you imagine that you're going to keep your $200 forever? Will the 1 - 3 month extension of inadequate UI payments get those people a decent job? Does any of this Grand Deal change any of the fundamental factors that have caused our national decline? No, it merely provides cover for political hacks refusing to do their jobs by distracting the sheeple while the chute gets narrower.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #29)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 08:14 PM

112. You assume that Congress won't reinstate middle-class tax cuts. They will. That much is certain.

That will be the first thing they all rush to do, or they are ALL gone. The other top order is to restore UI to 3 million long-term unemployed. The rest can be dealt with piece-meal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #112)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 08:21 PM

114. I don't think it's certain at all

You assume that they'll rush to do that. I don't see any reason to believe it probable, much less certain.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #114)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 08:39 PM

116. They just announced UI has been extended for a year without offset. They'll extend the middle-class

tax cuts next. That is a near-certainty because the political consequences of not appearing to act promptly will be like setting off a neutron bomb on Capitol Hill. If they don't, they will all be gone in a flash -- particularly the Republicans, who are getting the blame -- leaving the marble buildings standing and Congressional offices empty.

UI extension reported here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022106853

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #116)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:03 PM

118. As part of the very deal you're otherwise shitting on...?

I mean, truly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #118)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 08:40 AM

156. The Grand Deal included SS "reform". That won't happen - the measures will be considered separately

as they should be. Yes, as you put it so succinctly, I will continue to "shit" on any deal that trades SS COLA cuts for revenue - they aren't structurally related, and SS benefits should continue to be treated as the "third rail of American politics." They aren't something to be bargained away. Any SS reform that cuts benefits for the poor is unacceptable, and if there really is a solvency problem, raise the cap - something that needs to be done, anyway.

As for the specifics of where one triggers the old tax rates, $250K or $450K, I personally think that isn't terribly important. I would prefer that another couple of tiers be added for multimillionaires above the 39.5% top rate and that many of the deductions and dodges, such as trusts and exemptions to the inheritance tax, be stripped out of the tax code so that truly wealthy people like Mitt Romney whose incomes are derived from investments really have to pay at least 39.5% and their overpampered children don't inherit all the world's riches.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #29)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 08:50 AM

159. Exactly.

I can't help but wonder what will be said about this deal if the House doesn't approve it and everyone's next several paychecks are considerably smaller.

Happy New Year!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egalitarian Thug (Reply #26)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:25 PM

33. Cliff = two million cut off from UE

No cuts? Part of the cliff is a $600 billion cut in discretionary spending. Hope your city does not need block grants or funding for public housing.

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/politics/2012/12/death-million-cuts-what-cities-stand-lose-if-we-go-over-fiscal-cliff/4203/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SpartanDem (Reply #33)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:57 PM

45. There is no public housing out here and block grants = another few hundred thousand bucks in a

 

developer's pocket.

bbl.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #19)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:36 PM

40. And Yet it was rejected because good is dumb

[link:|

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to In Truth We Trust (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:41 PM

6. The President has not even reached the podium yet.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to monmouth3 (Reply #6)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:50 PM

12. Yes, this post was somewhat premature

and immature.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to In Truth We Trust (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:41 PM

7. Wacth out!! The Obamnapologists are out in force!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bowens43 (Reply #7)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:44 PM

9. Seriously Bowen! Classic blame and ridicule the messenger tactics! Pathetic! Probably paid trolls!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to In Truth We Trust (Reply #9)


Response to In Truth We Trust (Reply #9)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:22 PM

32. Who are you to assert that anyone

here is a paid troll? Your post certainly smells a tad trollish to me..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bama_blue_dot (Reply #32)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 07:26 PM

93. Welcome to DU. We need more blue-bloods from your part of the country.

BTW, I am in the camp that it is too early to accuse the President of selling out. The President campaigned on $250,000, but that was a starting bargaining position. The President is not a dictator who can have his way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to In Truth We Trust (Reply #9)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:54 PM

129. YEAH! Democrats on a board for Democrats are.. paid... trolls...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bowens43 (Reply #7)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:53 PM

128. so apparently, are the pamper filling despair trolls.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to In Truth We Trust (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:49 PM

11. Kick The Can.....nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to In Truth We Trust (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:52 PM

13. Your despair is noted.

The art you're so unfamiliar with is called negotiation.

GOP says "No tax increases!!!!111" Obama says "Tax hike for >$250k".

Today they're saying "Tax hide for >$450k, no Chained CPI (what, no celebrations? Chained CPI is OFF THE TABLE!), a few spending cuts."

Don't tell me Obama's giving away the store. That's total bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to backscatter712 (Reply #13)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:58 PM

16. No need to negotiate! He has a mandate. Only a Chamberlain would negotiate with fascists. I'm suppos

ed to be happy soc sec is off the table??>? wtf? it is self funded. Methinks perhaps you are the one unfamiliar with negotiation!!! Don't patronize me either! I don't suffer fools gladly!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to In Truth We Trust (Reply #16)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:02 PM

18. Ooh lookee me! I'll end every sentence with an exclamation point! And spout off nonsense with no...

...basis in reality! And I'll reference Chamberlain because I think it makes me look smart! I'll ignore the fact that Republicans own Congress and have just as much power as the President when it comes to legislating! Never mind the fact that I need a civics class!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phleshdef (Reply #18)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:13 PM

22. You're ridicule is noted. I will refrain from responding in kind as it serves no purpose to

argue with an idiot. Do tell me this though, is it tough always being the smarmiest asshole in any given room?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to In Truth We Trust (Reply #22)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:15 PM

27. Its more difficult than you could ever imagine.

Nobody knows the troubles I've seen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phleshdef (Reply #18)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:14 PM

24. +1 LOL!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phleshdef (Reply #18)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 07:33 PM

95. BOOM! Some people really need to sit their asses down and read the Constitution.

Unfortunately, we are stuck with fucking republican morons leading the House and have no outlet other than voting them out of office in 2014 and replacing them with Democrats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluestate10 (Reply #95)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 12:27 PM

167. Good luck with that, considering the gerrymandered districts we ceded in 2010.

Although I agree we should certainly try.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to In Truth We Trust (Reply #16)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 05:21 PM

61. !!1!1!1!! eleventy!11!1!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to In Truth We Trust (Reply #16)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 07:05 PM

84. Yes, you're correct.

It's sad to see a fool suffer after being patronized. Try and cheer up, okay?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to In Truth We Trust (Reply #16)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:10 PM

119. Where have I heard this shit before?

Oh yeah, when Chris Matthews was drinking Kevin James' milkshake.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to In Truth We Trust (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:54 PM

15. Because 450k is middle class!

Of course they make in a month what most of us make in a good year...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marrah_G (Reply #15)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 08:36 AM

155. Oh

That's rich.
I almost sprayed my morning cup of coffee.
Thank you

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to In Truth We Trust (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:02 PM

17. $400/$450 is a cave? Republicans cave on the principle, on the rate level, and on additional rates!

I'd prefer $388,500 to be the line in the sand on rate increases.

But the increased rate on dividends (conveniently left out of your account) really does offset that a bit - drawing additional revenues from the top 2% of the population where the rate line at $450,000 or $500,000 and no other revenues would not. Obviously would like to have estate as well, but both these features maintain the principle that the very wealthy should pay more.

If we review the Republican position, we see how eroded their defense is:

1) They insisted on no tax RATE increase PERIOD. They would find revenue other ways. They abandoned this position.

2) Having abandoned the "No rate Increase" position, they tried to set the rate at $1,000,000 or greater in income, and no other changes. This position, too, has fallen.

3) There was a HuffPo story this weekend that suggested the new Republican position was $500,000. Apparently, it is $550,000, but they might accept a capital gains increase alongside that.

When you look at where they started, you really see how far they've fallen. meanwhile, the Dem position started at yes on rates, and Rate at $250,000, and has apparently moved up to $450,000. That means no tax rate increases on the middle class, and only a slight movement up in brackets. Moreover, when a capital gains rate is included in the rate changes, you draw revenue from top incomes at roughly the level you would if the rate was something like $350,000, so the actual uptick is even more slight. The rate is a way for GOPers to save face. The capital gains increase may actually offset the income rate completely back down to $250,000.

Oh, an apparently we're going to get an increase on estate tax to 40% for $5 mil and over as well.

What a sellout!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #17)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:11 PM

21. Please no logic

we didn't get EVERYTHING therefore it's a SELLLOUTTT!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SpartanDem (Reply #21)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:18 PM

28. +a gazillion

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #17)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:14 PM

23. It is a good deal given

what was at stake. Sometimes some people can't put together the net effect and focus on several points instead of looking at the greater picture.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #17)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:26 PM

34. Thank you for your response. While the details haven't been released I am wondering what your source

so that i can review it please?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to In Truth We Trust (Reply #34)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 08:28 AM

151. your original post was written like "squat"

Happy new year

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kolesar (Reply #151)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 11:33 AM

165. What? Happy New Year to you too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #17)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 12:39 PM

169. Perhaps ypou should read Robert Reichs take on this:

The deal emerging from the Senate is a lousy one. Let me count the ways:

1. Republicans havenít conceded anything on the debt ceiling, so over the next two months Ė as the Treasury runs out of tricks to avoid a default Ė Republicans are likely to do exactly what they did before, which is to hold their votes on raising the ceiling hostage to major cuts in programs for the poor and in Medicare and Social Security.

2. The deal makes tax cuts for the rich permanent (extending the Bush tax cuts for incomes up to $400,000 if filing singly and $450,000 if jointly) while extending refundable tax credits for the poor (child tax credit, enlarged EITC, and tuition tax credit) for only five years. Thereís absolutely no justification for this asymmetry.

3. It doesnít get nearly enough revenue from the wealthiest 2 percent ó only $600 billion over the next decade, which is half of what the
http://www.facebook.com/RBReich/posts/542987339047200

President called for, and a small fraction of the White Houseís goal of more than $4 trillion in deficit reduction. That means more of the burden of tax hikes and spending cuts in future years will fall on the middle class and the poor.

4. It continues to exempt the first $5 million of inherited wealth from the estate tax (the exemption used to be $1 million). This is a huge gift to the heirs of the wealthy, perpetuating family dynasties of the idle rich.

Yes, the deal finally gets Republicans to accept a tax increase on the wealthy, but this is an inside-the-Beltway symbolic victory. If anyone believes this will make the GOP more amenable to future tax increases, they donít know how rabidly extremist the GOP has become.

The deal also extends unemployment insurance for more than 2 million long-term unemployed. Thatís important.

But I canít help believe the President could have done better than this. After all, public opinion is overwhelmingly on his side. Republicans would have been blamed had no deal been achieved.

More importantly, the fiscal cliff is on the Presidentís side as well. If we go over it, he and the Democrats in the next Congress that starts later this week can quickly offer legislation that grants a middle-class tax cut and restores most military spending. Even rabid Republicans would be hard-pressed not to sign on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to In Truth We Trust (Reply #169)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 12:45 PM

170. Here's my reply, already posted elsewhere

Finally! A concrete proposal for how the GOP House was supposed to magically assent to the middle class tax cut (apparently Reich agrees that we needed to retain that!). It wasn't just going to magically agree, but it was going to grant the middle class tax cuts in exchange for...full restoration of military spending from the sequester?

This is the deal we wanted? Middle class tax cuts in exchange for full restoration of military spending?

Can you imagine the fucking outcry here if we'd taken THAT route! Hell, half our progressive friends on DU have gone all deficit hawk on us, arguing that all tax cuts need to expire permanently, a position that even Reich seems uncomfortable with (I shouldn't say "even" Reich - he's obviously a Keynesian who would look askew at such deficit-sensitive proposals that reduce consumer demand in a tough economy).

But even supposing that we agree with that logic, doesn't Reich's argument here undermine the idea that the Dems have given up all their leverage? If, for Reich, we were going to get concessions from the Repubs by holding out military spending, how has that changed? I thought, according to all the critics, our only leverage was the tax hike? But Reich himself suggests that there is another leverage point that would allow us to extract revenue concessions! That's from the horse's own mouth, as it were. So, do we agree with Reich or not?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to In Truth We Trust (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:05 PM

20. Blame Chuck Schumer and other Senate Democrats

Who for the entire year Obama was saying $250K, they were saying, "Millionaires." They put forth plenty of signals, radar, and actual plans that suggested raising taxes on income over $1 million was fine with them. They undercut the president.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frazzled (Reply #20)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 07:40 PM

97. In Schumer's state, $250,000 per year for a family of four is not excessive earnings.

Schumer was doing what he should be doing for the citizens of his state.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluestate10 (Reply #97)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 08:20 PM

113. That's a Dentist or a Plumber married to a nurse in NJ.

It's not like they can't afford to kick in a little more but they aren't the rich doing nothing for a living.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to In Truth We Trust (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:20 PM

30. The difference between 250k and 450k is not worth extending unemployment to you

I get that. I also disagree.

I also have yet to see anything passed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to In Truth We Trust (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:20 PM

31. Never expected $250.000 number to stick. It was always subject

to negotiation. IMHO, $450,000 amount is a win.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kiranon (Reply #31)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:28 PM

36. That is how negotiations work.

You start with a low figure and work from there. Boehner started with an astronomically high number ($1m) though, so Republicans have given a lot more ground for $450k.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Harmony Blue (Reply #36)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 07:42 PM

99. Some on DU don't understand the art of negotiation. The world is simple to them. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluestate10 (Reply #99)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 09:07 AM

160. That's because everything is cabitchalation...get ha

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to In Truth We Trust (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:29 PM

37. And another episode of HairOnFireUnderground begins.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #37)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 05:20 PM

60. obama crushed out a cigarette in my kitteh's eye. he wants us all to die too Joe. he is a very evil

man.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #37)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 07:33 PM

94. I have a feeling I'll be using "Trash This Thread" a whole bunch tonight.

Starting right now, LOL! Good Gawd! All this outrage over a crummy $150,000.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #37)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 07:45 PM

100. What did you expect. There are some here that only see a black and white world.

There is no complexity and compelling reason for negotiation in their minds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to In Truth We Trust (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:30 PM

38. People on the left who refuse to compromise are identical to teabaggers who refuse to compromise.

 

Politics is the art of compromise. I suggest you get used to it or give up completely on politics because you will never be happy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #38)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:39 PM

41. Exactly!!

A mandate does not equal the ability to issue orders regarding policy. The president MUST compromise in order to get anything done. This is not a dictatorship!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #38)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:45 PM

43. It has been a one-way process whereby the people on the left continually "compromise"

which in effect means they (the right) move right and we concede to compromise based on their narrative. I propose we negotiate from principle and reality based numbers and no longer negotiate with unreasonable and unethical people. The working class/middle class has borne the brunt of all sacrifice while the wealthy get breaks. I say when they move right we move further left. A classic example in this round of scamming has been their even positing that SS should be on the table. SS is self funded and has NO place in these discussions yet Obama put it there by agreeing to even negotiate it and consider a chained cpi. Utter bullshit. A true leader would have called this out quite emphatically and publicly shamed any future consideration of such.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to In Truth We Trust (Reply #43)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 03:05 PM

46. Can I offer you a bucket of water

to put your hair out?

And Obama is a better leader than we could have ever hoped for...imo. My glass is more than half full, unlike yours.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Reply #46)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 03:59 PM

48. I would hope for a FDR leasder...don't know what you hope for? Keep the water, you may need it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to In Truth We Trust (Reply #48)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 04:01 PM

49. FDR had a massively Democratic House AND Senate

 

Obama had precisely 29 legislative days in four years where he could get ANYTHING past the Senate.

That he has accomplished what he already has says he's a much better leader than FDR.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #49)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 04:05 PM

54. Well said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #49)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 05:17 PM

58. Obama better leader then FDR? Really? Wow. just fucking wow. You are talking about a man who led us

through the great depression, enacted great public works programs, gave us real wall st reform, social security and ended world war 2 in 3 1/2 years. Obama gave us continued bush policies and bailouts for wall st and couldn't even let bush tax's fucking expire with a huge mandate. Your true colors are showing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to In Truth We Trust (Reply #58)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 05:26 PM

64. About 20 times better leader, in fact.

 

He accomplished more in his first term than any president since FDR, and FDR had a House comprised of 332 Democrats to 105 Republicans and a Senate comprised of 59 Democrats, 1 Farm-Labor, and 36 Republicans. That was his first two years.

In the second two years of FDR's first term, he had a House virtually unchanged and a Senate comprised of 70 Democrats, 1 Farm-Labor, 1 Wisconsin Progressive, and 23 Republicans.

That FDR couldn't get more passed with a Congressional makeup like that points to his weakness as a leader when compared to Barack Obama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #64)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 06:22 PM

68. bush accomplished more than obama albeit all terrible. To even push such gibberish is very revealing

the 1932 election was won overwhelming by dems as was the 2008 election. Both presidents enjoyed massive public support. for you to say obama is a new deal democrat and was more effective by 20 fold shows a lack of basic understanding unless your definition of being effective means third way dlc corporatist bullshit then and only then would you be right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to In Truth We Trust (Reply #68)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 06:26 PM

69. Actually, no. Bush didn't.

 

Bush's legislative agenda was nearly non-existent in his first four years compared to Obama.

FDR didn't have to face EVERY piece pof legislation being filibustered in its tracks by a GOP minority, and wouldn't have faced it anyway as there was no point in time where the GOP had the votes to do so.

You need to go back, learn some history, then spout off.

Seriously, dude, trying to claim Bush had more of his agenda passed during his first four years than Obama did is just plain ingorance of the facts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #69)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 07:00 PM

82. Obama, had he been the leader you portend him to be, then we wouldn't be having this discussion at

all. If he was the leader you claim why did he not accomplish the goals he ran on? There is a litany of promises made and not kept including into the eve of his second term still negotiating on raising taxes above the 250k threshold he ran on in 2008. He won that election with a huge mandate on four years ago. Yeah he's a real tough superman of a leader alright. I'll take FDR over obama any day in the leadership department.

He may be an intelligent well spoken and likable man but a leader for progressive values he is not! He had a bully pulpit and continues to have one and yet he continues this good cop/bad cop bullshit with the right controlling whats on the table. He literally was offering to hit soc sec with a bullshit chained cpi which is beyond understanding unless you see it for what it is; an assist to to corporation's.

That kind of leadership we can do without.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to In Truth We Trust (Reply #82)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 07:06 PM

85. If Obama was the piss poor leader YOU CLAIM

 

None of the legislation listed in the 64 pages at the following link would have been signed:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/signed-legislation

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #85)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 07:37 PM

96. Doesn't come close to FDR who cleaned up wall st, created the SEC, created jobs through the TVA, WPA

and other public worlks projects, provided a social security network, aided in ending the depression and brought the country through WWII in just 3 1/2 years. Last I checked we're still in Afghanistan and are currently running more covert wars than a TI 86 can track. Oh and lets not forget all the broken promises for the man whom you claim is 20 times more effective than FDR:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/04/05/the-top-five-campaign-promises-obama-left-behind/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to In Truth We Trust (Reply #68)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 07:17 PM

90. Ahhh, now it becomes clear.

You were disappointed that Obama beat McCain, so you became a PUMA and.... No, wait, you were disappointed that Hillary didn't win the 2008 primary, so you became a PUMA and...

No, wait, you just became a PUMA and an Obama hater because you think that you will become the center of attention and a darling of the "anyone but Obama" sect who are currently swarming on DU. Is that it?

I really can't think of any other reason for you to be on a Democratic board, unless you just want to show everyone how brightly your hair burns, or maybe how dramatic you can be. That part of your hissy fit is easy to spot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to billh58 (Reply #90)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 07:56 PM

104. You see nothing but the brilliance of your own suppositions and that is in itself pathetic. You know

nothing of the kind about me but pretend to. That is sad and lame. I stated earlier that I find obama likable, intelligetnt and well spoken. It is a major disappointment that he ran in 08 as one thing and governed as another. This is a democratic board and therefore by defintion should be open to expressing ones opinions. You claim to be a democrat (small d) but your assertions and accusations are anything but democratic. Somebody hurt your feelings because they see your hero has no clothes?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to In Truth We Trust (Reply #104)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:30 PM

123. Aww, now it's an

angry PUMA. Don't worry, your hair will grow back...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to billh58 (Reply #90)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:28 PM

121. "anyone but Obama" sect who are currently swarming on DU."

The anti-Obama sect here appear to be the only people here that don't see the anti-Obama sect on DU. They only see patriots doing their "civic duty" by shitting on everything the man does -- kind of like those lunatics who showed up at the president's rallies in 2008 with guns and t-shirts about the tree of liberty needing to be watered with the blood of patriots. The similarities are... interesting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Number23 (Reply #121)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:32 PM

125. Too true, and they're

absolutely everywhere you look -- all 40 of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to In Truth We Trust (Reply #68)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 07:35 AM

147. LMAO

The poster to whom you are responding is 100% on the mark. Obama had one of the most successful terms of any president in history in terms of legislation passed. And he did it despite unprecedented opposition from a right-wing GOP, which also controlled half of Congress for 2 out of 4 years in his first term and despite a 24/7 media finding fault with everything he did -- neither of which is something FDR faced.

Are we talking about the FDR who refused to support an anti-lynching bill because he needed Southern support? If it were Obama, you would be no doubt calling him a "caver" or an "appeaser" or "Repub-lite". How about the FDR that put over 100,000 Americans into prison camps based solely on their race? If Obama did that, I doubt anything else he did would matter to you; you would be SCREAMING bloody murder. I mean Obama got shit from some quarters here just because he killed Osama. FDR refused to desegregate the armed forces; Obama fought for the repeal of DADT and the equal inclusion of all Americans in our military.

Now, none of this is to say I do not think FDR is a great president, because I do. He is one of our greatest. But I am simply exposing YOUR double standards. If Obama had done some of the bad things FDR did, or made some of the mistakes FDR did, you would be excoriating him for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to In Truth We Trust (Reply #48)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 07:53 PM

103. FDR governed during a time when patronage was still big and rebels could be punished

politically. If Obama tried to buy votes today with patronage, everyone would be all over him and his Presidency would be ruined. If Obama tried to make republicans pay for their bullshit, those republicans would run right to FOX News and CNN to show their wounds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Reply #46)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 08:02 PM

107. My pony just drank my half full glass of water!!!111

Want some to go with that popcorn?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Reply #46)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 01:43 AM

142. This guy is totally bald by now.

Nothing left to catch fire but his clothes. Whoops. There they went, up in flames. Better catch him quick!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to In Truth We Trust (Reply #43)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 03:49 PM

47. Again, you apparently do not understand what the word "compromise" means

 

Look it up because if yu do not accept this fact of life, you are going to spend your days as an angry, unsatisfied person.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #47)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 04:01 PM

50. see my post 43

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to In Truth We Trust (Reply #50)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 04:02 PM

51. The post you just replied to was a REPLY to post 43

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #51)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 05:11 PM

56. The may I suggest you actually read it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to In Truth We Trust (Reply #56)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 05:12 PM

57. I read it

 

You obviously have no clue what the word "compromise" even means.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #57)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 06:12 PM

66. you obviously have reading comprehension issues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to In Truth We Trust (Reply #66)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 06:13 PM

67. Apparently, you are politically naive.

 

If you don't want to go through life being completely angry, learn what "compromise" means and do some studying on how politics works.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #67)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 07:10 PM

87. Apparently you are a condescending individual. Yes, lets compromise. Lets have "peace in our time".

I've already said, negotiating from strength doesn't require you to compromise your values or your stated platform for which you ran and won a mandate upon. A true leader could use that bully pulpit and lead. Can't wait for all the details to come out of this days political theatre to see how much the working class gets screwed again. But hey, if your happy then good for you!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to In Truth We Trust (Reply #87)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 07:13 PM

88. And again, I say your stance is the same as a teabagger's stance.

 

You demand everything be your way.

Politics does not work that way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #38)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 01:46 AM

143. I was looking for a tea party taliban meme. I found this, it's close to what I've heard lately:



I see seven, maybe eight similarities. Even the phrases used here have been the same. Is there a leftist bagger group?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to In Truth We Trust (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:42 PM

42. It is called a negotiation for a reason.

$450,000 is reasonable (with no cuts to Social Security or any nonsense like that).

I suggest you watch American Pickers or Pawn Stars sometime. You start at a place and then both sides haggle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jennicut (Reply #42)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:53 PM

44. Please see my post 43 above.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to In Truth We Trust (Reply #44)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 06:48 PM

79. This is not an argument. It is a macro.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Shivering Jemmy (Reply #79)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 10:07 PM

131. Will someone, anyone,

please see his post #43 above so that he doesn't hold his breath until he passes out for Christ's sake. I would, but I have to go take care of a hangnail.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to billh58 (Reply #131)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 01:37 AM

141. I'm kinda busy too.

I'm watching my cat sleep. She makes funny faces sometimes and I'd hate to miss one. Plus she's snoring.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to In Truth We Trust (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 04:04 PM

52. Well I guess you should have voted for Nader

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #52)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 07:57 PM

105. The poster voted for Nader in 2000. That is what got us where we are. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluestate10 (Reply #105)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 08:06 PM

108. Yeah it was all the Progressives fault that we continue to have DLC/3rd way bullshit.

absolutely...you keep running with that old disproved meme I'm sure you take comfort in it. Shame on anyone who would vote progressive right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluestate10 (Reply #105)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 08:13 PM

110. I would have no idea

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to In Truth We Trust (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 04:04 PM

53. NOW who doesn't want to compromise ever ever?

 

Some of you have quite ridiculous expectations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pretzel_Warrior (Reply #53)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 05:24 PM

62. it's concern trollery at it's finest.. or a complete lack of understanding of reality...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dionysus (Reply #62)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 06:55 PM

81. I don't think it has to be just one or the other.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #81)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:52 PM

127. ok pal.. time for IGGY!!!11!1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to In Truth We Trust (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 04:09 PM

55. Compromise is Required in Best of Political Environments

I believe the majority of the public will be fine with this compromise. I certainly am. While I would have been fine "going over the cliff" I am convinced that is not the majority opinion in the country. At least the polls indicate that to be the case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to In Truth We Trust (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 05:19 PM

59. your bitter tears are nectar to my soul.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dionysus (Reply #59)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 06:28 PM

70. really? whatever floats your boat. seems kinda pathetic to me though. good luck with getting a life

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to In Truth We Trust (Reply #70)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 08:57 PM

117. what's pathetic to me is the Pamper Filling Outrageô based off of bullshit...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to In Truth We Trust (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 05:28 PM

65. That $250,000 figure

Was that in Clinton's time, or Bush's time?

Anyway, with cost of living increases it would have to be higher than $250Gs, but how much higher I don't know, to be compared.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to In Truth We Trust (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 06:31 PM

71. Oh, the drama...



Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to In Truth We Trust (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 06:34 PM

73. Hmmmmm

HOFU

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to In Truth We Trust (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 06:35 PM

74. why did I come into this fucking thread?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CatWoman (Reply #74)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 06:38 PM

77. You thought it was satire:-)

I'm holding out hope that it is. It can't be real. It lacks the smell of real outrage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CatWoman (Reply #74)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 07:21 PM

91. It's practice for The Onion, really amazing parody!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CatWoman (Reply #74)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 06:17 AM

144. you want I should kick your ass, Midori?

you should fucking know better

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to In Truth We Trust (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 06:36 PM

75. Okay, admit it. This is satire.


The part where you ignore the question about actually getting things through Congress sorta gave it away (Obama storms into the House and arm wrestles Boehner until he gives in, he still can't get his caucus on board so Obama throws mud at them until they cave!), and the calling other people "assholes" when they disagreed with you was classic, as was the profuse usage of !!!!!

Yes, it's hysterical. Well played.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CitizenPatriot (Reply #75)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:31 PM

124. That may explain the OP, but what about the 15 special souls that rec'd this dreck?

Although I have a sneaking suspicion that Robb's rec may have been satirical as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Number23 (Reply #124)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 08:57 PM

172. i'm late in replying

but here's hoping Cheers to sanity!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to In Truth We Trust (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 06:38 PM

76. Oh, noes!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to In Truth We Trust (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 06:43 PM

78. Let me play a song for you on the world's smallest violin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tritsofme (Reply #78)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 08:07 PM

109. You forgot.

I will back you up using the world's smallest guitar.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to In Truth We Trust (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 06:54 PM

80. Don't look now, but it looks like you might have pissed your pants.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to In Truth We Trust (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 07:06 PM

86. HOFU

HairOnFireUNDERGROUND ...

I love that moniker ... This OP explains why!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to In Truth We Trust (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 07:17 PM

89. $450,000 is not bad. It is not a sellout. There is such a thing as negotiating.

The President is not a dictator. I voted for Obama hoping that he could get higher rates at $250,000, but knew that Obama would have to negotiate the amount upward some.

We need to focus on defeating republicans in 2014, only then will we start to see sane policy being crafted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to In Truth We Trust (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 07:22 PM

92. Get the poor man a hair extinguisher!

HOFU rules, but this is ridiculous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to In Truth We Trust (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 07:41 PM

98. I'm recommending this thread.

It is fucking hilarious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to In Truth We Trust (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 07:50 PM

101. He said no increase on incomes below 250K, and this includes that

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to In Truth We Trust (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 07:51 PM

102. But once again, the Dems appear to be reasonable while

the GOP appears to be stonewalling, and the public sees that, driving down the GOP's approval ratings even further.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to In Truth We Trust (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 07:58 PM

106. I'm ok with bargaining on the numbers,

as long as we don't commence cutting a bunch of safety net programs or social security. If they start pushing for that again, I'll throw a wobbler, but until then I'm ok with arguing over details.

Edited to add: BTW, income is kind of a red herring anyway. Capital gains is where the money is once you get above a certain point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoeyT (Reply #106)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 08:14 PM

111. I agree with the general sentiment of what you've said. What we've seen thus far is a moving to the

rights position and not to the left.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to In Truth We Trust (Reply #111)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:29 PM

122. You have taken self-parody to new heights.

And you have no idea what you are talking about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hekate (Reply #122)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 11:06 PM

134. Evidently that makes you an insulting apologist! Wheres your justification? Care to explain

your insults? I see no self parody. What I see are insults, sarcasm, derision, 3d chess, good cop/bad cop apologists. I see people arguing for the status quo and speaking down. I hear people say I'm naive, or claim I am ignorant. What I don't see or hear is anything resembling how this deal is not as how I described it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to In Truth We Trust (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 10:04 PM

130. Yep destroy the Country wheh ALL WE"VE complained about was lack of

compromise.


This place is nuts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to In Truth We Trust (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 10:25 PM

133. It's what I voted for.

You don't get everything you want, bucky.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to In Truth We Trust (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 11:08 PM

135. Ladies and gentelmen, I give you the distilled essence of DU's "General Discussion."

Go Pats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Reply #135)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 11:14 PM

137. lol Will....Go Pats! Happy New Year to the distillery too!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to In Truth We Trust (Reply #137)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 11:23 PM

139. Prayers to the distillery

are always happily accepted.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to In Truth We Trust (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 11:11 PM

136. Hyperbole. I vehemently disagree with the op.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xxxsdesdexxx (Reply #136)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 11:16 PM

138. What specifically in the original post do you disagree with. That this is not the deal we voted for

or who will be made to pay for the "compromise"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to In Truth We Trust (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 11:42 PM

140. Don't make me pull this car over!

Your mother and I are worried about you.

Are you OK?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to In Truth We Trust (Original post)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 06:54 AM

145. So, he's Dictator in Chief now ?

Quick Civics 101 lesson for ya:

1- House passes money bills, sends to Senate, compromise version worked out, sends to President for signature. In this case, I'm guessing the House will do their thing and send another bill back to the Senate.

2- Since 1789, there has ALWAYS been at least two parties (or at least factions) represented in Congress.

3- The Republicans wanted NO tax increases on the wealthy, which included $250K and up.

4- Compromise is part of our system, like it or not. Leftists in FDR's day complained, too.

Yea, I'm not thrilled with the $400K provision but a fuckton better than the Repubs wanted.

Happy to help.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to In Truth We Trust (Original post)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 07:00 AM

146. It is ok a person with a D after their name is doing it so it HAS to be Good!

 

Those with a D after their name never do wrong!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stultusporcos (Reply #146)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 08:11 AM

148. Hello stultusporcos. Welcome to DU.

Do I detect a bit of sarcasm there?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to In_The_Wind (Reply #148)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 08:22 AM

150. You sure do!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stultusporcos (Reply #150)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 08:29 AM

152. What we don't detect is "complete sentences"...eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kolesar (Reply #152)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 11:42 AM

166. If my reply were verbose, would that make you happy?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stultusporcos (Reply #146)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 08:11 AM

149. I'll prove you wrong...

I have a D after my name and I'm telling you to fuck off troll.

Ya see---that's wrong ---against the DU rules to do that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trumad (Reply #149)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 08:30 AM

153. I have an R after my name! ... eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to In Truth We Trust (Original post)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 08:31 AM

154. Oh, come on. Did you really expect any more?

It's actually a lot better than I thought it would be. Although it's not set in stone yet...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to In Truth We Trust (Original post)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 08:42 AM

157. How do you figure that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #157)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 12:36 PM

168. This is how via Robert Reich:

http://www.facebook.com/RBReich/posts/542987339047200

The deal emerging from the Senate is a lousy one. Let me count the ways:

1. Republicans havenít conceded anything on the debt ceiling, so over the next two months Ė as the Treasury runs out of tricks to avoid a default Ė Republicans are likely to do exactly what they did before, which is to hold their votes on raising the ceiling hostage to major cuts in programs for the poor and in Medicare and Social Security.

2. The deal makes tax cuts for the rich permanent (extending the Bush tax cuts for incomes up to $400,000 if filing singly and $450,000 if jointly) while extending refundable tax credits for the poor (child tax credit, enlarged EITC, and tuition tax credit) for only five years. Thereís absolutely no justification for this asymmetry.

3. It doesnít get nearly enough revenue from the wealthiest 2 percent ó only $600 billion over the next decade, which is half of what the President called for, and a small fraction of the White Houseís goal of more than $4 trillion in deficit reduction. That means more of the burden of tax hikes and spending cuts in future years will fall on the middle class and the poor.

4. It continues to exempt the first $5 million of inherited wealth from the estate tax (the exemption used to be $1 million). This is a huge gift to the heirs of the wealthy, perpetuating family dynasties of the idle rich.

Yes, the deal finally gets Republicans to accept a tax increase on the wealthy, but this is an inside-the-Beltway symbolic victory. If anyone believes this will make the GOP more amenable to future tax increases, they donít know how rabidly extremist the GOP has become.

The deal also extends unemployment insurance for more than 2 million long-term unemployed. Thatís important.

But I canít help believe the President could have done better than this. After all, public opinion is overwhelmingly on his side. Republicans would have been blamed had no deal been achieved.

More importantly, the fiscal cliff is on the Presidentís side as well. If we go over it, he and the Democrats in the next Congress that starts later this week can quickly offer legislation that grants a middle-class tax cut and restores most military spending. Even rabid Republicans would be hard-pressed not to sign on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to In Truth We Trust (Reply #168)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 01:24 PM

171. I love Reich, but he has never held an elected office. and gets rather fanciful in his solutions.

1. The debt ceiling was always going to be battle. I don't know what Obama was thinking when he threw down the gauntlet on that issue and said he wouldn't negotiate for it. Of course he will have to or invoke the 14th amendment.

2. There is no such thing as a permanent tax rate, for anyone. The only reason the Bush cuts came with an expiration date is because they were passed through the 'reconciliation' procedure in the senate. In order to do that the cuts had to have a 10 year life span.

3. The original offer didn't get nearly enough revenue from anyone, including us. $60 billion or $120 billion of increased revenue doesn't begin to address the budgetary problem, yet alone the deficit. You're arguing over whether you want to spill Coke or Pepsi...

4. If your estate is $5 million or less neither you nor your heirs have been idle. Some of the hardest working people I know have estates valued between 3 and 5 million dollars.

Public opinion does NOT elect the house of Representatives. In case you hadn't noticed, the House was not particularly popular before the last election, and while they did indeed lose some of their most extreme assholes, republicans still hold the House and thanks to the stupidity of the Democratic Party at the state level, they will continue to hold the house for at least another 8 years. It will take that long to wrestle control of state legislatures from the republicans. Redistricting and the consequent gerrymandering has locked up the House for at least that long.

You assume that the same representatives who would refuse to vote for tax hikes, would fall for the 'it's a tax cut' meme after we go over the cliff...but what if they don't? It's been argued that with everybody feeling the pain of the Clinton tax rates, Dems would have no real advantage over republicans in the negotiations. Just how long do you want to pay not only the extra 2% of Payroll taxes but the Clinton tax rate on your earnings? How long are you willing to allow the long-term unemployed to have nothing coming in at all?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to In Truth We Trust (Original post)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 08:48 AM

158. Obama is damned if he do, damned if he don't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to In Truth We Trust (Original post)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 09:08 AM

161. Purist nonsense from the TeaLeftParty. ....YAWN...ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to In Truth We Trust (Original post)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 10:12 AM

164. Well, my taxes went up. That's what I voted for. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread