HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » President Obama has done ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 12:45 PM

President Obama has done more to help the poor and middle class than any President since LBJ

Anyone who doesn't see the biggest expansion of Medicaid since it was implemented as helping the poor isn't thinking clearly.

President Obama actually did something to address the inequality, raising taxes on the top one percent (higher than the Clinton rate with the health care tax included) and increasing capital gains to its highest level since the mid 90s. The total effect is significant.

Pre Bush tax cuts: lowest tax bracket 15 percent and top tax bracket 39.6 percent.
Bush tax cuts: lowest tax bracket 10 percent and top tax bracket 35 percent.
President Obama's tax deal, lowest rate 10 percent, top rate 39.6 percent.

Do the math and it will show that the gap between someone earning $50,000 and someone earning $500,000 closed to more than what it was in the 1990s. Add the health care law tax and the gap closes even more.

<...>

Perhaps the best prism through which to see the Democrats’ gains is inequality. In the 2008 campaign, Mr. Obama said that his top priority as president would be to “create bottom-up economic growth” and reduce inequality...In the 2009 stimulus, he insisted on making tax credits “fully refundable,” so that even people who did not make enough to pay much federal tax would benefit. The 2010 health care law overhaul was probably the biggest attack on inequality since it began rising in the 1970s, increasing taxes on businesses and the rich to pay for health insurance largely for the middle class.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/03/us/politics/for-obama-fiscal-deal-is-a-victory-that-also-holds-risks.html


The biggest progressive gripe about the legislation is that Mr. Obama extracted less revenue from the affluent than expected — about $600 billion versus $800 billion over the next decade. In perspective, however, this isn’t that big a deal. Put it this way: A reasonable estimate is that gross domestic product over the next 10 years will be around $200 trillion. So if the revenue take had matched expectations, it would still have amounted to only 0.4 percent of G.D.P.; as it turned out, this was reduced to 0.3 percent. Either way, it wouldn’t make much difference in the fights over revenue versus spending still to come.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/04/opinion/kurgman-battles-of-the-budget.html

That also doesn't take the additional health care tax into account.

Krugman: Obama and Redistribution
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022224304

HHS finalizes rule guaranteeing 100 percent funding for new Medicaid beneficiaries
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022584523

Who Benefits from the ACA Medicaid Expansion?

A key element of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is the expansion of Medicaid to nearly all individuals with incomes up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL) ($15,415 for an individual; $26,344 for a family of three in 2012) in 2014. Medicaid currently provides health coverage for over 60 million individuals, including 1 in 4 children, but low parent eligibility levels and restrictions in eligibility for other adults mean that many low income individuals remain uninsured. The ACA expands coverage by setting a national Medicaid eligibility floor for nearly all groups. By 2016, Medicaid, along with the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), will cover an additional 17 million individuals, mostly low-income adults, leading to a significant reduction in the number of uninsured people.

Medicaid does not cover many low-income adults today. To qualify for Medicaid prior to health reform, individuals had to meet financial eligibility criteria and belong to one of the following specific groups: children, parents, pregnant women, people with severe disability, and seniors. Non-disabled adults without dependent children were generally excluded from Medicaid unless the state obtained a waiver to cover them. The federal government sets minimum eligibility levels for each category, which are up to 133% FPL for pregnant women and children but are much lower for parents (under 50% FPL in most states). States have the option to expand coverage to higher incomes, but Medicaid eligibility levels for adults remain very limited (Figure 1). Seventeen states limit Medicaid coverage to parents earning less than 50 percent of poverty ($9,545 for a family of 3), and only eight states provide full Medicaid coverage to other low-income adults. State-by state Medicaid eligibility levels for parents and other adults are available here.



The ACA expands Medicaid to a national floor of 138% of poverty ($15,415 for an individual; $26,344 for a family of three). The threshold is 133% FPL, but 5% of an individual’s income is disregarded, effectively raising the limit to 138% FPL. The expansion of coverage will make many low-income adults newly eligible for Medicaid and reduce the current variation in eligibility levels across states. To preserve the current base of coverage, states must also maintain minimum eligibility levels in place as of March 2010, when the law was signed. This requirement remains in effect until 2014 for adults and 2019 for children. Under the ACA, states also have the option to expand coverage early to low-income adults prior to 2014. To date, eight states (CA, CT, CO, DC, MN, MO, NJ and WA) have taken up this option to extend Medicaid to adults. Nearly all of these states previously provided solely state- or county-funded coverage to some low-income adults. By moving these adults to Medicaid and obtaining federal financing, these states were able to maintain and, in some cases, expand coverage. Together these early expansions covered over half a million adults as of April 2012.

Eligibility requirements for the elderly and persons with disabilities do not change under reform although some individuals with disabilities may become newly eligible under the adult expansion. Lawfully residing immigrants will be eligible for the Medicaid expansion, although many will continue to be subject to a five-year waiting period before they may enroll in coverage. States have the option to eliminate this five-year waiting period for children and pregnant women but not for other adults. Undocumented immigrants will remain ineligible for Medicaid.

- more -

http://www.kff.org/medicaid/quicktake_aca_medicaid.cfm


President Obama's health care law not only enacted the biggest expansion of Medicaid since it was implemented, but it also strengthened Medicare and gave new benefits to seniors.

From the stimulus, to repealing DADT, to health care, student loan (taking banks out of the federal student loan process) and Wall Street reform, he's been reversing a lot of Reagan and Clinton's damaging policies, and he's still got nearly four years to go.

Obama’s stimulus package aids people with disabilities

By Mike Ervin,

<...>

The first is a one-time additional payment of $250 to people who receive Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and other selected Social Security benefits. Many SSI recipients live on less than $10,000 a year, and so this additional income will make a significant difference.

Second, the stimulus package also allocates $500 million to help the Social Security Administration reduce the processing time for claims and appeals decisions. During the Bush years, the number of people awaiting final determination on their Social Security disability claims more than doubled to 755,000. Many were waiting two years or more for determination, without income. Obama’s allocation should help end this disgrace.

<...>

More creatively, Obama provided $140 million to support centers for independent living. These nonresidential centers are run by people with disabilities and are focal points for services and advocacy. There are hundreds of these centers throughout the United States, providing thousands of good jobs for people with disabilities and others in their communities.

The stimulus package will also invest in the future by providing $540 million for vocational rehabilitation programs, which assist people with disabilities in obtaining higher education and jobs.

- more -

http://progressive.org/mag/mpervin030509.html

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act included a number of provisions of particular concern to people with disabilities.

•The Act included $500 million to help the Social Security Administration reduce its backlog in processing disability applications;
•The Act supplied $12.2 billion in funding to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA);
•The Act also provided $87 billion to states to bolster their Medicaid programs during the downturn; and,
•The Act provided over $500 million in funding for vocational rehabilitation services to help with job training, education and placement.
•The Act provided over $140 million in funding for independent living centers across the country.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/disabilities


Senate Republicans Unanimously Support Repeal of Student Loan Reform Law

By Josh Israel

All 45 Senate Republicans voted Friday for a budget amendment that endorsed the repeal of both Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010. While Congressional Republicans attempting to repeal Obamacare is nothing new — this marks the 39th repeal attempt — this proposal also aimed to repeal the student loan reform and Pell Grant expansions that were enacted at the same time.

All 54 Senate Democrats present successfully voted to defeat the amendment, offered by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX). If passed, it would have put the Senate on record in support of a repeal of
provisions that moved student loans from commercial banks to direct lending from the U.S. Education Department and:

  • Used half of the the estimated $61 billion in savings to increase the maximum annual Pell Grant scholarship to $5,550 in 2010 and to $5,975 by 2017, while indexing the grants to inflation.

  • Lowered monthly payments on federal student loans and shortened the debt forgiveness timeline. For new loans after 2014, this will mean graduates will have to pay 10 percent of disposable income, instead of 15.

  • Provided $2.55 billion to support historically black colleges and universities and minority-serving institutions; $2 billion for community colleges; and $750 million for a college access and completion program for students.
Such a repeal would have meant a return to larger payments, smaller Pell Grants, and reduced support colleges and universities while putting billions of dollars back in the coffers of Wall Street banks. But in his floor speech explaining the amendment, Cruz told his colleagues only that his proposal was about defunding and repealing Obamacare, making no mention of the billions of dollars he would take from higher education to give back to for-profit banks.

Though every Congressional Republican voted against the health care and student loan reforms, House Republicans specifically exempted the student loan reform provisions from previous repeal attempts, though they have repeatedly slammed the reform as a “Washington takeover” of the student loan industry.

- more -

http://thinkprogress.org/education/2013/03/22/1762921/senate-republicans-unanimously-support-repeal-of-student-loan-reform-law/


Want to talk about Wall Street reform, which expanded the FDIC's powers and created the CFPB (http://www.warren.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=6)?

Granted the chained CPI proposal sucks (and Congress should reject it), there are a number of other proposals in the President's budget that help the poor and middle class and raises taxes on the rich and corporations.

Obama budget is a disaster for drugmakers
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022660318

President Obama's Tax Proposals in his Fiscal 2014 Budget Plan
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022659823

Obama budget adds domestic same-sex partners to Obamacare
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022656561

A Budget Focus on Inequality
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022650258

212 replies, 18582 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 212 replies Author Time Post
Reply President Obama has done more to help the poor and middle class than any President since LBJ (Original post)
ProSense Apr 2013 OP
djean111 Apr 2013 #1
ProSense Apr 2013 #2
Rex Apr 2013 #3
djean111 Apr 2013 #4
ProSense Apr 2013 #6
zeemike Apr 2013 #46
ProSense Apr 2013 #49
Life Long Dem Apr 2013 #54
zeemike Apr 2013 #63
R. Daneel Olivaw Apr 2013 #189
Control-Z Apr 2013 #5
freshwest Apr 2013 #170
cali Apr 2013 #7
ProSense Apr 2013 #8
sendero Apr 2013 #155
ProSense Apr 2013 #10
AgingAmerican Apr 2013 #33
ProSense Apr 2013 #50
AgingAmerican Apr 2013 #52
ProSense Apr 2013 #53
AgingAmerican Apr 2013 #55
ProSense Apr 2013 #56
treestar Apr 2013 #200
AgingAmerican Apr 2013 #203
Tierra_y_Libertad Apr 2013 #9
cali Apr 2013 #11
ProSense Apr 2013 #15
ProSense Apr 2013 #13
Rilgin Apr 2013 #42
ProSense Apr 2013 #43
Rilgin Apr 2013 #153
Progressive dog Apr 2013 #157
ProSense Apr 2013 #160
Rilgin Apr 2013 #162
ProSense Apr 2013 #163
Rilgin Apr 2013 #164
ProSense Apr 2013 #166
truebluegreen Apr 2013 #60
hfojvt Apr 2013 #137
JDPriestly Apr 2013 #144
hfojvt Apr 2013 #146
JDPriestly Apr 2013 #147
hfojvt Apr 2013 #150
byeya Apr 2013 #14
phleshdef Apr 2013 #16
Tierra_y_Libertad Apr 2013 #19
phleshdef Apr 2013 #22
ProSense Apr 2013 #23
EOTE Apr 2013 #39
Art_from_Ark Apr 2013 #117
woo me with science Apr 2013 #47
ProSense Apr 2013 #48
woo me with science Apr 2013 #81
ProSense Apr 2013 #83
ljm2002 Apr 2013 #109
Skittles Apr 2013 #114
ProSense Apr 2013 #118
Skittles Apr 2013 #120
ProSense Apr 2013 #115
ljm2002 Apr 2013 #129
ProSense Apr 2013 #132
ljm2002 Apr 2013 #135
ProSense Apr 2013 #136
ljm2002 Apr 2013 #139
ProSense Apr 2013 #141
ljm2002 Apr 2013 #143
ljm2002 Apr 2013 #151
woo me with science Apr 2013 #133
ljm2002 Apr 2013 #134
Carolina Apr 2013 #176
Newest Reality Apr 2013 #152
leftstreet Apr 2013 #95
EC Apr 2013 #12
Taverner Apr 2013 #17
tularetom Apr 2013 #30
Taverner Apr 2013 #31
dflprincess Apr 2013 #80
Carolina Apr 2013 #178
HughBeaumont Apr 2013 #18
ProSense Apr 2013 #25
markpkessinger Apr 2013 #68
kentuck Apr 2013 #20
Whisp Apr 2013 #21
madamesilverspurs Apr 2013 #24
Mr Dixon Apr 2013 #27
Number23 Apr 2013 #76
ljm2002 Apr 2013 #113
Number23 Apr 2013 #119
ljm2002 Apr 2013 #131
jeff47 Apr 2013 #26
ProSense Apr 2013 #28
jeff47 Apr 2013 #29
ProSense Apr 2013 #32
jeff47 Apr 2013 #35
ProSense Apr 2013 #37
Cleita Apr 2013 #34
ProSense Apr 2013 #45
SidDithers Apr 2013 #36
usGovOwesUs3Trillion Apr 2013 #38
ProSense Apr 2013 #40
hrmjustin Apr 2013 #51
Jersey Devil Apr 2013 #41
ProSense Apr 2013 #44
Logical Apr 2013 #57
ProSense Apr 2013 #58
Logical Apr 2013 #59
ProSense Apr 2013 #61
Logical Apr 2013 #62
ProSense Apr 2013 #65
Logical Apr 2013 #67
ProSense Apr 2013 #69
Logical Apr 2013 #70
ProSense Apr 2013 #74
ProSense Apr 2013 #75
Logical Apr 2013 #89
Lady Freedom Returns Apr 2013 #177
Logical Apr 2013 #184
IfPalinisAnswerWatsQ Apr 2013 #64
ProSense Apr 2013 #66
IfPalinisAnswerWatsQ Apr 2013 #72
Carolina Apr 2013 #71
ProSense Apr 2013 #73
Carolina Apr 2013 #183
kickysnana Apr 2013 #77
ProSense Apr 2013 #79
Kolesar Apr 2013 #179
bluestate10 Apr 2013 #78
patrice Apr 2013 #82
Kolesar Apr 2013 #180
tabasco Apr 2013 #84
bowens43 Apr 2013 #105
freshwest Apr 2013 #174
boilerbabe Apr 2013 #158
tabasco Apr 2013 #161
sheshe2 Apr 2013 #85
duffyduff Apr 2013 #86
ProSense Apr 2013 #87
ProSense Apr 2013 #88
DainBramaged Apr 2013 #96
ProSense Apr 2013 #100
840high Apr 2013 #121
Carolina Apr 2013 #175
LittleBlue Apr 2013 #90
Lady Freedom Returns Apr 2013 #92
ProSense Apr 2013 #93
LittleBlue Apr 2013 #94
ProSense Apr 2013 #97
LittleBlue Apr 2013 #101
ProSense Apr 2013 #104
LittleBlue Apr 2013 #111
DainBramaged Apr 2013 #99
LittleBlue Apr 2013 #102
DainBramaged Apr 2013 #106
LittleBlue Apr 2013 #112
ProSense Apr 2013 #127
DainBramaged Apr 2013 #98
Lady Freedom Returns Apr 2013 #91
bowens43 Apr 2013 #103
ProSense Apr 2013 #107
R. Daneel Olivaw Apr 2013 #190
DainBramaged Apr 2013 #108
Purveyor Apr 2013 #110
ProSense Apr 2013 #116
840high Apr 2013 #122
ProSense Apr 2013 #124
Lady Freedom Returns Apr 2013 #167
JDPriestly Apr 2013 #123
ProSense Apr 2013 #125
JDPriestly Apr 2013 #128
ProSense Apr 2013 #130
JDPriestly Apr 2013 #138
ProSense Apr 2013 #140
Carolina Apr 2013 #185
Purveyor Apr 2013 #126
hfojvt Apr 2013 #142
ProSense Apr 2013 #145
hfojvt Apr 2013 #148
ProSense Apr 2013 #156
TransitJohn Apr 2013 #149
ProSense Apr 2013 #159
madrchsod Apr 2013 #154
Hekate Apr 2013 #165
Marr Apr 2013 #168
ProSense Apr 2013 #169
R. Daneel Olivaw Apr 2013 #195
usGovOwesUs3Trillion Apr 2013 #172
R. Daneel Olivaw Apr 2013 #191
Fire Walk With Me Apr 2013 #171
ProSense Apr 2013 #173
Kolesar Apr 2013 #182
Fire Walk With Me Apr 2013 #205
Kolesar Apr 2013 #181
usGovOwesUs3Trillion Apr 2013 #186
Carolina Apr 2013 #187
usGovOwesUs3Trillion Apr 2013 #188
ProSense Apr 2013 #193
Octafish Apr 2013 #192
ProSense Apr 2013 #194
R. Daneel Olivaw Apr 2013 #196
ProSense Apr 2013 #197
R. Daneel Olivaw Apr 2013 #202
Octafish Apr 2013 #211
SleeplessinSoCal Apr 2013 #198
MisterP Apr 2013 #199
treestar Apr 2013 #201
RetroLounge Apr 2013 #204
sagat Apr 2013 #206
TekGryphon Apr 2013 #207
Fire Walk With Me Apr 2013 #208
ProSense Apr 2013 #210
Safetykitten Apr 2013 #209
Jamaal510 Apr 2013 #212

Response to ProSense (Original post)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 12:51 PM

1. So - the poor and middle class can afford to take a hit?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to djean111 (Reply #1)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 12:53 PM

2. Where the hell did I say that?

Your comment doesn't change the facts of the OP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #2)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 12:55 PM

3. He thinks that is what you mean in your OP

Last edited Fri Apr 12, 2013, 02:26 PM - Edit history (1)

is my guess.

All true, he has done a huge amount of things only dreamed about by Dems in recent times. Impossible to deny the facts. I give him credit for trying to please all three sides of the party. <----(ya that last part is sarcasm, stop scratching your heads)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #2)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 12:55 PM

4. What I said is, to me, the logical point of your showing The List.

Like okay, chained CPI sucks, but look what else he has done, why should the poor and middle class complain about social security keeping up with inflation even less. That is a hit, to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to djean111 (Reply #4)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 12:58 PM

6. That's your logic. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #6)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 04:00 PM

46. It is ether logical or it is not.

There is not your logic and my logic....there is yours and mine rationalization though.

And if you have an income of 1000 a month and groceries go up 20 bucks you are not going forward but backward...that is logic and it is not open to interpretation.
But you can rationalize it and say that your income was not cut, so you should be happy about it,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #46)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 05:17 PM

49. Some people

"It is ether logical or it is not."

...believe they're entitled to their own facts so I guess the same applies to logic.

Chained CPI sucks, there is nothing to "rationalize."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #46)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 06:32 PM

54. What does logical have to do with putting words in someones mouth

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Life Long Dem (Reply #54)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 08:14 PM

63. Nothing that i know of.

As far as I know they are two completely different thing...logic a way of thinking and putting words in people's mouth a rhetorical device I supose...or a bearing of false witness if you say they said it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #6)

Sun Apr 14, 2013, 10:24 PM

189. Weren't you suggesting that Obama wouldn't be touching chanined CPI


back in January? I could be wrong. Am I?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 12:56 PM

5. Thank you for putting this together, ProSense.

Bookmaking so I can easily link to it.

K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Control-Z (Reply #5)

Sun Apr 14, 2013, 09:01 PM

170. For some reason the Rec button isn't working. But K & R. Great data, as always.

Those changes in funding save the lives of those waiting for disability. The way SSA is run compared to the Bush era - well, there is no comparison. They treated those coming for their benefits like criminals in most of the cases I helped out with. Now they actually believe in paying out the benefits that people have worked for, in my experience.

The backload that would have resulted from the Teahadist fascists trying to shut the government down in 2011, would have also cost lives. As usual, you don't disappoint when bringing the most factual information to us here at DU.

Many thanks, ProSense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)


Response to cali (Reply #7)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 01:01 PM

8. You are always

"right. there are more people in poverty now than anytime since LBJ more stinking dog shit with lots of cute links meant to look authoritative"

...accusing people of being "obtuse." Maybe that's projection on your part.

The fact is that the trajectory of poverty has been in place for decades, and made worse by the economic crisis. That has nothing to do with the President's proposals, which have helped to stem the disastrous effects.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #8)

Sat Apr 13, 2013, 08:36 AM

155. Sure..

... bankers get literally trillions, poor people get billions, and in your world that's a huge win for the poor, after all they should be grateful to get anything at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #7)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 01:02 PM

10. Working Family Tax Credits Kept Nearly 10 Million People Out Of Poverty 2011

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #10)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 02:17 PM

33. Tax cuts as cure-all for mankind

Where have I heard that? Oh, yeah...nvm..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AgingAmerican (Reply #33)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 05:33 PM

50. Why?

"Tax cuts as cure-all for mankind...Where have I heard that? Oh, yeah...nvm.."

Does aid for the poor remind you of "takers"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #50)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 06:25 PM

52. Tax cuts = FAIL for America

n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AgingAmerican (Reply #52)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 06:28 PM

53. EITC = Much needed help for low-income Americans. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #53)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 07:12 PM

55. Boiling Frog Syndrome - Have You Become a Boiled Frog?

30 years of nonstop right wing rhetoric and alternative reality seeps into the Democratic party. Don't believe me? Ask any liberal.... Anyone in the party to the left of Reagan is derided as "Emo"

The seeping RW lexicon....it BUUURRRRNNNNSSSSS!!!!









Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AgingAmerican (Reply #55)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 07:17 PM

56. Are you

"Boiling Frog Syndrome - Have You Become a Boiled Frog? 30 years of nonstop right wing rhetoric and alternative reality seeps into the Democratic party. Don't believe me? Ask any liberal.... Anyone in the party to the left of Reagan is derided as 'Emo'"

...hooked on cliches and silly buzzwords?

Not all tax cuts are equal. Ask anyone about the difference between the Making Work Pay credit and the payroll tax cut.

Oh, fuck Reagan.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AgingAmerican (Reply #33)

Sun Apr 14, 2013, 10:56 PM

200. the making work pay credit helped lower income people

when it was in place.

Working family tax cuts? Seriously? You're against any tax cut, even if it is for lower income people?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #200)

Sun Apr 14, 2013, 11:23 PM

203. Tax cuts are the weakest possible stimulus

The money would be better spent elsewhere.

CBO: Tax Cuts Were Least Effective Stimulus in Recovery Act

Even the name of the tax cut is a RW talking point. "Making work pay."

RW policies and rhetoric are now seeping into the Democratic party. 30 years of GOP rhetorical bombardment has turned us into boiled frogs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 01:02 PM

9. But he helped the rich even more - Income gap between rich, middle class, and poor widens

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #9)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 01:03 PM

11. *applause*

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #9)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 01:05 PM

13. Nice chart, especially

because it shows the trajectory of decades of damaging policies.

Salaries from 1967 to 2010 and after-tax income from 1979 to 2007.

Which brings me to the point in the OP:

President Obama actually did something to address the inequality, raising taxes on the top one percent (higher than the Clinton rate with the health care tax included) and increasing capital gains to its highest level since the mid 90s. The total effect is significant.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022660715

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #13)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 02:49 PM

42. So did Marie Antoinette

You are correct that the trends in income inequality have been developing for years through every administration.

The problems are systematic and at this point appear to us irreversable without a fundamental restructuring of our economy.

I believe that everyone knows this, either intellectually or intuitively. The problem is that all of the policies you mention do not actually address our fundamental problems. Obama ran on change and got elected on change. Change is always relative but the reason for disillusion with Obama is tha he has only tinkered around the edges and in some cases (ACA) institutionalized the wrong system albeit in a less extreme manner than the Republicans implementations of the same policy.

All the data and benefits you have presented show this clearly. Giving small increases or cutting the cost of program from unaffodable to people to less unaffordable ultimately does not do much. If my rent is $1,000 and I have $800, giving me $10 appears to be a benefit but does not really address my problems.

Ultimately, I think the reason people are upset is that for whatever reason, we seem to have lost a great opportunity to really try to change the system. Obama who won the elections by mobilizing people for change has chosen to govern by making back room "grand bargains" where the purpose appears to be to protect the Status Quo for the Corporations and Rich although with some small and some merely symbolic concessions to blur the hard edges of the system. Although, the causes of the problems in our economy were in no way caused by him, he has blunted the chances for "real reform" starting with the ACA and continuing with financial reform. Rather than single payer health and Glass-Steagall we got slightly improved republican solutions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rilgin (Reply #42)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 02:55 PM

43. Well,

"Ultimately, I think the reason people are upset is that for whatever reason, we seem to have lost a great opportunity to really try to change the system. Obama who won the elections by mobilizing people for change has chosen to govern by making back room 'grand bargains' where the purpose appears to be to protect the Status Quo for the Corporations and Rich although with some small and some merely symbolic concessions to blur the hard edges of the system. Although, the causes of the problems in our economy were in no way caused by him, he has blunted the chances for 'real reform' starting with the ACA and continuing with financial reform. Rather than single payer health and Glass-Steagall we got slightly improved republican solutions. "

...being upset is one thing, and the facts are another. The health care law is "real reform." It expands life-saving care to middle class and poor, including the millions who now qualify for Medicaid.

If Obama had become the President to implement single payer immediately, he would be considered one of the greatest Presidents ever. If his policy leads to single payer, as it could:

Vermont also intends to be the first state in the U.S. with a single-payer health-care system, in which the government pays all of its residents’ medical bills and insurance companies are unnecessary. The state legislature passed a law in 2011 to steer the state toward adopting such a system in 2017, the soonest possible under the federal health-care law.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-01/vermont-s-first-look-at-insurance-exchange-rates-shows-savings.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022602134

...then that will become part of his legacy.

There is nothing "Republican" about Wall Street reform. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022441546

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #43)

Sat Apr 13, 2013, 08:21 AM

153. facts or opinion

In the words of Indigo Montoyo,"I do not think it means what you think it means" when you use the word "fact".

It is not a "fact" that the ACA was "real reform". It is your "opinion". It is my "opinion" that not only is the ACA not "real reform", but the ACA is 180 degrees from "real reform" since it permanently institutionalizes what I believe is the rot at the core of our health care system -- private insurance companies and the profit motive.

The only "fact" consists of the fact that Omaha pursued and ultimately signed the ACA which is not primarily a health care bill but an insurance bill. He did not pursue single payer and ultimately did not even get the health care bill he campaigned on which was NO MANDATE and public option. This might have led to single payer federal insurance.

As a fact, the ACA does not expand life-saving care, it mandates that US citizens buy private insurance. Whether that insurance gives more life saving care than emergency rooms remains to be seen. It does make sure that hospitals get paid.

As a bill that changes the insurance business, it is my "opinion" that it contains some good things. Some people will have insurance premiums subsidized. However, some others will end up paying more. Moreover, justifying a bad system and bill by pointing out some good side effects for some people has led to the enormous defense budget where every unnecessary weapon is not cut because of the "jobs" the system creates while we are going broke as system.

In addition, I have some real hesistation of whether the ACA will even work as insurance reform. It remains to be seen if the insurance that poor people can purchase is actually usable from a deductable standpoint. However, even if it does some good things versus the current system, it leaves in place insurance companies and gives them between 15% an 20% of all the money in the system. If you actually listen to state employees charged with implementing the exchanges (I listened to a 2 hour interview with the Califoria guy in charge), you will notice that government will have an enormous cost in implementing the system and will relieve the insurance companies of a lot of their maketing costs.

Last, I hope you are joking if you think a future single payer system would be Obama's legacy. Obama's legacy is the ACA. If sometime in the future, politicians and the Country decide to replace the ACA with a single payer system it will be those future people's legacies. Pointing out that one state has rejected the ACA approach and will implement a single payer system is not Obama's doing. His system and legacy is a system of mandated private insurance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rilgin (Reply #153)

Sat Apr 13, 2013, 02:52 PM

157. Very good and well reasoned post

I think you are right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rilgin (Reply #153)

Sat Apr 13, 2013, 06:54 PM

160. You appear

In the words of Indigo Montoyo,"I do not think it means what you think it means" when you use the word "fact".

It is not a "fact" that the ACA was "real reform". It is your "opinion". It is my "opinion" that not only is the ACA not "real reform", but the ACA is 180 degrees from "real reform" since it permanently institutionalizes what I believe is the rot at the core of our health care system -- private insurance companies and the profit motive.

The only "fact" consists of the fact that Omaha pursued and ultimately signed the ACA which is not primarily a health care bill but an insurance bill. He did not pursue single payer and ultimately did not even get the health care bill he campaigned on which was NO MANDATE and public option. This might have led to single payer federal insurance.

As a fact, the ACA does not expand life-saving care, it mandates that US citizens buy private insurance. Whether that insurance gives more life saving care than emergency rooms remains to be seen. It does make sure that hospitals get paid.

<...>

...to be confusing your opinion with fact. (emphasis added above) Dismissing facts and asserting that your opinion is fact doesn't make it so.

Fact: DNC Speaker Stacy Lihn: Obamacare ‘Is Saving My Daughter’s Life’
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101754938

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

Fact: Rules finalized for the good stuff in Obamacare
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022415967

Facts:

Who Benefits from the ACA Medicaid Expansion?

A key element of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is the expansion of Medicaid to nearly all individuals with incomes up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL) ($15,415 for an individual; $26,344 for a family of three in 2012) in 2014. Medicaid currently provides health coverage for over 60 million individuals, including 1 in 4 children, but low parent eligibility levels and restrictions in eligibility for other adults mean that many low income individuals remain uninsured. The ACA expands coverage by setting a national Medicaid eligibility floor for nearly all groups. By 2016, Medicaid, along with the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), will cover an additional 17 million individuals, mostly low-income adults, leading to a significant reduction in the number of uninsured people.

Medicaid does not cover many low-income adults today. To qualify for Medicaid prior to health reform, individuals had to meet financial eligibility criteria and belong to one of the following specific groups: children, parents, pregnant women, people with severe disability, and seniors. Non-disabled adults without dependent children were generally excluded from Medicaid unless the state obtained a waiver to cover them. The federal government sets minimum eligibility levels for each category, which are up to 133% FPL for pregnant women and children but are much lower for parents (under 50% FPL in most states). States have the option to expand coverage to higher incomes, but Medicaid eligibility levels for adults remain very limited (Figure 1). Seventeen states limit Medicaid coverage to parents earning less than 50 percent of poverty ($9,545 for a family of 3), and only eight states provide full Medicaid coverage to other low-income adults. State-by state Medicaid eligibility levels for parents and other adults are available here.



The ACA expands Medicaid to a national floor of 138% of poverty ($15,415 for an individual; $26,344 for a family of three). The threshold is 133% FPL, but 5% of an individual’s income is disregarded, effectively raising the limit to 138% FPL. The expansion of coverage will make many low-income adults newly eligible for Medicaid and reduce the current variation in eligibility levels across states. To preserve the current base of coverage, states must also maintain minimum eligibility levels in place as of March 2010, when the law was signed. This requirement remains in effect until 2014 for adults and 2019 for children. Under the ACA, states also have the option to expand coverage early to low-income adults prior to 2014. To date, eight states (CA, CT, CO, DC, MN, MO, NJ and WA) have taken up this option to extend Medicaid to adults. Nearly all of these states previously provided solely state- or county-funded coverage to some low-income adults. By moving these adults to Medicaid and obtaining federal financing, these states were able to maintain and, in some cases, expand coverage. Together these early expansions covered over half a million adults as of April 2012.

Eligibility requirements for the elderly and persons with disabilities do not change under reform although some individuals with disabilities may become newly eligible under the adult expansion. Lawfully residing immigrants will be eligible for the Medicaid expansion, although many will continue to be subject to a five-year waiting period before they may enroll in coverage. States have the option to eliminate this five-year waiting period for children and pregnant women but not for other adults. Undocumented immigrants will remain ineligible for Medicaid.

- more -

http://www.kff.org/medicaid/quicktake_aca_medicaid.cfm


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


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



You: "Last, I hope you are joking if you think a future single payer system would be Obama's legacy. Obama's legacy is the ACA. If sometime in the future, politicians and the Country decide to replace the ACA with a single payer system it will be those future people's legacies. Pointing out that one state has rejected the ACA approach and will implement a single payer system is not Obama's doing. His system and legacy is a system of mandated private insurance."

You found the fact that Vermont's single payer system will be federally funded through the ACA to be a joke?

Vermont also intends to be the first state in the U.S. with a single-payer health-care system, in which the government pays all of its residents’ medical bills and insurance companies are unnecessary. The state legislature passed a law in 2011 to steer the state toward adopting such a system in 2017, the soonest possible under the federal health-care law.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-01/vermont-s-first-look-at-insurance-exchange-rates-shows-savings.html


In her study, Grubb points out that Vermont created the Green Mountain Care Board to slow the rising cost of health care. She says administrators have worked to reduce redundancy and improve transparency, while developing a state-exchange that will be 100 percent federally funded.

http://www.vpr.net/news_detail/98021/study-states-learn-from-vermonts-health-care-refor/


Still, you're right that ACA will be President Obama's legacy.

Why Republicans are So Intent on Killing Health Care Reform

by Richard Kirsch

It’s not just about expanded care. It’s about proving our government can be a force for the common good.

Why are John Boehner, Eric Cantor and Mitch McConnell so intent on stopping health care reform from ever taking hold? For the same reason that Republicans and the corporate Right spent more than $200 million in the last year to demonize health care in swing Congressional districts. It wasn’t just about trying to stop the bill from becoming law or taking over Congress. It is because health reform, if it takes hold, will create a bond between the American people and government, just as Social Security and Medicare have done. Democrats, and all those who believe that government has a positive place in our lives, should remember how much is at stake as Republicans and corporate elites try to use their electoral victory to dismantle the new health care law.

My enjoyment of the MLB playoffs last month was interrupted by ads run by Karl Rove’s Crossroads front group against upstate New York Rep. Scott Murphy, who was defeated last Tuesday. Rove’s ads rained accusations on Murphy, including the charge of a “government takeover of health care.” Some might have thought that once the public option was removed from the health care legislation, Republicans couldn’t make that charge. But it was never tied to the public option or any other specific reform. Republicans and their allies, following the advice of message guru Frank Luntz, were going to call whatever Democrats proposed a government takeover.

There’s nothing new here. Throughout American history, health care reform has been attacked as socialist. An editorial published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in December 1932, just after FDR’s election, claimed that proposals for compulsory insurance “were socialism and communism — inciting to revolution.” The PR firm that the American Medical Association hired to fight Truman’s push for national health insurance succeeded in popularizing a completely concocted quote that it attributed to Vladimir Lenin: “Socialized medicine is the keystone to the arch of the Socialist State.”

<...>

President Obama and Democrats in Congress understood the historical importance and profound moral underpinnings of the new health care law when they enacted it earlier this year. And they knew that the right-wing attack had soured the public in swing Congressional districts and states on reform. They stood up then. They will have to stand up again, understanding that if they give way to Republicans, they lose more than the expansion of health coverage. They lose the best opportunity in half a century to prove to Americans that government can be a force for the common good.

http://www.nextnewdeal.net/why-republicans-are-so-intent-killing-health-care-reform

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #160)

Sun Apr 14, 2013, 01:32 AM

162. You must be a King Crimson fan (Confusion will be your epitaph).

I did not assert an opinion as fact, only you did. An assertion that a bill is "real reform" is an opinion not a fact. That was your assertion not mine. I do not confuse my opinion about this bill with fact. Your opinion is that this bill will help people in the future. That is an opinion, a prediction, a projection or a belief. It is not a fact.

A "fact" is that Obama signed the ACA. notice the difference?

It is also not a "fact" although subject to lot of confusion in people like you that insurance equals health care. In my 20s I contacted a disease that was very hard to diagnosis. I had insurance. However, I could not get the care through insurance procedures despite following procedures. Ultimately, I was admitted to a teaching hospital and my problem was diagnosed by a biopsy that was not paid for by insurance (rejected by my insurance carrier). In my case and many others life saving care did not equal insurance. Insurance was irrelevant to care.

See the difference between insurance and health care yet? I do not want to assert there is no connection. There is a relation between the health care and insurance in our system. Insurancein most cases is the payment mechanism for getting health care in our economic system. However, paying for insurance leaves less money for things like good food or moving to better environmental climates that might provide other factors for better health outcomes than going to the doctor or that cause more problems than the insurance payments fix.

Now all your charts are good and I assume "factual" and purport to show that if the ACA is implemented according to the written bill, some people will have lower cost insurance and more people will be eligible for medicaid in some states. These are actually facts. Congratulations. However, if you look at my post, you will see I acknowledge that the law does benefit some people because facts is facts.

However, the ACA also has aspect negative effects on some people (more costly insurance) and many negative system problems such as institutionalizing insurance companies. And as noted by most critics, only assertions that systematic health care costs will increase less if the ACA was passed. Please note that it is a fact that some people will pay more but my use of the word "negative" is a conclusion and opinion. See the difference.

Further, for people in the middle the subsidies for exchange insurance policies cut out at a fairly low income level if you are in a high cost area such as any major city in the US, the mandate may end up a real hardship to middle class individuals forced to buy individual plans through the exchanges and provide both good and bad benefits. The insurance in the exchanges are allowed to have annual limits and can increase premiums. Buying a minimum policy may satisfy the ACA mandate, be the only policy a middle class person can afford and still give him insurance he still can not afford to use because of deductibles and co-pays.

You are welcome to an "opinion" that on the whole the ACA is good. I tend to think of the ACA as painting over rotten timber. I believe that it is an unsustainable and destructive solution. Again these are both "opinions". You are trying to identify your conclusions and judgements as facts.

Last, the best argument I have seen for the ACA is based on some theory that progress in our society is made by increments. The health care systems problems in this country have lasted for years. It may be and is argued that an incremental bill that reforms some aspects of our insurance business is better than nothing. This assumes that if the ACA failed, nothing would ever be done. I tend to believe that the existing systems problems are so obvious, that it would be impossible for nothing to get done since the system's costs were exploding to an unsustainable level. I am not sure of this but not dogmatically so.

The ACA puts a bandaid on the system. Whether the system is aided by the bandaid and heals itself or the bandaid lets the infection get worse is a matter of opinion not fact.

See the difference?


BTW, at one point in my life, I was a banking lawer. I know a lot on the history of banks regulation and the process by which they were deregulated. I did not even address this area but history has shown that the initial regulation through Glass Steagall and the Bank Holding Company Act had it right leading to decades of stability in our financial system. The fact that we did not return to such regulations as opposed to the travesty that is Dodd-Frank directly mirrors our discussion of health care policy. There are things that work and things that the congress and administration passed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rilgin (Reply #162)

Sun Apr 14, 2013, 01:52 AM

163. It seems to me

You must be a King Crimson fan (Confusion will be your epitaph).

<...>

However, the ACA also has aspect negative effects on some people (more costly insurance) and many negative system problems such as institutionalizing insurance companies. And as noted by most critics, only assertions that systematic health care costs will increase less if the ACA was passed. Please note that it is a fact that some people will pay more but my use of the word "negative" is a conclusion and opinion. See the difference.

Further, for people in the middle the subsidies for exchange insurance policies cut out at a fairly low income level if you are in a high cost area such as any major city in the US, the mandate may end up a real hardship to middle class individuals forced to buy individual plans through the exchanges and provide both good and bad benefits. The insurance in the exchanges are allowed to have annual limits and can increase premiums. Buying a minimum policy may satisfy the ACA mandate, be the only policy a middle class person can afford and still give him insurance he still can not afford to use because of deductibles and co-pays.

You are welcome to an "opinion" that on the whole the ACA is good. I tend to think of the ACA as painting over rotten timber. I believe that it is an unsustainable and destructive solution. Again these are both "opinions". You are trying to identify your conclusions and judgements as facts.

Last, the best argument I have seen for the ACA is based on some theory that progress in our society is made by increments. The health care systems problems in this country have lasted for years. It may be and is argued that an incremental bill that reforms some aspects of our insurance business is better than nothing. This assumes that if the ACA failed, nothing would ever be done. I tend to believe that the existing systems problems are so obvious, that it would be impossible for nothing to get done since the system's costs were exploding to an unsustainable level. I am not sure of this but not dogmatically so.

...that you have no idea what the law does and are simply repeating every tired attack from all sides.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #163)

Sun Apr 14, 2013, 02:06 AM

164. Up is down and all is for the best in the best of all bills

Nice brief empty post. I understand the benefits and failures of the ACA very well. I am not the only one who is critical of the ACA and believe that it is the wrong solution to our countries near and long term health care problems. Glad that you have at least noticed that others disagree with your conclusions that this is a good bill.

It seems like you are using the word "tiresome" to dismiss criticisms on some theory that just cause the ACA failures have been discussed before makes the failures no longer true.

I actually commiserate with you. You post a lot. It must be indeed tiresome to have to defend an imperfect bill to have to put a happy face on a dead pig.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rilgin (Reply #164)

Sun Apr 14, 2013, 02:13 AM

166. That's a problem

Up is down and all is for the best in the best of all bills

Nice brief empty post. I understand the benefits and failures of the ACA very well. I am not the only one who is critical of the ACA and believe that it is the wrong solution to our countries near and long term health care problems. Glad that you have at least noticed that others disagree with your conclusions that this is a good bill.

...thinking that lengthy post that say nothing are of any value.

You "understand the benefits and failures of the ACA very well"? How is that possible considering the law isn't fully implemented?

"I actually commiserate with you. You post a lot. It must be indeed tiresome to have to defend an imperfect bill to have to put a happy face on a dead pig. "

More nonsense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rilgin (Reply #42)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 08:04 PM

60. Great post, Rilgin

And welcome to DU!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #13)

Sat Apr 13, 2013, 01:12 AM

137. yes Obama did something

he acted to make it worse - AFTER his re-election even.

After his first election, he kept the Bush tax cuts.

Then, when they were scheduled to expire in 2010, he extended them again

And threw the accursed payroll tax cut on top of it.

Do I even need to review? (probably)

The payroll tax cut sucks so bad, why?

Because


wait for it


it heavily favored the rich over the poor (in spite of what the M$M would tell you about it).

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/160

12.1% of the payroll tax cut goes to those in the bottom 40%
26.7% of the payroll tax cut goes to those in the top 10%

Yes, Virginia, Santa Obama did give over twice as many presents to the top 10% than he did even to the bottom 40%.

And yes, it does increase inequality when you give $30 billion in tax cuts to the richest 10% and only $13.6 billion to the bottom 40%.

Math is funny that way.

Then there is ATRA, which you still tout as a tax INCREASE on the rich.

When in fact, it is a permanent tax CUT, with most of the benefits going towards the rich.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022130101

Over ten years that's

$2.4 trillion in tax cuts to the richest 20%, and
$111 billion in tax cuts to the poorest 20%

Yeah, that decreases in equality in the same way that the Laffer curve works - by not doing what it claims to do.

But that is cool.

According to the Obama administration, we have always been at war with Oceania.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #137)

Sat Apr 13, 2013, 01:37 AM

144. The rich get Social Security, but they pay much if not all of it back in

taxes because they pay a higher marginal rate than the rest of us.

I'm not sure I understood your post. The truly rich do not pay much in payroll taxes at all except for the employer's share for the employee. What do you mean?

If you are talking about Social Security benefits, then I have this to say.

The average person on Social Security does not have enough income to be subject to taxes.

Also, it depends on how you define "rich." Older people who bought houses will probably have some equity if not own their homes. Also, older people should have more savings than younger people. Right now, those savings probably produce no or very little income.

So if you judge a person's wealth by their income, the percentage of Social Security received by the wealthy should be much, much lower than your figures suggest I think. If you measure wealth by assets, then it will still probably be lower.

Why do I say that? Because the wealthiest Americans do not receive any or much of their income from earned income that is subject to payroll taxes. The truly rich, the 1% get bonuses, stock options, carried interest, dividends, capital gains and those income sources are not only taxed at low rates in some instances but are not subject to payroll taxes.

Further, payroll taxes are only paid on the first $110,000 that a person earns. I'm sorry, but I don't think those numbers can be correct.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #144)

Sat Apr 13, 2013, 02:09 AM

146. what I am saying is this

in 2011, I made $15,814 in wage income.

My payroll tax cut was 2% of that, or $316.28

Now look at a CEO, even a way below average CEO, like the former CEO of Feeding America, Vicky Escarra. She made, according to Charity Navigator, $524,052 in 2011. That is enough to put her in the top 1% even if she is not married.

Her payroll tax cut was 2% of the cap, or about $2,010.

Now, it is true that many of the very, very rich, do not get most of their income in the form of wages, but many of the DO still get over $110,000 in wages. And 2% of $110,000 is much, much greater than 2% of $20,000.

And then there are people in the top 5%. They do get a fair amount of their income in wages.

So I am fairly certain that the numbers from Citizens for Tax Justice ARE accurate, not just because I trust CTJ, but because they match my own calculations.

See page 3, the top 1% gets a much smaller share than the rest of the top 10% (3% versus 23.7%) but the share going to the top 1% is almost as big as the share going to the bottom 20%.

You simply do NOT increase inequality when you give $30 billion in tax cuts to the top 10% and only $4.26 billion to the bottom 20%. In fact, you do quite the opposite.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #146)

Sat Apr 13, 2013, 02:13 AM

147. Yes. I totally agree with you on that. Thanks. Good points.

Cutting payroll taxes was bad for Social Security and bad for America.

It would have been better to give a earned tax credit to working people under $50,000 per year who pay taxes. That would have been a better stimulus. It would have replaced lost income in households in which a formerly full-time worker had lost a job or was working fewer hours. The earned tax credit would have been an actual check, not just lower taxes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #147)

Sat Apr 13, 2013, 02:33 AM

150. the making work pay credit

which Obama campaign on, and which was part of the stimulus, was somewhat like that - it was even refundable. I got $800 in tax refunds from it, even though I was paying no income taxes.

Of course, in order to support the Obama administration, I did not collect those refunds. I just applied them to next years taxes, and would still be doing that today if Obama had not punted on the Bush tax cuts in 2010.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #9)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 01:06 PM

14. Many thanks for the graphs and charts!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #9)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 01:07 PM

16. That was the trajectory of wealth inequality way before Obama ever took his first oath.

If you take a serious, objective look at the policies this President has signed, it heavily favors the poor and the middle class over the wealthy. The problem, however, is that more needs to be done to tip the scales of wealth distribution back to where it needs to be. But Obama hasn't done anything that's pushed that scale along the other direction. He did raise taxes on the wealthy (with both the ACA and the ultimate tax deal that was recently reached). He has kept taxes lower on the poor and middle class. He has instituted programs targeted specifically at helping the poor and middle class.

Just because you post a bunch of well made graphs and charts doesn't mean you are making a valid point. If you weigh the information of what you just posted against the subject of your post, you almost seem to be saying that Obama has been President for 20-30 years, which is, of course, ridiculous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phleshdef (Reply #16)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 01:21 PM

19. The gap is widening, not narrowing.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/sep/12/business/la-fi-census-poverty-rate-20120913



U.S. income gap between rich, poor hits new high
U.S. poverty rate leveled off in 2011, but in California it hit a 16-year high, census data show. Also, middle- and lower-income groups took financial hits.
September 12, 2012|By Don Lee, Los Angeles Times

WASHINGTON — The U.S. poverty rate leveled off last year for the first time since the Great Recession, but the halting recovery deepened the financial pain for middle-class families and pushed to a new high the income gap between the country's richest and poorest citizens.

The number and share of people living in poverty was essentially unchanged from 2010 levels. That ended four straight years of increases, though not in California, where the rate rose to a 16-year high, the Census Bureau said Wednesday.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #19)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 01:29 PM

22. No one denies that. But thats because of exactly what I just said.

Not enough has been done to change the trajectory. That's not because President Obama's policies. To say so is a blatantly dishonest attempt to confuse correlation with causality.

President Obama managed to raise taxes on the wealthy with the ACA and with the recent tax deal. Until you give those developments a reasonable amount of time to kick in, you have no way of knowing whether or not those measures will help reverse the trend. Whenever people start getting subsidies and more Medicaid enrollment from the ACA, then you might see something. Whenever Congress uses additional revenue that will be provided by recent tax increases on the wealthy for infrastructure and real job creation, then you might see something. Whenever Congress actually accepts the President's proposals that slash subsidies for energy companies and then use that additional money to do some of the worthwhile things the President has asked them to do in regard to child education, then you might see something. The President has already proposed many things that would be of great help, but ITS ON CONGRESS TO PASS THEM, period.

You are pointing out numbers that we all know, that none of us deny nor ever denied. But you are attempting to tie them to things that President Obama has done without actually being able to show any proof or make any kind of real argument to support that premise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #19)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 01:32 PM

23. Another good article:

(from the link)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. poverty rate leveled off last year for the first time since the Great Recession, but the halting recovery deepened the financial pain for middle-class families and pushed to a new high the income gap between the country's richest and poorest citizens.

The number and share of people living in poverty was essentially unchanged from 2010 levels. That ended four straight years of increases, though not in California, where the rate rose to a 16-year high, the Census Bureau said Wednesday.

Again, the trajectory of poverty and inequality has been in place for decades, and made worse by the economic crisis. The President's policies have helped to stem the disastrous effects. We're coming off the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

And as pointed out, the President's policies will have an impact on the inequality gap: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022660715

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #9)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 02:27 PM

39. Why do you hate the wealthy? Don't you see that a rising tide raises all boats?

Etcetera, etcetera and other such mindless pablum.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EOTE (Reply #39)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 11:29 PM

117. Sometimes that rising tide crashes some boats onto the shore

or into each other.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #9)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 04:20 PM

47. Thank you. What a load of bull this chocolate ration talk is.

I have said it before, and I'll say it again. The Third Way is trying very hard to adopt the best of Orwell in their propaganda.

War is Peace.
Freedom is Slavery.
Ignorance is Strength.
Drone murders are Legal, Ethical, and Wise.
Chained CPI is Superlative
Social Security Assaults have "Protections."
and now The Chocolate Ration has been increased for the Poor and Middle Class.

However, the large and important difference between fiction and reality is that, in real life, it is much more difficult to convince people that what they are experiencing and witnessing every single day around them in their own lives isn't really happening.

We have a deadly serious and growing problem with the chocolate distribution, aggressively driven by the corporate purchase of our representation in Washington.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #47)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 04:32 PM

48. Newsflash:

"Thank you. What a load of bull this chocolate ration talk is."

...Expanding programs that help the poor and middle class, including millions who will now have life-saving care, including the millions who now qualify for Medicaid, is not "a load of bull this chocolate ration talk."

Alan Grayson in January 2011:

<...>

We still have over 30 million Americans who cannot see a doctor when they are sick. According to this Harvard study, adjusting for gender, race, smoking, weight, and just about everything else that you can think of, in any given year, the uninsured are 40% more likely to die than the insured are. That results in 44,789 additional deaths in America each year. All of which are avoidable.

This is more than twice the number of homicides in America.

It is more than ten times the number of deaths on 9/11. And it happens every year.

Do you think that we should solve this problem? I do.

And the Democratic Party does. Which is why we passed health care reform. And why we brought the wrath of lobbyists and their sewer money down on our heads in the last election – over $65 million by the Chamber of Commerce and Karl Rove’s “American Crossroads” alone.

I see one party taking on the special interests and enacting laws to keep Americans alive, and assure that you can see a doctor when you are sick. Like in every other industrialized country in the world.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/1/20/937697/-What-I-Didnt-Hear

Despite the RW efforts to attack Grayson on his support for health care reform, he won.

U.S. Chamber Hits Alan Grayson, Bill Nelson With Anti-‘Obamacare’ Ads

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is airing ads in Florida, attacking incumbent Sen. Bill Nelson and congressional candidate Alan Grayson over their support for health care reform. Grayson, who lost his seat in 2010, voted for the law in 2009.

The ads claim that reform could cost 20 million Americans their health care coverage and, in the ad against Grayson, recalls that a Florida judge “ruled parts of Obamacare unconstitutional.”

The ads ask Floridians to call Grayson and Nelson and ask them to support the repeal of “Obamacare.” Of course, as a private citizen, Grayson cannot do anything to repeal health care reform even if he did change his mind.

Watch the ads at FactCheck.org.

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/us-chamber-hits-alan-grayson-bill-nelson-with

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #48)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 09:31 PM

81. Alan Grayson: 170 Democrats need to get primaried

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017111159

Grayson: 170 Democrats need to get primaried

##snip##

"There are just too many people starting from the President on down who think that any deal is better than no deal, even if it's a bad deal.....Now we have one party that wants to destroy Social Security and another party that wants to compromise with them. That's not what the voters deserve. That's like choosing between Diet Coke and Coke Zero."

##snip##



Child poverty rankings (US just above Romania)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022663781

Incomes Flat in Recovery, but Not for the 1
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014400736

Top 1% get 121% of income gains since 2009 (100% of new income + 21% from your old income)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022384139

U.S. corporate profits stronger than ever, workers' wages fallen to lowest-ever share of GDP (CNN)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021922334

U.S. Income Inequality Now Worse Than Many Latin American Countries
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022268073

Ranks of working poor increasing
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022200197

Inequality Rages as Dwindling Wages Lock Millions in Poverty
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022198286

The Middle Class In America Is Being Wiped Out – Here Are 60 Facts That Prove It
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022144851

Child poverty rates increase unabated
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022268450

40 Percent of Americans Now Make Less than 1968 Minimum Wage
http://www.democraticunderground.com/111631016

Corporate Profits Have Grown By 171 Percent Under ‘Anti-Business’ Obama
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014372334

US poverty on track to reach 46-year high; suburbs, underemployed workers, children hit hard
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002998131

Poverty, hunger among retirees increasing
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002748342

The Economy is "Recovering" By Creating More Low-Wage Jobs... Increasingly Filled By Graduates
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022602162

"Recovery" in US is lifting profits, but not adding jobs
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014414149

Obama to use pension funds of ordinary Americans to pay for bank mortgage settlements
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002205218

What Recovery? Across America, People in Distressed Cities and Small Towns Face Economic Catastrophe
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022545596

Real wages decline; literally no one notices
http://www.democraticunderground.com/11172387

Wall Street Soars with Wealth as Wages Stagnate, Jobs Remain in a Slump
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12526154

Wages for bottom 90% declined 1.2% during 2009-2011 recovery, top 1% income grew 8.2%
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022271466

Three Minimum Wage Jobs Needed To Afford Two-Bedroom Apartment
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022578738

Wages have fallen to a record low as a share of America’s gross domestic product.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022183930






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #81)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 09:35 PM

83. What does

"Grayson: 170 Democrats need to get primaried "

...that have to do with the OP or the health care law: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022660715#post48

The President isn't running for re-election, and the OP is based on policies enacted (except the mention of those in the current budget).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #83)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 11:09 PM

109. That's hilarious...

...you respond to a post with 20+ links, many of them referring strictly to the period after Obama was elected, and you respond to exactly one, the one about Grayson.

Now I know he led with the Grayson link, so there is that.

But I'd think you would make more of an effort to respond to another poster who provided you with ample links to review. Especially given your own propensity of providing links, links and more links. It just looks bad when you won't play if someone else provides the links.

Why don't you try responding to some of the factual information provided?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ljm2002 (Reply #109)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 11:18 PM

114. she's getting her ass kicked, and that is a deflection

she's pouring through her database now for a 50-link response

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skittles (Reply #114)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 11:30 PM

118. Wake up, you're dreaming. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #118)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 11:31 PM

120. I am ALWAYS awake all night

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ljm2002 (Reply #109)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 11:18 PM

115. Maybe

"That's hilarious......you respond to a post with 20+ links, many of them referring strictly to the period after Obama was elected, and you respond to exactly one, the one about Grayson."

...check the chronology:

My post: Last edited Fri Apr 12, 2013, 04:32 PM USA/ET

The other poster's: Last edited Fri Apr 12, 2013, 10:25 PM

"a post with 20+ links"




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #115)

Sat Apr 13, 2013, 12:33 AM

129. I did check it...

...and the OP and the first edit were posted at virtually the same time. Obviously the first edit was later, but not by much... and the first edit added the extra links.

Please check it yourself dear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ljm2002 (Reply #129)

Sat Apr 13, 2013, 12:47 AM

132. Maybe you should

"I did check it......and the OP and the first edit were posted at virtually the same time. Obviously the first edit was later, but not by much... and the first edit added the extra links.

Please check it yourself dear. "

...check again "dear."

The edit was after my comment. Besides, the links are irrelevant. Inequality and poverty are the result of decades of damaging policies (http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2660801) and the President's policies are helping:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2660986

Working Family Tax Credits Kept Nearly 10 Million People Out Of Poverty 2011
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/04/09/1842561/how-tax-credits-for-working-families-reduced-poverty-by-almost-10-million-in-2011/





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #132)

Sat Apr 13, 2013, 12:54 AM

135. "Besides, the links are irrelevant".

And there you have it.

When you provide links (often to your own posts), they must be construed as relevant.

When someone else provides links, they must be construed as irrelevant.

While inequality and poverty are indeed the result of decades of damaging policies, many of WMWS's links discussed the period from 2009 to the present -- i.e. they applied directly to Obama's time in office.

I know it's a tried and true debate tactic to play offense rather than defense. But studiously ignoring data that contradicts your own collection of data is simply disingenuous.

Dear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ljm2002 (Reply #135)

Sat Apr 13, 2013, 01:01 AM

136. OK,

"When someone else provides links, they must be construed as irrelevant. "

...tell me what any this:

40 Percent of Americans Now Make Less than 1968 Minimum Wage
http://www.democraticunderground.com/111631016

...or any of the poverty data has to do with a policy enacted by the President.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #136)

Sat Apr 13, 2013, 01:16 AM

139. Well the first reply in that thread...

...is this one:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/111631016#post1

which discusses this report

http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/31/news/economy/low-wage-jobs/index.html

stating that "Some 58% of the jobs created during the recovery have been low-wage positions, according to a new report by the National Employment Law Project. Only 22% have been mid-wage jobs and 20% higher-wage positions. These low-wage jobs pay $13.83 an hour or less."

(emphasis mine).

Next?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ljm2002 (Reply #139)

Sat Apr 13, 2013, 01:27 AM

141. Wait

stating that "Some 58% of the jobs created during the recovery have been low-wage positions, according to a new report by the National Employment Law Project. Only 22% have been mid-wage jobs and 20% higher-wage positions. These low-wage jobs pay $13.83 an hour or less."

...job creation after the worst recession in decades is a problem?

"Only 22% have been mid-wage jobs and 20% higher-wage positions."

The chart show slightly more higher wage jobs created than lost. There needs to be more mid-wage jobs, but this is after all an economy still recovering slowly.



Still, the links related to decades of inequality and poverty have nothing to do with the President's policies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #141)

Sat Apr 13, 2013, 01:32 AM

143. You were asking what was the relevance of the link...

...to policies enacted during President Obama's tenure.

Now would you care to address any of the other links? Or is following links only for the Little People?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #141)

Sat Apr 13, 2013, 03:08 AM

151. "Still, the links related to decades of inequality "...

..."have nothing to do with the President's policies."

OFFS. Okay let's go over this:

Link #1: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014400736

"Incomes rose more than 11 percent for the top 1 percent of earners during the economic recovery, but barely at all for everybody else, according to new data."

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/16/business/economy/income-gains-after-recession-went-mostly-to-top-1.html


Link #2: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022384139

Top 1% get 121% of income gains since 2009 (100% of new income + 21% from your old income)

A new paper by Emmanuel Saez (...) estimates that the income gains to the top 1% from 2009 to 2011 were 121% of all income increases. How did that happen? Incomes to the bottom 99% fell by 0.4%.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/02/yes-virginia-the-rich-continue-to-get-richer-the-1-got-121-of-income-gains-since-2009.html


Link #3: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021922334

U.S. corporate profits stronger than ever, workers' wages fallen to lowest-ever share of GDP (CNN)

Just four years after the worst shock to the economy since the Great Depression, U.S. corporate profits are stronger than ever.

(...) That took after-tax profits to their greatest percentage of GDP in history.

A separate government reading shows that total wages have now fallen to a record low of 43.5% of GDP. Until 1975, wages almost always accounted for at least half of GDP, and had been as high as 49% as recently as early 2001.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/12/03/news/economy/record-corporate-profits/


(this one you could reasonably argue is due to long term trends; however, the facts are that (a) corporate profits are at a record high % of GDP; (b) wages are at a record low % of GDP; and (c) both of these all-time record figures occurred on Obama's watch).

Link #4: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022268073

U.S. Income Inequality Now Worse Than Many Latin American Countries

The share of income for the top 1 percent in the United States has grown more than any other Western country since 1960, according a paper by Thomas Piketty of the Paris School of Economists and Emmanuel Saez of the University of California at Berkeley published last year.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/27/us-income-inequality-wors_n_2561123.html?utm_hp_ref=politics&ir=Politics&ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009


(this one is definitely discussing long term trends; and while we know that the trend is accelerating -- see excerpts from the next link -- this article doesn't go there)

Link #5: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022200197

Ranks of working poor increasing

“Although many people are returning to work, they are often taking jobs with lower wages and less job security, compared with the middle class jobs they held before the downturn,” according to a report released Tuesday by the Working Poor Families Project (...)

And 37 percent of the nation’s children — 23.5 million — were part of working poor families in 2011, the report said, up from 33 percent in 2007.

In 2011, the top fifth of working families had incomes that were 10.1 times greater than those in the bottom fifth of income earners. In 2007, the top fifth of working families earned 9.5 times those in the lowest fifth.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/ranks-of-working-poor-increasing/2013/01/15/8d1f51e2-59b9-11e2-88d0-c4cf65c3ad15_story.html


Emphasis mine, to highlight the time periods under discussion in each linked article.

That's just the first 5 links. They are all relevant to this discussion and 4 out of 5 are directly relevant to President Obama's time in office. You can't just dismiss this factual information. There is clear evidence that the President's policies have been, at the very least, ineffective in preventing an accelerating trend of income inequality in this country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ljm2002 (Reply #129)

Sat Apr 13, 2013, 12:49 AM

133. Yup. I often post the body of a piece and then edit the links in immediately afterward

as a protective measure, because my computer sometimes loses the post when I momentarily change pages to retrieve the links.

Thanks for checking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #133)

Sat Apr 13, 2013, 12:51 AM

134. I use tabs when referring to other pages...

...although I sometimes end up with two or three open DU tabs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #81)

Sun Apr 14, 2013, 09:38 PM

176. excellent post/response

and Alan Grayson is absolutely right, but keep in mind worshippers have blinders on...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #47)

Sat Apr 13, 2013, 07:41 AM

152. ++ Good!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #9)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 10:53 PM

95. +1

If you haven't made this an OP yet, it'd be a good one

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 01:03 PM

12. agree.. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 01:07 PM

17. We needed an FDR, but got an LBJ...

 

I'll be honest, my opinion is mixed on our President

My final verdict comes in 2016, but a lot of it hinges on Chained CPI

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Reply #17)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 02:11 PM

30. I wish we would have gotten an LBJ

I'm afraid we got a Clinton

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tularetom (Reply #30)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 02:13 PM

31. 1st term was LBJ-ish

 

2nd term? Looking like Clinton.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Reply #31)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 09:30 PM

80. No - First term more Neville Chamberlain

LBJ would never have bent over backward to appease Republicans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dflprincess (Reply #80)

Sun Apr 14, 2013, 09:45 PM

178. Thank you!

there is no comparison between BHO and LBJ.

LBJ knew how to fight and because of him we have Civil Rights, Voting Rights, Medicare, Medicaid... He strove for a great society and waged a war on poverty (think Head Start). Were it not for the Vietnam War and generals (Westmoreland) advising him that he didn't want to go down in history as the 1st president to lose a war, we'd have a very different view of his legacy.

Still anything BHO has done pales in comparison to the legislation LBJ proposed and got passed!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 01:10 PM

18. No offense, but . . .

. . . considering that, since LBJ, 28 out of 45 of those years have been consumed by far-right-wing labor/poor-hating Republicans in the presidency and congress, and another eight consumed by a laissez-fail, deregulation-and-free-trade loving Democrat (with a Repub congress), and the other four by a centrist Democrat that didn't believe in taxing the wealthy, that's not a very high bar.

Can life be worse? Oh yes, it can be worse and we all know this.

But you know what else? It can also be BETTER.

And if life doesn't get FAIRER AND BETTER for the rest of us really goddamned soon, none of us are going to have much of one . . . possibly to the point of, if I were wealthy, I'd start shoring up some heavy defense in my gated community . . ..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HughBeaumont (Reply #18)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 02:01 PM

25. None taken.

"considering that, since LBJ, 28 out of 45 of those years have been consumed by far-right-wing labor/poor-hating Republicans in the presidency and congress, and another eight consumed by a laissez-fail, deregulation-and-free-trade loving Democrat (with a Repub congress), and the other four by a centrist Democrat that didn't believe in taxing the wealthy, that's not a very high bar.

Based on your comment, I don't know why anyone would dispute the point in the OP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #25)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 08:22 PM

68. Yes, but that's a rather low bar. Just saying. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 01:23 PM

20. He did extend unemployment benefits to 99 weeks...

That helped a lot of people for almost two years. No idea where they might be right now?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 01:26 PM

21. Thanks, Prosense.

Lately I can't stand being here much because of this Groundhog Day shit all over again by the same herd of reliable groundhogs. We have gone to this and similar - that Obama is an evil backstabbing wall street plant man - so many times it's almost comical.

But thank you very much for those truths which are sorely needed. It makes a real difference to me and many others here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Reply #21)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 01:38 PM

24. Concur.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Reply #21)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 02:06 PM

27. Good Read

Indeed

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Reply #21)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 09:20 PM

76. Well said, Whisp. The fact that we have endured this idiotic panicking bullshit on the same topic

at least 20 other times during the man's tenure as president blows my mind. At WHAT POINT will people stop and think about what's going on? Maybe the 21st time, huh?

But as long as the lonely groundhogs get their recs and litter the greatest page (which I strongly suspect is the one and only true goal here) the horde is a happy one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Number23 (Reply #76)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 11:14 PM

113. Being angry is not synonymous with panicking...

...perhaps you should study up and figure out the difference.

I'm not panicked about chained CPI. I'm just PO'd that BO would propose it. You can dress it up all you want, but he himself said his budget proposal was not his "ideal" budget, and his own spokespeople have said he put the chained CPI in there because "the Republicans wanted it".

Well ain't that grand. As Obama's rah rah team reminds us, the President's budget is "just a proposal, he can't make law". Right! So, that being the case, then why in bloody hell would he stick things from the Republican wish list in there??? Unless he wants them? Why, in fact, would he not propose his ideal budget?

I think he did propose his ideal budget. And that troubles me deeply. Sorry that rankles you. Well, no, not really.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ljm2002 (Reply #113)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 11:30 PM

119. And as the president's zombie horde of mindless detractors constantly remind us

(see I can use insults too!) that they will pitch bloody screaming fits over every single thing that he does. Including the fact that he doesn't listen to them because they relentlessly pitch bloody screaming fits over every single thing that he does.

I haven't seen you before or any of your posts so I have no idea why you felt so compelled to respond to me. But if the fact that he openly says "this is not my ideal budget" leads you to conclude that you think that "he did propose his ideal budget" then I'm not bothered by what you think at all. And neither is pretty much anyone else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Number23 (Reply #119)

Sat Apr 13, 2013, 12:44 AM

131. I used the term "Obama's rah rah team"...

...and you think that "the president's zombie horde of mindless detractors" is equivalent. Then you go on to say "they will pitch bloody screaming fits"...

Yeah, that's the same thing.

Not that I mind, just pointing out the discrepancy in tone.

Now let's get on to the substance. First you say you have "no idea why you felt so compelled to respond to me." Huh????? I responded to a post of yours. This is Democratic Underground, a political discussion board. I'm free to respond to any post I want to, and I thought yours deserved a response due to its nasty tone, to wit: "The fact that we have endured this idiotic panicking bullshit on the same topic" right there in the post's title, and then you went on to say "as long as the lonely groundhogs get their recs and litter the greatest page (...) the horde is a happy one".

I found that insulting. Go figure.

In the meantime you avoided addressing my point, other than to dismiss it after admitting you know nothing about me or my posts here. So again I ask you: If the President's budget is "just a proposal", then why would he stick things from the Republican wish list in there? Why would he not propose his ideal budget?

Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 02:04 PM

26. That's a negative for the intervening presidents, not a plus for Obama. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #26)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 02:07 PM

28. He's not

"That's a negative for the intervening presidents, not a plus for Obama."

...a good President, it's just that everyone of them since LBJ has been a bad one. That's basically what you're saying.

No. Helping the poor and middle class to the extent that he has is a "plus" for this President.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #28)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 02:09 PM

29. I'm saying the minimal help he's provided should be considered the floor

As in, to be a not-bad president you should do at least this much.

To be a good president, you have to do more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #29)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 02:14 PM

32. And I'm saying

"I'm saying the minimal help he's provided should be considered the floor As in, to be a not-bad president you should do at least this much. To be a good president, you have to do more."

...that a "good" President expands programs that help the poor and middle class, including millions who will now have life-saving care, including the millions who now qualify for Medicaid.

That's not a "floor," and the Presidents since LBJ have done nothing comparable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #32)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 02:18 PM

35. You're arguing that the intervening presidents were bad

and I agree.

However, there's much to be desired in what Obama has done - Medicare for all would literally require 3 sentences to implement, instead of the massive complexities of Obamacare, which will eventually break down and get us Medicare for all through the exchange back door.

Plus, virtually all of Obama's economic proposals have small bonuses for the poor, and large bonuses for the rich. People such as yourself argue that such a split is necessary to get through Congress, but that doesn't make the split good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #35)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 02:25 PM

37. Actually,

"However, there's much to be desired in what Obama has done - Medicare for all would literally require 3 sentences to implement, instead of the massive complexities of Obamacare, which will eventually break down and get us Medicare for all through the exchange back door. "

...you're arguing an ideal. If the Obama had become the President to implement single payer immediately, he would be considered one of the greatest Presidents ever. If his policy leads to single payer, as it could:

Vermont also intends to be the first state in the U.S. with a single-payer health-care system, in which the government pays all of its residents’ medical bills and insurance companies are unnecessary. The state legislature passed a law in 2011 to steer the state toward adopting such a system in 2017, the soonest possible under the federal health-care law.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-01/vermont-s-first-look-at-insurance-exchange-rates-shows-savings.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022602134

...then that will become part of his legacy.

"Plus, virtually all of Obama's economic proposals have small bonuses for the poor, and large bonuses for the rich. People such as yourself argue that such a split is necessary to get through Congress, but that doesn't make the split good."

I completely disagree (see the OP)

President Obama's Tax Proposals in his Fiscal 2014 Budget Plan
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022659823

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 02:17 PM

34. Then how come I'm feeling so much poorer?

I don't blame Obama. I do blame Congress. If the jobs bill had passed, all those people on the dole would be working on projects to rebuild our infrastructure and the rest of us would be benefitting from the money they spend. The poorest among us would then be also elevated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #34)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 03:53 PM

45. True

"If the jobs bill had passed, all those people on the dole would be working on projects to rebuild our infrastructure and the rest of us would be benefitting from the money they spend."

Republicans are despicable.

The Jobs Program That Wasn’t

Macroeconomic Advisers on the American Jobs Act, proposed a year ago:

We estimate that the American Jobs Act (AJA), if enacted, would give a significant boost to GDP and employment over the near-term.

-The various tax cuts aimed at raising workers’ after-tax income and encouraging hiring and investing, combined with the spending increases aimed at maintaining state & local employment and funding infrastructure modernization, would:
-Boost the level of GDP by 1.3% by the end of 2012, and by 0.2% by the end of 2013.
-Raise nonfarm establishment employment by 1.3 million by the end of 2012 and 0.8 million by the end of 2013, relative to the baseline

Of course, it that had happened, Obama would be more or less a lock for reelection. Instead, having blocked the president’s economic plans, Republicans can point to weak job growth and claim that the president’s policies have failed.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/08/the-jobs-program-that-wasnt/


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 02:23 PM

36. DU Rec...nt

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 02:26 PM

38. Taking More From Seniors and Disabled Doesn't Fit That Narative

 

What is really disturbing is that he doesn't need to.

But, when you are running things for the bankers, I guess it starts to make sense.

My main concern is if we will ever get a non-corporate DOMINATED government again... I believe there will be a tipping point reached sooner, rather than later, which will turn the tables on the greed dominated policies that currently trump everything in our society today.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to usGovOwesUs3Trillion (Reply #38)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 02:34 PM

40. Welcome to DU

"Taking More From Seniors and Disabled Doesn't Fit That Narative"

The policies in the OP, except those in the current budget, have already been implemented. The chained CPI is a bad proposal, but it has not been implemented.

I seriously doubt it will pass.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022655701

As long as it remains a proposal and doesn't become law, it will bolster my point about Presidents since LBJ.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022660643

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to usGovOwesUs3Trillion (Reply #38)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 05:50 PM

51. Welcome to DUusGovOwesUS3Trillion!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 02:41 PM

41. Could be, but all that water swirling around is the sound of the toilet flushing it all away

Frankly I think he proposed chained cpi in a moment of temporary insanity. I think he got caught up in the silly Washington game of trying to prove how courageous he is (no doubt legacy building) by making "the tough choices". Bad decision.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jersey Devil (Reply #41)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 03:01 PM

44. I think

"Frankly I think he proposed chained cpi in a moment of temporary insanity."

...it has no chance of passing. Republicans do not want to own that vote.

Spot the question Boehner didn't answer
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022655701

House Democrats not receptive to Social Security cuts
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/04/12/1201299/-House-Democrats-not-receptive-to-Social-Security-cuts

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 07:49 PM

57. LOL, Ok, here comes the PR to try to make the SS complaints go away. Have you made ONE POST....

about how you totally think Obama failed with the chained CPI?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #57)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 07:53 PM

58. Why

"Have you made ONE POST about how you totally think Obama failed with the chained CPI?"

...are you so obsessed with me? Do you dream about me at night?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #58)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 08:01 PM

59. I respond to lots of posts. Don't give yourself so much credit. I am shocked.....

someone who calls themselves a liberal can have so much blind support for bad policy. And continue to try to counter any valid complaint about Obama. Very odd. Sometimes Obama makes mistakes. We all know it. Except you.

Including relentlessly kicking your own posts to get them attention when there is no one interested.

I never understood the people who 100% defended everything Bush did in 2000-2008. I guess It works both ways.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #59)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 08:07 PM

61. Hey

"I respond to lots of posts. Don't give yourself so much credit. I am shocked....."

...I know. You even like PMs.

"I am shocked someone who calls themselves a liberal can have so much blind support for bad policy. "

Can you point to the "bad policy" in the OP?

"Including relentlessly kicking your own posts to get them attention when there is no one interested. "

Wow, I really get under you skin, don't I?

"I never understood the people who 100% defended everything Bush did in 2000-2008. I guess It works both ways. "

Obviously, you don't understand false equivalency either.






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #61)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 08:13 PM

62. Hey.....

You have already whined about the 2 PMs I sent you. Post them again. Nothing rude at all. Sensitive much? If they bugged you then block them. I can tell you how if you need help.

LOL, bad policy like the chained CPI. Where was your long, detailed, link filled post against that? Nowhere. Because apparently you only post long detailed link filled posts when it makes Obama look perfect. Once again, sometimes Obama is wrong. And admitting it might be a good step for you. We all support Obama. But jumping his ass when needed is a good thing. Defending everything he does is a bad thing.

No difference between someone agreeing with EVERYTHING Bush did! We thought they were idiots. Didn't we?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #62)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 08:18 PM

65. What does

"LOL, bad policy like the chained CPI. "

...the OP have to do with "chained CPI"? The only mention of it is that it sucks.

And this: "You have already whined about the 2 PMs I sent you."




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #65)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 08:22 PM

67. Sometimes your posts make no sense. Like this one. But your laughing icon is really clever. n-t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #67)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 08:24 PM

69. Speaking of

"Sometimes your posts make no sense. Like this one. But your laughing icon is really clever."

...making "no sense": http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2663465

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #69)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 08:27 PM

70. Look on the bright side. I am kicking your posts so you don't have to! Win Win for you. n-t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #70)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 08:49 PM

74. Thanks, and kick!

Ah, freedom!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #70)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 09:10 PM

75. Where did you go? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #75)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 10:31 PM

89. I watched a movie with kids. We can fight more tomorrow! :-)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #57)

Sun Apr 14, 2013, 09:44 PM

177. WHY?

Why can't people place posts that support the president? Why do they HAVE to post negative when they do not feel negative?

There are still a few of us still proud of our President and WANTS to show our support.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lady Freedom Returns (Reply #177)

Sun Apr 14, 2013, 09:57 PM

184. Because blind support of all policy is as bad a complaining about everything Obama does. n-t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 08:15 PM

64. He wants the poor to die slowly (opposite of what Grayson said about R's)

 

Go eat dog food, seniors. I've got more important things to do, like starting a war with Iran and kissing rich 1% ass.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IfPalinisAnswerWatsQ (Reply #64)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 08:20 PM

66. Actually,

"He wants the poor to die slowly (opposite of what Grayson said about R's)"

...I'm fairly certaing that Alan Grayson believes the health care law will save tens of thousands of lives: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2662133

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #66)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 08:35 PM

72. You missed the point

 

Of course obama care will save lives. Grayson said Republicans who opposed it want Americans to die quickly if they get sick, so it doesn't cost us too much money. I'm saying that apparently Obama wants seniors to die slowly, because that is the effect of cutting their food budget via Chained CPI. As they can no longer afford food, their bodies will feed on their fat stores until our seniors are skin and bones, and then their organs will shut down.

Ever heard of failure to thrive?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 08:33 PM

71. Get real

There is no comparison between LBJ and Obama.

With Obama, we'd never have had Civil Rights, Voting Rights, Medicare, Medicaid or the War on Poverty which included such things as Head Start...

LBJ was a leader and a fighter. Obama is daily proving himself to be an empty suit owned by Wall Street. Without LBJ, Obama would have had no Medicaid to expand; and frankly, more people on the rolls but less money and the threatened assaults on SS and Medicare (which he proposes) make this so-called expansion questionable!

Obama concedes without a fight,has continually peopled his cabinet and inner sanctum of advisors with 3rd way types and Wall Street insiders and his hero was Ronald Reagan.

Some liberal!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carolina (Reply #71)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 08:39 PM

73. Maybe

"Get real. There is no comparison between LBJ and Obama."

...you should calm down and reread the OP. It doesn't make a "comparison between LBJ and Obama."

"With Obama, we'd never have had Civil Rights, Voting Rights, Medicare, Medicaid or the War on Poverty which included such things as Head Start... "

Huh?

With Obama we got a stronger FDIC, a CFPB and health care reform that eluded Presidents for more than 100 years.

So there is that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #73)

Sun Apr 14, 2013, 09:56 PM

183. health reform?

again, get real.

The ACA is NOT about health care; it's about health insurance and its full ramifications are yet to be known. The devil is in the details of a bill that takes up ~2,500 pages. LBJ gave those 65 and older the closest thing to universal HEALTH CARE. BHO... not so much.

Your post said he's done more for the poor since LBJ? Really... I can't believe you can even write that with a straight face.

A man who fills his cabinet and circle of advisors with 3rd way/ DLC types, Wall Street types and those who love privatization... all of whom are enemies of "we, the people," especially the little people!

So tell me, how is Mr. Outsourcer, job cutter, GE CEO, Jeffrey Inmelt good for the poor?

BHO, your hero, chose him as an advisor on jobs!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 09:22 PM

77. My goodness the meme's just keep on coming tonight. The dust hasn't settled on this yet..

so I don't know if he gave us a deal or a trojan horse. But so far we have paid for every gain three times over with our freedom and safety nets from this President.

Trust me?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kickysnana (Reply #77)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 09:25 PM

79. OK

"My goodness the meme's just keep on coming tonight. The dust hasn't settled on this yet.. so I don't know if he gave us a deal or a trojan horse. But so far we have paid for every gain three times over with our freedom and safety nets from this President. "

...what the hell are you talking about?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kickysnana (Reply #77)

Sun Apr 14, 2013, 09:51 PM

179. "our freedom and safety nets from this President"?

there's some real garbage on this thread

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 09:24 PM

78. The screamers on DU don't pay attention to facts which don't support their narrow view of

the President. They would rather throw laurel leaves at the feet of Bernie Sanders or some other person, who on their own can't remotely get anything done.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluestate10 (Reply #78)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 09:32 PM

82. +1 LOVE Bernie Sanders, but it takes more than just being right. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluestate10 (Reply #78)

Sun Apr 14, 2013, 09:53 PM

180. No, they're not looking for facts, they're looking for fights

It's been concerted trolling here since last year, maybe in November.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 09:39 PM

84. Yeah, but the Karl Marx's and Che's on the board demand instant utopia

or they are taking their ball and going home.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tabasco (Reply #84)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 11:07 PM

105. wow what a condescending comment..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bowens43 (Reply #105)

Sun Apr 14, 2013, 09:19 PM

174. I don't think so, and I'm probably one of the biggest believers in socialism here.

It's almost a mania with me, but I have to live in the real world and not be dogmatic or tribalist. I want a system more like Norway, but even they are losing some of what they had going. The right wingers are right about Obama's goals resulting in socialism. He's going in steps to implement it but not by name.

I don't care what it's called. I care what gets done. And I've seen a lot get done up close. Not the way we used to do with when we had more public support, as it's nearly impossible to even use such language in this country anymore due to brainwashing.

We'll be working on something else, call it by another name, put it to work a different way but so many hate government, even here at DU, that it's a hard road.

Socialism requires people to work within government and give up some things many refuse for the greater good. The honest desire for decentralization of power and more horizontal power structures has been deemed both more democratic and better for the planet. So we are probably going to have to do a round around.

JMHO.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tabasco (Reply #84)

Sat Apr 13, 2013, 02:55 PM

158. daaamn. red baiting isn't just for freepers anymore!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boilerbabe (Reply #158)

Sat Apr 13, 2013, 11:45 PM

161. Viva la revolucion !!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 09:45 PM

85. K&R, ProSense!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 09:45 PM

86. Pathetic.

He has been a disaster for the vast majority of Americans.

His education policies are ruinous, and he is now peddling "public-private partnerships," which translated means turning over the public good for private profit.

His insistence on destroying 80 years of Democratic Party policies in order to satisfy the banksters and billionaires who are his true constituency.

His refusal to have done anything whatsoever about the economy or joblessness except some half-assed "stimulus" that didn't do squat.

I couldn't care less about the talking points.

He's been unmasked for what he is. It's time to get with the program.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to duffyduff (Reply #86)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 09:50 PM

87. You mean

"His insistence on destroying 80 years of Democratic Party policies in order to satisfy the banksters and billionaires who are his true constituency. "

..like DADT, DOMA, repealing Glass-Steagall, rising inequality and poverty? Or are you talking about expanding Medicaid, creating the CFPB, giving the FDIC more powers and seniors more benefits?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to duffyduff (Reply #86)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 10:27 PM

88. Another thing,

since you mentioned the "banksters and billionaires," I should post this here:

President Obama's Tax Proposals in his Fiscal 2014 Budget Plan

<...>

Here are the percentage changes in federal taxes that Obama proposes over the upcoming decade by type of tax:

■ Personal income taxes, mostly on the wealthy, would go up by 4 percent.

■ Corporate taxes would increase by 1 percent.

■ Excise taxes would increase by 10 percent.

■ Estate and gift taxes would go up by 40 percent.

In total, federal revenues would increase by 2.8 percent over 10 years.

Except for the excise tax increases (mainly almost a $1 per pack tax hike on cigarettes), most of the President’s proposed net tax increases would fall on the very well off.

- more -

http://ctj.org/ctjreports/2013/04/president_obamas_tax_proposals_in_his_fiscal_2014_budget_plan.php





http://ctj.org/images/2013/obamafy2014budget.pdf


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to duffyduff (Reply #86)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 10:56 PM

96. So did you join simply to bash the President?

I know a few websites devoted to that cause, and they even discuss his birth sometimes........

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to duffyduff (Reply #86)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 11:02 PM

100. Also


"His refusal to have done anything whatsoever about the economy or joblessness except some half-assed "stimulus" that didn't do squat. "

...that reminds me of a RW talking point.

The Jobs Program That Wasn’t

Macroeconomic Advisers on the American Jobs Act, proposed a year ago:

We estimate that the American Jobs Act (AJA), if enacted, would give a significant boost to GDP and employment over the near-term.

-The various tax cuts aimed at raising workers’ after-tax income and encouraging hiring and investing, combined with the spending increases aimed at maintaining state & local employment and funding infrastructure modernization, would:
-Boost the level of GDP by 1.3% by the end of 2012, and by 0.2% by the end of 2013.
-Raise nonfarm establishment employment by 1.3 million by the end of 2012 and 0.8 million by the end of 2013, relative to the baseline

Of course, it that had happened, Obama would be more or less a lock for reelection. Instead, having blocked the president’s economic plans, Republicans can point to weak job growth and claim that the president’s policies have failed.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/08/the-jobs-program-that-wasnt/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to duffyduff (Reply #86)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 11:36 PM

121. Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to duffyduff (Reply #86)

Sun Apr 14, 2013, 09:33 PM

175. totally agree, DuffyDuff

but alas, you can't reason with hero worship.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 10:34 PM

90. Highest poverty rate since the 1960s, high unemployment

stock market at all-time highs. And now Social Security is on the table... apparently. Yep, the poor folks never had it so good.

I'll pass on the OP's sentiments.

Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57477487/us-poverty-on-track-to-rise-to-highest-since-1960s/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LittleBlue (Reply #90)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 10:38 PM

92. Bush did A LOT of damage and is taking a lot of time to fix.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LittleBlue (Reply #90)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 10:40 PM

93. Like I said,

"Highest poverty rate since the 1960s, high unemployment"

...the trajectory is the effect of decades of damaging policies (http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2660801) and the President's policies are helping:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2660986

Working Family Tax Credits Kept Nearly 10 Million People Out Of Poverty 2011
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/04/09/1842561/how-tax-credits-for-working-families-reduced-poverty-by-almost-10-million-in-2011/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #93)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 10:51 PM

94. And if Obama's proposed chained CPI became reality

he would help that poverty rate trajectory upward.

But hell, it's been a great 5 years for Wall Street.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LittleBlue (Reply #94)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 10:57 PM

97. Well,

"And if Obama's proposed chained CPI became reality he would help that poverty rate trajectory upward."

...the OP isn't about chained CPI. It's about the President's policies that have already been enacted.

You say "if," but I think it has no chance of passing. Republicans do not want to own that vote.

Spot the question Boehner didn't answer
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022655701

House Democrats not receptive to Social Security cuts
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/04/12/1201299/-House-Democrats-not-receptive-to-Social-Security-cuts

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #97)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 11:02 PM

101. I thought the OP was about the poor and middle class?

And Obama proposed hurting them by cutting Social Security. Just saying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LittleBlue (Reply #101)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 11:06 PM

104. The OP

"I thought the OP was about the poor and middle class? And Obama proposed hurting them by cutting Social Security. Just saying."

...is about the the President's existing policies that help the poor and middle class.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #104)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 11:12 PM

111. OK, then it should be fair if I mention his proposed policies

After all, if congress is partly responsible for this mess, we should be able to mention when congress stops Obama from making a mess.

Fair enough

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LittleBlue (Reply #94)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 11:01 PM

99. Again, you don't think the Republicans had nothing to do with the poverty rate, debt, war

or a dozen other obstructionist policies keeping the President from getting the path straight, or is bashing him a full time job for you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DainBramaged (Reply #99)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 11:04 PM

102. Of course they did

You can't ignore a Democratic president proposing a policy to steal money from SS checks and increase the poverty rate, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LittleBlue (Reply #102)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 11:07 PM

106. My God it's all Obama's fault

it's as if I was reading a ticker on FAUX News...........

How sad you ignore so much and are blinded by so little.


Meh, I am done with you, enjoy your moment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DainBramaged (Reply #106)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 11:13 PM

112. Did someone force him to propose chained CPI?

My God it's all Obama's fault


For proposing chained CPI? Uh... yeah.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LittleBlue (Reply #112)

Sat Apr 13, 2013, 12:23 AM

127. Well,

"Did someone force him to propose chained CPI?"

...Republicans think they can make the case that they're actually defenders of Social Security, not the ones who demanded it be part of the negotiations.

When cynicism rules the day
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022662485

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LittleBlue (Reply #90)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 10:59 PM

98. So the Republicans are faultless here?

You need to do better research

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 10:34 PM

91. Kick! I Rec'ed it earlier!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 11:06 PM

103. LOL! So are you a DLC operative?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bowens43 (Reply #103)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 11:08 PM

107. LOL! Is that the stupidest question of the day?

Likely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #107)

Sun Apr 14, 2013, 10:26 PM

190. There was a direct question, and to counter it


a direct deflection. A simple yes or no would suffice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bowens43 (Reply #103)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 11:08 PM

108. And you're a FAUX News advocate?

what a laugh riot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 11:12 PM

110. Bullshit! And I don't need pretty charts and links, just ask the local homeless shelters, foodbanks

how 'rosy and nice' it is out in the real world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Reply #110)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 11:26 PM

116. WTH?

"Bullshit! And I don't need pretty charts and links, just ask the local homeless shelters, foodbanks how 'rosy and nice' it is out in the real world."

Who the hell said anything about it being "'rosy and nice' out in the "real world"? It's about helping.

Ask the person who didn't die because they got the care they needed. Ask the person who got a job from the stimulus. Ask the seniors and the millions of other Americans who received some financial relief during the worst economic crisis in more than 70 years.

It's not about "rosy and nice." It wasn't "rosy and nice" for blacks in the years following the Civil Rights Act. It still isn't for the millions who suffer most from policy that promote inequality.



http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/02/27/1644721/wealth-gap-tripled-25/

The Titanic Wealth Gap Between Blacks and Whites
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022437928

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Reply #110)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 11:39 PM

122. It's dismal. I volunteer

with some of those groups. Breaks your heart.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Reply #110)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 11:44 PM

124. Ask those

who benefit from the health care law.

Editorial

Report Card on Health Care Reform

By THE EDITORIAL BOARD

Republican leaders in Congress regularly denounce the 2010 Affordable Care Act and vow to block money to carry it out or even to repeal it. Those political attacks ignore the considerable benefits delivered to millions of people since the law’s enactment three years ago Saturday. The main elements of the law do not kick in until Jan. 1, 2014, when many millions of uninsured people will gain coverage. Yet it has already thrown a lifeline to people at high risk of losing insurance or being uninsured, including young adults and people with chronic health problems, and it has made a start toward reforming the costly, dysfunctional American health care system.

EXPANDING COVERAGE Starting in 2010, all insurers and employers that offer dependent coverage were required to offer coverage to dependent children up to age 26. An estimated 6.6 million people ages 19 through 25 have been able to stay on or join their parents’ plans as result, with more than 3 million previously uninsured young adults getting health insurance. The law requires private health insurers to provide free preventive care, without co-pays or deductibles. Some 71 million Americans have received at least one free preventive service, like a mammogram or a flu shot, and an additional 34 million older Americans got free preventive services in 2012 under Medicare.

<...>

The law appropriated $11 billion over five years to build and operate community health centers, a major factor in increasing the annual number of patients served to 21 million, a rise of 3 million from previous levels. Some $5 billion has been put into a reinsurance program that has encouraged employers to retain coverage for retirees and their families; 19 million people benefited with reduced premiums or cost-sharing.

<...>

BETTER QUALITY OF CARE One of the most promising aspects of the health reform act is its focus on improving quality. The percentage of Medicare patients requiring readmission to the hospital within 30 days of discharge dropped from an average of 19 percent over the past five years to 17.8 percent in the last half of 2012, an improvement due in large part to penalties imposed by Medicare for poor performance and financial incentives paid by Medicare to providers to encourage better coordination of care after a patient leaves the hospital.

- more -

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/24/opinion/sunday/report-card-on-health-care-reform.html

Here's a summary of the NYT report:

That includes:

  • Some 6.6 million people ages 19 through 25 who have been able to stay on their parents' insurance plans and more than than 3 million young adults getting health insurance.

  • 17 million getting some kind of free preventive service, like flu shots, and 34 million Medicare recipients getting free preventive services in 2012;

  • 17 million children with pre-existing conditions being protected against being uninsured;

  • More than 107,000 adults with pre-existing conditions finally having insurance under the federally run insurance program;

  • 21 million received care from expanded community health centers, 3 million more than previously served;

  • $1.1 billion in rebates, an average of $151 per family paid by insurers that failed to meet the benchmark of 80 to 85 percent of premium revenues on medical claims or quality improvements;

  • Since 2010, more than 6.3 million older or disabled people have saved more than $6.3 billion on prescription drugs;
- more -

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/03/25/1196892/-An-Affordable-Care-Act-report-card-three-years-in

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Reply #110)

Sun Apr 14, 2013, 02:29 AM

167. Oh. many of us still support Obama.

And the health care is still what most like the best. And due to worrying about loopholes closing, the big businesses are donating more to try and keep something to write off.

Someone, street rumor still, that they might finally break ground on the expansion on the Tucson Sally. Seems there is some new funds due to extra, what is know as, tax duck money. Why? They are worried the old loops will be going still and soon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 11:42 PM

123. So that means he can cut Social Security, food stamps, veterans'

benefits and all other programs that help the middle class and poor.

His record only looks like something positive because the preceding presidents were so utterly weak on services to the poor and middle class.

The homeless population has grown under Obama. You don't have to walk very far in Los Angeles to see that. Don't need a poll. Just walk down an alley behind a restaurant at dusk and you can see it.

The homeless population also grew under Reagan and the Bushes.

I don't think any president has presided over so many foreclosures. I know it's Bush's fault. But although he has set up programs to help people being foreclosed, those programs have been ineffective and have done nothing to solve the big problem -- joblessness. People can't qualify for Obama's programs for those facing foreclosure because they are either homeless or are not well enough paid to qualify. The banks gave the loans. The houses were overpriced. Who takes the loss? The foreclosed homeowner -- all by himself. The bank takes the house, sells it again, gets a new mortgage and starts charging interest all over again.

The disparity in wealth between rich and poor, between the middle class and the super-rich remains our biggest problem. Because of the general decline in the economy since 2008, that disparity has resulted in more misery than ever.

Obama has pushed charter schools, yet another program to help the rich and make the poor and middle class and poor pay.

And then, while I think his health care reform is better than nothing, but it should have been single payer.

He has a lot of excuses for not doing what is right, but with his rhetorical skills, there is no excuse. He could get anything he wanted if he spent more time talking with ordinary Americans (as he did during the campaign) and less hob-nobbing with bankers and Republicans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #123)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 11:45 PM

125. No, and it doesn't imply that anywhere in the OP.

Nice straw man though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #125)

Sat Apr 13, 2013, 12:24 AM

128. Then what is the point in the OP?

I think that what the diehard Obama supporters do not understand is that many of us have made excuses for Obama all along.
We said he was in a tough mess made by Bush. We said it is the Republicans' fault. We said he is doing what he can. We said that, as the OP asserts, he has actually done so much for the poor and middle class.

But now, he proposes chained CPI. First, the proposal seems somewhat dishonest because all along he has claimed that it is the Republicans who threaten Social Security and other programs that help the middle class and the poor. But now we see that he is proposing this plan that will wipe out a lot of the better programs he has supported or established.

Another DUer posted this link.

http://americablog.com/2012/05/pete-petersen-hosts-bill-clinton-paul-ryan-simpson-van-hollen-to-discuss-social-security-compromise

Read it. It makes you sick. Obama, Clinton, the whole DLC, Geithner, the whole bunch want to destroy Social Security. That's the lifeline of seniors across the country. The 401(K)s are a joke. Wall Streeters just milk them dry. We do not want a private pension system unless the government pretty much runs it.

We can see from the Elizabeth Warren questions and answers on the Senate Banking committee that our "regulators" are not regulating the banks or financial institutions adequately. All that they are "regulating" is their transitions to and from Wall Street financial firms and lobbying law firms. "Regulation" of the financial sector is a joke under the Obama administration as it was under the Bush II administration.

We seniors have been under pressure in many respects since 2008. We have watched friends lose businesses, lose jobs and their homes. Our kids are struggling with student loans that are hard to pay back. Many of those of us who are seniors retired early because our bosses wanted to hire younger people or because we lost jobs and could not get new ones. Politicians have no idea of the age discrimination that ordinary people face.

And now, Obama is doing the ultimate favor for the bankers -- and meeting with them at the White House for a little victory dance almost immediately after the dirty deed.

And you are surprised that we are emotional and distrustful and unappreciative of Obama?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #128)

Sat Apr 13, 2013, 12:38 AM

130. Wait,

"Then what is the point in the OP?"

...you suggested that the OP was implying something it wasn't, and now you're asking what was "the point"?

The point is in the title and the content.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #130)

Sat Apr 13, 2013, 01:14 AM

138. Saying you did more to help the poor and poverty than any president

since LBJ is really an admission of neglect.

LBJ was the last president to do anything about the poor and poverty. And it is the programs of LBJ that Clinton and Obama and their Republican buddies including Pete Peterson and Newt Gingrich are working to destroy.

The headline is an admission of a very sad record, not a statement of pride.

I remember LBJ. I remember Kennedy. I remember Eisenhower, and yes, Truman. I was alive but not old enough to remember FDR, but he lives for me in the memory of my mother to whom FDR was the greatest of all presidents.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #138)

Sat Apr 13, 2013, 01:17 AM

140. That makes

Saying you did more to help the poor and poverty than any president

since LBJ is really an admission of neglect.

LBJ was the last president to do anything about the poor and poverty. And it is the programs of LBJ that Clinton and Obama and their Republican buddies including Pete Peterson and Newt Gingrich are working to destroy.

...no sense, and it as if you didn't read the OP.


Anyone who doesn't see the biggest expansion of Medicaid since it was implemented as helping the poor isn't thinking clearly.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022660715

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #138)

Sun Apr 14, 2013, 10:02 PM

185. Wonderful response, JDPriestly

I have being saying much the same upthread:

LBJ was the last president to do anything about the poor and poverty. And it is the programs of LBJ that Clinton and Obama and their Republican buddies including Pete Peterson and Newt Gingrich are working to destroy.

LBJ knew how to fight. BHO is good at conceding

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #123)

Sat Apr 13, 2013, 12:10 AM

126. Oh I can't wait for the charts and graphs from Daily Kos to refute your claims, with maybe a NYT

editorial dated 2010.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #123)

Sat Apr 13, 2013, 01:29 AM

142. his record only looks positive

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #142)

Sat Apr 13, 2013, 01:38 AM

145. You continue

to push that nonsense. The tax code is progressive and the facts are clear, as the OP points out.

President Obama actually did something to address the inequality, raising taxes on the top one percent (higher than the Clinton rate with the health care tax included) and increasing capital gains to its highest level since the mid 90s. The total effect is significant.

Pre Bush tax cuts: lowest tax bracket 15 percent and top tax bracket 39.6 percent.
Bush tax cuts: lowest tax bracket 10 percent and top tax bracket 35 percent.
President Obama's tax deal, lowest rate 10 percent, top rate 39.6 percent.

Do the math and it will show that the gap between someone earning $50,000 and someone earning $500,000 closed to more than what it was in the 1990s. Add the health care law tax and the gap closes even more.

Do the math.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #145)

Sat Apr 13, 2013, 02:28 AM

148. I did the math

the facts of the matter are that ATRA, by itself, gives permanent tax CUTS of $666 billion to the top 1% over the next decade.

Inequality, as I mentioned before in a thread almost nobody read, is typically measured in two ways

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

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021824827

So bringing $50,000 into the argument is a red herring. $50,000 is not in the bottom quintile.

The tax cuts of ATRA, by various income groups are also in that link, to repeat

"Under Obama's plan

the bottom 20% gets $14 billion in tax cuts
the top 20% gets $163 billion in tax cuts
the top 5% get $80 billion in tax cuts
the top 1% get $40 billion in tax cuts
the bottom 40% gets $42 billion in tax cuts "

except that was yearly, and the final plan, over the next decade looks like this

bottom 20% - $111 billion
next quintile - $259 billion
middle quintile - $333 billion
next quintile - $592 billion
next 15% - $1,073 billion
top 4% - $666 billion (how evil)
top 1% - $666 billion (evil again)
top 20% - $2,405 billion

the math says that giving $666 billion in tax cuts to the top 1% and giving $111 billion in tax cuts to the bottom 20% is gonna increase inequality, and NOT decrease it.

Of course, like Michael Moore famously said, we live in fictitious times, so our supposedly progressive President tells us the fiction, that since the tax CUT of the top 1% was reduced from $1.3 trillion to just $666 billion that taxes have been increased on the rich.

And most Americans seem to be too stupid to get upset about such an unfair tax cut, because they are just happy that their own taxes did not go up by $900. Hey, as long as I get my own $900 who cares if those in the top 1% gets $34,000?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #148)

Sat Apr 13, 2013, 11:15 AM

156. No

"I did the math the facts of the matter are that ATRA, by itself, gives permanent tax CUTS of $666 billion to the top 1% over the next decade...So bringing $50,000 into the argument is a red herring. $50,000 is not in the bottom quintile."

...what you did was dismiss the math for spin. You dismissed the equation and dismiss the health care tax. Pick any amount in the "bottom quintile" and the top one percent, and then do the math.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sat Apr 13, 2013, 02:29 AM

149. That's all well and good

but he's still proposing to cut Social Security benefits, when SS has contributed nothing to the deficit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TransitJohn (Reply #149)

Sat Apr 13, 2013, 05:25 PM

159. Yes,

"but he's still proposing to cut Social Security benefits, when SS has contributed nothing to the deficit."

...it is "well and good," and yes, chained CPI sucks. Obama knows it.



There is absolutely no reason to make the COLAs more stingy. Raise the cap and increase benefits.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sat Apr 13, 2013, 08:36 AM

154. is my family better off under obama than lbj?

no. that is all that matters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Apr 14, 2013, 02:13 AM

165. Thanks for doing this, ProSense

Good luck getting through the fear and anger that becloud so many minds.

The crowd-miasma is getting to me, I must admit, and you and CliffordDU have both helped me stay steady this weekend.

Hekate

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Apr 14, 2013, 02:42 AM

168. You once told me that, if Obama tried to cut SS, you'd no longer support him. /nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marr (Reply #168)

Sun Apr 14, 2013, 10:19 AM

169. I have abandoned him because of a proposal. You? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #169)

Sun Apr 14, 2013, 10:30 PM

195. Is this where you suggest that it was just a harmless proposal?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marr (Reply #168)

Sun Apr 14, 2013, 09:12 PM

172. It is interesting watching the narrative/spin evolve

 

As the facts become evident.

I saw many on DU pilloried when they pointed out that cuts to SS was on the President's agenda, and here we are today...

Are any of those who were so utterly wrong the least bit contrite, or humbled?

We see a simular pattern with our elite, and the main stream media, don't we.

Another fact I find remarkable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marr (Reply #168)

Sun Apr 14, 2013, 10:27 PM

191. I believe that I remember reading that same line around January.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Apr 14, 2013, 09:09 PM

171. Reality check:

 

Who or what exactly enables "austerity", or "sequestration"?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022445620



Without Taxpayer Help, Too Big to Fail Banks Would Only Break Even

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12526710

It is too difficult to breathe in here...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fire Walk With Me (Reply #171)

Sun Apr 14, 2013, 09:17 PM

173. That has nothing to do with the OP. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fire Walk With Me (Reply #171)

Sun Apr 14, 2013, 09:56 PM

182. nobody's forcing you to "breathe" in here

There's air outside. Spring is in the air. Go for a walk and enjoy it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kolesar (Reply #182)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 02:07 AM

205. I've already marched outside with Occupy. We are still correct regarding the banksters behind

 

the curtain running things, and the politicians who blatantly shill for them, and that our tax dollars are being shoveled straight into their pockets via "austerity" (some call it "sequester") and continuing bailouts. Claims that "everything is fine" are utterly laughable, if one can stop being upset by the conditions in this country and those forcing them upon us long enough to actually laugh. Sorry if the painfully clear upsets you or anyone else. No, I'm kidding about the sorry part. The denial and aggressive "eyes wide shut" stances I've seen are a terrible indicator of even worse to come, for the democratic party and the country. You cannot solve a problem without admitting to it, and Obama is NOT a democrat. Far from it.

NDAA section 1021, signed twice by Obama and defended in court after being struck down as unConstitutional, provides for the indefinite detention of US citizens with neither trial nor representation. For example, one of many.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Apr 14, 2013, 09:55 PM

181. My brother would have qualified for Medicaid had he lived

He worked and only earned $13,500 and did not qualify for Medicaid because he was not officially disabled.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Apr 14, 2013, 10:04 PM

186. Perpetuating the Privatization our Healthcare is not helping the Poor or Middleclass

 

Not to mention immoral, and the leading cause of bankruptcy in the U.S.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/06/05/bankruptcy.medical.bills



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to usGovOwesUs3Trillion (Reply #186)

Sun Apr 14, 2013, 10:07 PM

187. so true, the ACA is

not about health care. It is about health insurance which is private and for profit!

Welcome to DU!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carolina (Reply #187)

Sun Apr 14, 2013, 10:16 PM

188. Thank you Carolina

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to usGovOwesUs3Trillion (Reply #186)

Sun Apr 14, 2013, 10:28 PM

193. Can you

"Perpetuating the Privatization our Healthcare is not helping the Poor or Middleclass Not to mention immoral, and the leading cause of bankruptcy in the U.S."

...say Medicaid expansion.

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.

<...>

Medicaid Long Term Services and Supports Improvements
Several provisions in the ACA will make it easier for seniors to get long‐term services and supports at home and in the community. Medicaid provides funding for long‐term care services in institutions, such as nursing homes and in the community. Seniors prefer to receive care in their homes, and it is generally less expensive, however, most states spend their Medicaid primarily on institutional care. The ACA includes incentives to encourage states to shift Medicaid spending from institutions to the community, so that individuals who require long‐term care services may receive care in least‐restrictive environment. These incentives are not directly impacted by the Court’s decision to limit the Medicaid expansion. Elements of the ACA that enhance home and community long‐term care include:

1) Community First Choice Option (CFCO) provides participating states with a six percentage point increase in federal Medicaid matching funds for providing community‐based attendant services and supports to individuals who would otherwise be confined to a nursing home or other institution.

2) Balancing Incentive Payment Program targets increased federal matching funds to states that spend less than half of their Medicaid long‐term care expenditures on community‐based care. This spring, six states received grants to improve their community‐based care.

3) Extending Medicaid’s spousal impoverishment protection provisions to spouses of individuals who seek long‐term care in the community. This rule goes into effect in 2014.

- more -

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




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Apr 14, 2013, 10:28 PM

192. Helped the poor and middle class out of their homes, you mean.

Then forgave the banks that screwed them.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/07/foreclosure-review-settlement-banks_n_2426437.html

And put the banks in charge of disbursing "the settlement."

Nice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #192)

Sun Apr 14, 2013, 10:29 PM

194. Federal Mortgage Program Extended

Federal Mortgage Program Extended

By NICK TIMIRAOS

<...>

The Home Affordable Refinance Program, or HARP, allows homeowners with loans backed by the mortgage-finance companies to refinance even if they don't have any equity. So far, more than two million homeowners have refinanced under the program. HARP had been set to expire at the end of this year, but the Federal Housing Finance Agency said Thursday that the program would now run through 2015.

<...>

The Obama administration rolled out HARP in early 2009, and the program was initially set to end on June 10, 2010. In addition to extending the end date of HARP several times, the program has undergone a series of overhauls in a bid to reach more borrowers amid disappointing initial results.

The administration and the FHFA made changes to the program in late 2011, and the program has produced better results since then. Previously, HARP had been limited to loans that were no more than 125% of the home's current value, and lenders were reluctant to refinance many underwater mortgages because of that cap and other technical hurdles.

Last year, more than one million homeowners refinanced through HARP, matching the volume for the previous three years. Of those one million borrowers, at least 44% of them were underwater.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324695104578416552572303838.html?mod=GibsonDunn



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #194)

Sun Apr 14, 2013, 10:34 PM

196. Perhaps you should set Elizabeth Warren straight then.


She seems to believe that the Banks are getting an excessively kind hand from the administration while those that trusted them...well not so much and pennies on the dollar to boot. I'm sure that if you were to send her your take on the whole affair that she would realize the error of her ways.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Reply #196)

Sun Apr 14, 2013, 10:39 PM

197. There's no

"Perhaps you should set Elizabeth Warren straight then."

...need to. Senator Warren is fully aware of the progress made and the problems still facing the country.

The Wall Street reform law would have a significant impact if implementation is sped up.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022441546

Reed, Brown, Warren Demand an Up or Down Vote on CFPB Director

Senators say efforts to prevent a vote on CFPB Director imperils consumers and undermines our economy

WASHINGTON, DC – In an effort to protect consumers and crack down on financial fraud and abuse, U.S. Senators Jack Reed (D-RI), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) today called on Republicans to end unprecedented obstruction and allow an up or down vote on Richard Cordray’s nomination to lead the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). Reed, Brown, and Warren, who are members of the Banking Committee, said that confirming a CFPB director will help consumers and strengthen our financial marketplace.

Congress created the CFPB in 2010 to help ensure the financial products and services that Americans depend on every day —including credit cards, mortgages, and loans—work better for the people who use them. But in an effort to limit the effectiveness of the consumer watchdog, a sufficient number of Senate Republicans have stalled the confirmation of the CFPB’s director, former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray. Earlier this month, 43 Republican Senators sent a letter protesting the CFPB’s independence and vowing to oppose any nominee to lead the consumer protection agency.

“Every year, hard-working American families lose millions of dollars to deceptive financial practices like hidden fees and predatory lending. The CFPB is there to help keep families from getting scammed. They are shining a spotlight on predatory loan practices and products -- bringing them into the light, where they can be seen and stopped. We must not let opponents of Wall Street reform turn back the clock on consumer protection. Instead of preventing the CFPB from doing its job, opponents of the agency should take an up or down vote. A well-regulated marketplace is good for the economy. It improves consumer and business confidence and ensures fair competition,” said Senator Reed.

“The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau stands up for average Americans,” Senator Brown said. “And yet, Wall Street special interests and their allies in Congress have repeatedly refused to approve anyone to serve as the Director unless the agency’s authority is watered down. The American people are fed up with the obstructionism in Washington. We need to protect this agency that protects American families.”

“Under the leadership of Director Cordray, the CFPB has been making a real difference for hard working families everywhere. After two years, it is time for the Senate to give Rich Cordray a vote--up or down--and remove the uncertainty that is costly to families, to community banks and credit unions, and to everyone in financial services.” said Senator Warren. “Political stalemates don’t end in more government or less government, but in bad government - government that lacks the clarity and predictability that our businesses need to plan for the future, to serve their customers, and to create jobs.”

Since the CFPB opened for business in 2011, it has helped hold financial institutions accountable for mistreating consumers and worked in coordination with our federal regulators to return roughly $425 million to consumers’ pockets. The agency’s Consumer Response center has already heard from more than 100,000 consumers with their individual problems related to their credit cards, mortgages, student loans, and bank accounts.

http://www.warren.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=339671




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #197)

Sun Apr 14, 2013, 11:10 PM

202. I take it then if there is no need to "set Elizabeth straight"

you must be equally shocked as she is.

http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/04/democratic_sen_elizabeth_warre.html

In an email to supporters, Warren wrote, “I was shocked to hear that the President's newest budget proposal would cut $100 billion in Social Security benefits. Our Social Security system is critical to protecting middle class families, and we cannot allow it to be dismantled inch by inch.”


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #194)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 07:07 PM

211. No. That's different. This involves millions of INNOCENT people who lost their homes to BANKSTERS.

The Fed messed with the wrong senator

If foreclosure victims get justice, trace it back to a bad decision to stonewall Elizabeth Warren last week

BY DAVID DAYEN
Salon.com April 15, 2013

I have spent the better part of four years trying, with little success, to raise awareness about foreclosure fraud, the largest consumer fraud in the history of the United States. In fact, there’s a whole little band of us writers and activists and foreclosure fighters. We have provided multitudes of evidence about fake documents, forged documents, illegal foreclosures, foreclosures on military members while they served overseas, foreclosures on homes with no mortgages, breaking and entering into the wrong homes, suicides by foreclosure victims, and above all the complete lack of accountability for these crimes and abuses.

But instead of giving voice to thousands upon thousands of victims of illegal foreclosures, instead of documenting the banks’ criminal practices, maybe what we all should have done is simply let the Office of Comptroller of the Currency – part of the Treasury Department — and the Federal Reserve construct their own settlement with the banks. Then, when it utterly unraveled — as it has over the past couple of months — the unimaginable fraud heaped upon homeowners would get more attention than ever before, particularly from a frustrated and angry Congress led by Sen. Elizabeth Warren.

Indeed, despite OCC and the Fed’s best efforts to protect banks from harm, they’ve actually exposed them like never before. If I didn’t know better, I’d think there were moles among this gang-that-couldn’t-regulate-straight.

SNIP...

This all spilled out in an ugly manner over the past week. OCC released the payment announcement, and you can describe reactions with two words: laughable and infuriating. The vast majority of borrowers – 3.4 million – will receive $1,000 or less. To pick a category at random, 234,000 borrowers had a loan modification approved, were kicked out of their homes anyway, and will receive for their trouble – for having their home effectively stolen – a whopping $300 (for comparison’s sake, the third-party consultants got $10,000 per review). In all, as many as 1.2 million borrowers faced foreclosure under potentially illegal circumstances. This translates to an endless supply of ready-made news stories about foreclosure victims who stand to receive an insultingly low check for their suffering, despite doing everything asked of them. CBS News has already started running them.

CONTINUED...

http://www.salon.com/2013/04/15/fed_messed_with_the_wrong_senator/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Apr 14, 2013, 10:44 PM

198. We are living in the best of times and the worst of times . . .

. . . if you want to get a clear definition of democracy, conservatives or liberals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Apr 14, 2013, 10:54 PM

199. good thing Leo Ryan's already dead...

on edit: wow, that's a lotta "This message was self-deleted by its author"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Apr 14, 2013, 11:01 PM

201. Strange you are on a Democratic Board

But most of your responses want nothing to do with all you posted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Apr 14, 2013, 11:30 PM

204. TLDR



RL

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 03:29 AM

206. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 03:32 AM

207. Add "Destroyed Chained CPI in 48 hours" to his legacy.

Obama did what our most vocal economists and moralizers couldn't. While we attacked Chained CPI for months and years, we did it in a vacuum. Obama took the issue and, through a symbolic yet ultimately meaningless budget proposal, got the entire nation to look at it.

And they DID look at it, and they hated it.

Obama destroyed Chained CPI before the Republicans could even sit down at the table, and I thank him for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 01:03 PM

208. Cancer clinics are turning away thousands of Medicare patients. Blame the sequester.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/04/03/cancer-clinics-are-turning-away-thousands-of-medicare-patients-blame-the-sequester/

After an emergency meeting Tuesday, Vacirca’s clinics decided that they would no longer see one-third of their 16,000 Medicare patients.

“A lot of us are in disbelief that this is happening,” he said. “It’s a choice between seeing these patients and staying in business.”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fire Walk With Me (Reply #208)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 01:11 PM

210. Boehner takes sequester victory lap

Boehner takes sequester victory lap
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022583419

That still doesn't have anything to do with the point of the OP.

Here's a more updated story on the topic.

Sequestration Nation: Medicare Reductions Are Hurting Elderly Cancer Patients
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/news/2013/04/15/60492/sequestration-nation-medicare-reductions-are-hurting-elderly-cancer-patients/

This is why no one should be supporting the sequestration. There is a post about Howard Dean prefering it because of the defense cuts, but that ignores the bad effects.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2674625


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 01:10 PM

209. Then the candyland fairies danced all night long.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Original post)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 11:00 PM

212. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread