HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Obama: Republicans Care M...

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 04:27 PM

Obama: Republicans Care Most About Protecting The Rich

Obama: Republicans Care Most About Protecting The Rich

President Obama said Thursday on Al Sharpton's radio show that the Republicans' overarching priority is to protect affluent Americans from tax increases.

"Their basic view is that nothing is important enough to raise taxes on wealthy individuals or corporations," Obama said in a portion of the interview that was played on MSNBC. "And they would prefer to see these kinds of cuts that could slow down our recovery over closing tax loopholes."

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/obama-republicans-care-most-about-protecting-rich


37 replies, 2632 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 37 replies Author Time Post
Reply Obama: Republicans Care Most About Protecting The Rich (Original post)
ProSense Feb 2013 OP
AnotherMcIntosh Feb 2013 #1
ErikJ Feb 2013 #2
progressoid Feb 2013 #3
Uncle Joe Feb 2013 #4
Demo_Chris Feb 2013 #5
HiPointDem Feb 2013 #6
ProSense Feb 2013 #8
Cha Feb 2013 #10
Demo_Chris Feb 2013 #11
ProSense Feb 2013 #15
Cha Feb 2013 #12
ProSense Feb 2013 #14
Demo_Chris Feb 2013 #16
ProSense Feb 2013 #17
Demo_Chris Feb 2013 #20
ProSense Feb 2013 #26
Cha Feb 2013 #24
Cha Feb 2013 #23
sheshe2 Feb 2013 #35
Cha Feb 2013 #36
forestpath Feb 2013 #22
judesedit Feb 2013 #7
Demo_Chris Feb 2013 #9
ProSense Feb 2013 #13
Demo_Chris Feb 2013 #18
ProSense Feb 2013 #19
Cha Feb 2013 #25
ProSense Feb 2013 #27
Cha Feb 2013 #28
ProSense Feb 2013 #29
forestpath Feb 2013 #21
kentuck Feb 2013 #30
ProSense Feb 2013 #33
kentuck Feb 2013 #31
YoungDemCA Feb 2013 #32
sheshe2 Feb 2013 #34
ProSense Feb 2013 #37

Response to ProSense (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 04:58 PM

1. Does "The Rich" include shareholders in heath-insurance companies?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #1)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 05:15 PM

2. Yes

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ErikJ (Reply #2)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 05:50 PM

3. excellent graphic.

fuck trickle down.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 06:01 PM

4. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, ProSense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 06:19 PM

5. Obama just gave the rich a permanent tax cut...

 

And a permanent low cap gains rate. So now, thanks to President Obama, people like Warren Buffet, Mitt Romney, and the Walton heirs will pay a lower rate than their employees. He was also nice enough to give insurance company investors guaranteed profits forever, and at the expense of the poor, with his Obamacare sell out.

This is the guy who proposes 50 billion in infrastructure spending and 600 billion defense for defense. Which really is all you need to know.

When Obama actually does something for the poor, or as he calls them "those struggling to become middle class," then he can talk. Until then he is just another Neocon servant of the elite.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demo_Chris (Reply #5)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 06:22 PM

6. +1

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demo_Chris (Reply #5)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 06:49 PM

8. First,

"And a permanent low cap gains rate. So now, thanks to President Obama, people like Warren Buffet, Mitt Romney, and the Walton heirs will pay a lower rate than their employees."

...you have no idea what you're talking about. Mitt Romney's tax rate will be the highest it has been seen the 1990s. The capital gains rate was lower by Clinton.

Capital Gains Tax Cuts ‘By Far’ The Biggest Contributor To Growth In Income Inequality, Study Finds

<...>

The capital gains rate increased to 20 percent at the beginning of 2013, and top earners will pay an even higher rate because of a surcharge to help pay for Obamacare. Still, the rate remains far lower than the top income tax rate, even as inequality in America is now comparable to countries like Pakistan and the Ivory Coast. (HT: Greg Sargent)


More: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022407211

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #8)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 07:08 PM

10. Thanks for patiently explaining

the FACTS, ProSense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #8)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 07:10 PM

11. 20% tax rate for the wealthy

 

And that only when they cash out.

Like our President, you apparently believe that the investment banker deserves to pay a special lower tax rate than his Limo driver.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demo_Chris (Reply #11)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 07:21 PM

15. You're spewing nonsense. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demo_Chris (Reply #5)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 07:11 PM

12. You're always so Quick to blast cheap pot

shots at President Obama.

President Obama can talk anytime he wants.. you have nothing to do with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Cha (Reply #12)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 07:26 PM

16. If what you say is correct, you can destroy my argument easily.

 

Just post a list of Obama's significant proposals to aid the poor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demo_Chris (Reply #16)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 07:30 PM

17. You just

"If what you say is correct, you can destroy my argument easily. Just post a list of Obama's significant proposals to aid the poor."

...wrote this piece of drivel:

Now obviously I am being sarcastic. But I do get tired of redefining our belief system based upon which party is in power. Obama hasn't done shit for the poor. He has not even tried. He doesn't talk about them, and so far at least he doesn't seem to particularly care. It's pretty fucking sad when Bush -- the worst President in a century -- did as much to help the poor as our self-proclaimed champion of the people. If Bush can send out $1200 rebate checks to help in a minor recession, why isn't Obama fighting for $5000 rebate checks in the face of this depression? If Bush can expand Medicare to help seniors, why is our guy not fighting to expand it to help everyone else?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2410799

I think that pretty much disqualifies you from demanding shit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #17)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 07:45 PM

20. So what's your position?

 

Bush DID send checks of up to $1200 to families. Are we now pretending that this didn't happen? He DID pass Medicare part D. Again, are we supposed to pretend that this did not occur?

Or is this some bubble reality nonsense where we pretend that our guys are magically delicious perfection, and their guys are the spawn of Satan?

I have been very clear what I want to see from President Obama. I want to see some liberal leadership rather than his usual tentative and apologetic half-step forward followed by a leap to the right. I want someone to stand up and demand we raise the minimum wage to $20 an hour then settle for less if they have to. I want someone to propose cutting our 600 BILLION defense budget down to a sane 200 Billion, then invest the savings into our people. I want someone to propose free higher education. I want someone to fight FOR our environment rather than having golfing sessions with the people destroying it. I want someone who fights for healthcare for all, instead of guaranteed profits for a few.

He JUST passed a permanent tax cut for the wealthy, and now he is once again proposing the destruction of Social Security. How in the hell can you defend him on this nonsense?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demo_Chris (Reply #20)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 08:14 PM

26. Wait

"Bush DID send checks of up to $1200 to families. Are we now pretending that this didn't happen? He DID pass Medicare part D. Again, are we supposed to pretend that this did not occur? "

...you supported Bush's tax cuts (which included tax cut for the rich) but you're against Obama's (which reinstates taxes on the rich)?

As for Medicare, here are some insights to bring you out of the dark. Bush's Medicare plan was a castastrophe.

A Serious Drug Problem

By PAUL KRUGMAN

There was a brief flurry of outrage when Congress passed the 2003 Medicare bill. The news media reported on the scandalous vote in the House of Representatives: Republican leaders violated parliamentary procedure, twisted arms and perhaps engaged in bribery to persuade skeptical lawmakers to change their votes in a session literally held in the dead of night.

Later, the media reported on another scandal: it turned out that the administration had deceived Congress about the bill's likely cost.

But the real scandal is what's in the legislation. It's an object lesson in how special interests hold America's health care system hostage.

The new Medicare law subsidizes private health plans, which have repeatedly failed to deliver promised cost savings. It creates an unnecessary layer of middlemen by requiring that the drug benefit be administered by private insurers. The biggest giveaway is to Big Pharma: the law specifically prohibits Medicare from using its purchasing power to negotiate lower drug prices.

Outside the United States, almost every government bargains over drug prices. And it works: the Congressional Budget Office says that foreign drug prices are 35 to 55 percent below U.S. levels. Even within the United States, Veterans Affairs is able to negotiate discounts of 50 percent or more, far larger than those the Medicare actuary expects the elderly to receive under the new plan.

- more -

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/06/opinion/06krugman.html


The health care law not only expanded benefits for seniors, it's reversing the damage done by Bush, and it strengthened Medicare.

Long before this Supreme Court decision, through the Affordable Care Act, seniors began to see positive changes in their prescription drug costs, access to preventive health care, and more. Thanks to the Supreme Court’s decision the following provisions will continue to be provided to seniors:

Medicare Improvements

The ACA contains several important improvements to the Medicare program, many of which are already helping seniors today.

1) Closing the donut hole

a. Medicare Part D covers the cost of medications up to a certain point. Between that point, and a catastrophic coverage threshold, the older adult must pay out of pocket for medication (this gap in coverage is often called the Part D “donut hole”). One in four beneficiaries fall in this gap, and end up paying an average of $3,610 out of pocket on drug expenses.

b. The ACA requires drug manufacturers to reduce prices for Medicare enrollees in the donut hole. Beginning in 2011, brand‐name drug manufacturers must provide a 50% discount on brand‐name and biologic drugs for Part D enrollees in the donut hole. By 2013, Medicare will begin to provide an additional discount on brand‐name and biologic drugs for enrollees in the donut hole. By 2020, Part D enrollees will be responsible for only 25% of donut hole drug costs.

c. This is a benefit seniors are getting now, and will continue to get as a result of this decision.

2) Improving senior’s access to preventive medical services

a. Prior to the ACA, Medicare beneficiaries were required to pay a deductible and 20% copay for many preventive health services.

b. The ACA eliminated cost‐sharing for many preventive services and introduced an annual wellness visit for beneficiaries.

c. The ACA also eliminated cost‐sharing for screening services, like mammograms, Pap smears, bone mass measurements, depression screening, diabetes screening, HIV screening and obesity screenings.

d. This is a benefit seniors are getting now, and will continue to get as a result of this decision.

- more -

http://www.ncpssm.org/Portals/0/pdf/aca-analysis.pdf

Lots more at the link.


MEDICARE’S FINANCIAL CONDITION

Medicare’s financial condition is measured in several ways, including the solvency of the Part A Trust Fund, the annual growth in spending, and growth in spending on a per capita basis. Average annual growth in total Medicare spending is projected to be 6.6% between 2010 and 2019, but 3.5% on a per capita basis (assuming no reduction in physician fees).

The Part A Trust Fund is projected to be depleted in 2024— eight years longer than in the absence of the health reform law—at which point Medicare would not have sufficient funds to pay full benefits, even though revenue flows into the Trust Fund each year. Part A Trust Fund solvency is affected by growth in the economy, which directly affects revenue from payroll tax contributions, and by demographic trends: an increasing number of beneficiaries, especially between 2010 and 2030 when the baby boom generation reaches Medicare eligibility age, and a declining ratio of workers per beneficiary making payroll contributions (Figure 4).

http://www.kff.org/medicare/upload/7305-06.pdf


"Or is this some bubble reality nonsense where we pretend that our guys are magically delicious perfection, and their guys are the spawn of Satan? "

Oh, and after you finish educating yourself, check your condescending, Bush-loving shit!



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #17)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 07:54 PM

24. I know.. demanding

isn't he?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demo_Chris (Reply #16)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 07:54 PM

23. Keep digging with your Ignorant Venom Against the President.

The problem is.. you do Not know what you're talking about and I don't think any FACTS about the President will get in the way of your continuously bad mouthing the President. But, the Clintons are just fine, right? No worries I like the Clintons and they are a Team with Pres Obama, Elizabeth Warren and all those who are on the Front Lines of Defense against the Maniacal Plutocrats.

He doesn't always say it, but he's done a lot for struggling families. Voters think he should continue.


The president's $787 billion stimulus package included several expansions to existing antipoverty programs, including the Earned Income Tax Credit, SNAP and the Child Tax Credit. Obama expanded unemployment benefits to assist the long-term unemployed, and the Making Work Pay tax credit kept 6.9 million people above the poverty line in 2010 and lessened poverty for 32 million more.

President Obama's Affordable Care Act increases Medicaid coverage to all adults with incomes up to 133 percent of the poverty level and will cover an additional 16 million people by 2019 -- all of whom would have never qualified for Medicaid previously. Obama's administration has also invested in education programs benefiting poor and low-income families by expanding the Head Start initiative to reach an additional 64,000 children, and doubled funding for Federal Pell Grants


As the fiscal cliff -- which would slash funding to all of these programs by half -- looms, President Obama is finally exhibiting the strength and defiance for which many progressives had been waiting. In his first press conference after winning re-election, the president declared, "I've got a mandate. I've got a mandate to help middle-class families and families that are working hard to try to get into the middle class. That's my mandate. That's what the American people said. They said, work really hard to help us."

Critics such as Cornel West and Tavis Smiley have falsely claimed Obama wasn't focused enough on the crisis of poverty, especially in the African-American community. Obama's record proves otherwise. What may be a more fair critique is that the president has been reticent to discuss "poverty" and "the poor" as much as he has addressed "the middle-class" and "small business owners."

http://www.theroot.com/views/obamas-mandate-help-poor

I might be considered poor but I have help through Government Services that are in place and kept in place because of Democrats like President Obama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #23)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 05:49 PM

35. + 1000!

God Job, Cha!



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sheshe2 (Reply #35)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 06:22 PM

36. Thank you,

She!



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demo_Chris (Reply #5)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 07:46 PM

22. +2

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 06:23 PM

7. The wealthiest pay 40% LESS taxes than they did 50 years ago. The rest of us pay the same?????????

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 07:03 PM

9. Let's not forget that evil bastard Bush!

 

Bush, the bastard, had his own radical ideas about helping people who were struggling. You remember what that hyper conservative jerk did? The bastard fought for, and signed, the Economic Stimulus act of 2008, which sent up to $1200 cash money to American families in need of a little help. What kind of sadistic bastard sends cash to poor people?! Not our guy, thank goodness!

And when Bush (the fucker) realized that medical costs were bankrupting seniors you know what he did? Once he finished laughing like a maniac, he set to work fighting for the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act, the largest expansion of Medicare in its entire 38 year history. The sociopath apparently felt that seniors needed help paying for medications or something.

Obviously, as a Liberal, I am opposed to these so-called solutions. I believe that the proper way to stimulate the economy is to hand all the money directly to banks, and I know that the real way to control healthcare costs is to pass a law requiring every American, whether they can afford it or not, purchase overpriced insurance from the caring people in the insurance industry. And we don't plan to stop there, as liberals we know that the best way to save Social Security is to tie it to chained CPI, that way we save the program by simply not paying future recipients any money -- just like we knew that the best way to end the war in Oraq was to EXTEND the war in Iraq past the date Bush set.

Now obviously I am being sarcastic. But I do get tired of redefining our belief system based upon which party is in power. Obama hasn't done shit for the poor. He has not even tried. He doesn't talk about them, and so far at least he doesn't seem to particularly care. It's pretty fucking sad when Bush -- the worst President in a century -- did as much to help the poor as our self-proclaimed champion of the people. If Bush can send out $1200 rebate checks to help in a minor recession, why isn't Obama fighting for $5000 rebate checks in the face of this depression? If Bush can expand Medicare to help seniors, why is our guy not fighting to expand it to help everyone else?

http://articles.cnn.com/2008-02-13/politics/bush.stimulus_1_rebate-checks-economic-stimulus-act-stimulus-bill?_s=PMOLITICS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_Prescription_Drug,_Improvement,_and_Modernization_Act

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demo_Chris (Reply #9)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 07:18 PM

13. Good to see

Obviously, as a Liberal, I am opposed to these so-called solutions. I believe that the proper way to stimulate the economy is to hand all the money directly to banks, and I know that the real way to control healthcare costs is to pass a law requiring every American, whether they can afford it or not, purchase overpriced insurance from the caring people in the insurance industry. And we don't plan to stop there, as liberals we know that the best way to save Social Security is to tie it to chained CPI, that way we save the program by simply not paying future recipients any money -- just like we knew that the best way to end the war in Oraq was to EXTEND the war in Iraq past the date Bush set.
<...>

Now obviously I am being sarcastic. But I do get tired of redefining our belief system based upon which party is in power. Obama hasn't done shit for the poor. He has not even tried. He doesn't talk about them, and so far at least he doesn't seem to particularly care. It's pretty fucking sad when Bush -- the worst President in a century -- did as much to help the poor as our self-proclaimed champion of the people. If Bush can send out $1200 rebate checks to help in a minor recession, why isn't Obama fighting for $5000 rebate checks in the face of this depression? If Bush can expand Medicare to help seniors, why is our guy not fighting to expand it to help everyone else?

...that you're still trying to lay the foundation for Hillary 2016. Still, WTF are you talking about? Seriously, you're fucking hyping Bush?


New Federal Rule Requires Insurers to Offer Mental Health Coverage
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022407451

Here’s one way Obamacare changed today
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251288922

The health care law is still the biggest expansion of the safety net since Medicare
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022159929

He's got other things planned too:

Obama Administration Aims To Fix Loophole Letting Home Health Workers Make Less Than Minimum Wage
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022403409

Krugman: Raise That Wage
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022393669

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #13)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 07:33 PM

18. How is saying Bush was the worst in a century "Hyping Bush"?

 

I don't know who I support as our candidate in 2016. I guess I like Hillary, but I like Biden as well. I liked Obama until I saw he was full of shit -- he didn't just fool me once, he fooled me twice, so I am just as responsible as anyone else.

My objection here is painting Obama as something he is not.

Anyway, I will be back later.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demo_Chris (Reply #18)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 07:37 PM

19. LOL!

"I don't know who I support as our candidate in 2016. I guess I like Hillary, but I like Biden as well."

Really? LOL!

You know that paragraph you wrote about Bush? Reread it. Study it. Think long and hard about it. Do some research. Maybe then you'll understand how completely ludicrous it is.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #19)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 07:58 PM

25. Yeah, always a nice word about Hillary but President Obama??

Time to bring out the Ignorant Insults.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #25)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 08:23 PM

27. I call it the

Lanny Davis Syndrome.







Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #27)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 08:28 PM

28. That's is Funny! I was thinking it was the

ODS but yours is more speciFied!

Grownups..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #28)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 08:49 PM

29. LDS is worse. LOL!

Nice photo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 07:45 PM

21. And Obama wants to cut SS for "balance."

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 09:59 PM

30. This should be the meme of the Democratic Party...

It should be stated over and over at every opportunity. Because it is at the root of every debate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Reply #30)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 09:30 AM

33. Yes. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:01 PM

31. Truth

kick

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 01:26 AM

32. In other news, a triangle has three sides

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 05:47 PM

34. Damn, ProSense

You do an excellent job at kicking proverbial Ass!




sheshe

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sheshe2 (Reply #34)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 08:02 PM

37. Thanks.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread