HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Obama Is Flexible On High...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 06:51 AM

Obama Is Flexible On Highest Tax Rates

Source: Yahoo

WASHINGTON—President Barack Obama signaled he wouldn't insist tax rates on upper-income Americans rise to Clinton-era peaks as part of a deficit-reduction deal, showing new flexibility as he tries to accelerate talks with congressional Republicans.

The new clarity of the White House position marks a potentially important moment in Washington's effort to figure out how to handle tax rates that are due to snap higher next year, one of the thorniest elements of the so-called fiscal cliff.

Some Republicans saw it as a hopeful sign that could lead to a compromise. Though GOP leaders remain opposed to raising top rates and want more details on potential entitlement cuts, the White House move opens a range of possibilities for negotiators.

The White House's flexibility, first described by Democrat Erskine Bowles after meetings with Mr. Obama and others, and confirmed by administration officials, could envision tax rates increase from their current levels but less than Clinton-era levels.



Read more: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/obama-flexible-highest-tax-rates-024300413.html



The watering down of our mandate starts

134 replies, 19986 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 134 replies Author Time Post
Reply Obama Is Flexible On Highest Tax Rates (Original post)
NeoConsSuck Nov 2012 OP
Ash_F Nov 2012 #1
msanthrope Nov 2012 #21
JDPriestly Nov 2012 #41
msanthrope Nov 2012 #53
BlueStreak Nov 2012 #46
1StrongBlackMan Nov 2012 #80
BlueStreak Nov 2012 #86
1StrongBlackMan Nov 2012 #97
BlueStreak Nov 2012 #100
1StrongBlackMan Nov 2012 #103
BlueStreak Nov 2012 #105
1StrongBlackMan Nov 2012 #107
BlueStreak Nov 2012 #111
1StrongBlackMan Nov 2012 #112
BlueStreak Nov 2012 #113
1StrongBlackMan Nov 2012 #115
BlueStreak Nov 2012 #116
1StrongBlackMan Nov 2012 #118
BlueStreak Nov 2012 #119
1StrongBlackMan Nov 2012 #120
Hotler Nov 2012 #124
AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2012 #84
bahrbearian Nov 2012 #52
raouldukelives Nov 2012 #56
1StrongBlackMan Nov 2012 #78
BlueStreak Nov 2012 #88
roguevalley Nov 2012 #50
sulphurdunn Nov 2012 #2
djean111 Nov 2012 #3
bigdarryl Nov 2012 #4
Lasher Nov 2012 #7
MannyGoldstein Nov 2012 #5
msanthrope Nov 2012 #25
AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2012 #35
JDPriestly Nov 2012 #43
1StrongBlackMan Nov 2012 #81
hypergrove Nov 2012 #92
1StrongBlackMan Nov 2012 #98
1StrongBlackMan Nov 2012 #122
JDPriestly Nov 2012 #99
1StrongBlackMan Nov 2012 #101
1StrongBlackMan Nov 2012 #123
JDPriestly Dec 2012 #129
leftynyc Nov 2012 #6
msanthrope Nov 2012 #15
mostlyconfused Nov 2012 #57
msanthrope Nov 2012 #59
mostlyconfused Nov 2012 #66
msanthrope Nov 2012 #67
mostlyconfused Nov 2012 #68
msanthrope Nov 2012 #71
mostlyconfused Nov 2012 #76
msanthrope Nov 2012 #79
24601 Nov 2012 #85
Quantess Nov 2012 #8
FailureToCommunicate Nov 2012 #9
msanthrope Nov 2012 #17
blackspade Nov 2012 #26
msanthrope Nov 2012 #33
blackspade Nov 2012 #49
bucolic_frolic Nov 2012 #10
San Patricio Nov 2012 #11
msanthrope Nov 2012 #14
SidDithers Nov 2012 #22
Cherchez la Femme Nov 2012 #47
SidDithers Nov 2012 #48
bahrbearian Nov 2012 #51
Cherchez la Femme Nov 2012 #61
bahrbearian Nov 2012 #69
Kablooie Nov 2012 #12
Kablooie Nov 2012 #13
Pterodactyl Nov 2012 #16
Dawgs Nov 2012 #19
frylock Nov 2012 #63
secondwind Nov 2012 #18
SHRED Nov 2012 #20
on point Nov 2012 #23
msanthrope Nov 2012 #27
JDPriestly Nov 2012 #45
msanthrope Nov 2012 #55
godai Nov 2012 #60
msanthrope Nov 2012 #62
1StrongBlackMan Nov 2012 #104
toby jo Nov 2012 #64
hypergrove Nov 2012 #90
Myrina Dec 2012 #133
Ter Nov 2012 #114
AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2012 #36
blackspade Nov 2012 #24
ProSense Nov 2012 #28
msanthrope Nov 2012 #34
SHRED Nov 2012 #29
BlueStreak Nov 2012 #102
Fuddnik Nov 2012 #30
SHRED Nov 2012 #32
bahrbearian Nov 2012 #70
SHRED Nov 2012 #31
mcgarry50 Nov 2012 #37
ProSense Nov 2012 #38
AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2012 #83
stupidicus Nov 2012 #39
kentuck Nov 2012 #40
a2liberal Nov 2012 #42
Cherchez la Femme Nov 2012 #44
Jimbo S Nov 2012 #54
Victor_c3 Nov 2012 #58
Myrina Nov 2012 #72
rusty fender Nov 2012 #65
Myrina Nov 2012 #73
bvar22 Nov 2012 #74
hypergrove Nov 2012 #95
RickFromMN Nov 2012 #75
Vincardog Nov 2012 #77
vi5 Nov 2012 #82
RickFromMN Nov 2012 #87
vi5 Nov 2012 #96
harun Nov 2012 #89
hypergrove Nov 2012 #93
harun Nov 2012 #121
markpkessinger Nov 2012 #91
KamaAina Nov 2012 #94
Steerpike Nov 2012 #106
woo me with science Nov 2012 #108
Liberalynn Nov 2012 #109
Alamuti Lotus Nov 2012 #110
cstanleytech Nov 2012 #117
0rganism Nov 2012 #125
high density Nov 2012 #126
dkf Nov 2012 #127
Ms. Toad Dec 2012 #130
dkf Dec 2012 #131
Ms. Toad Dec 2012 #134
abelenkpe Nov 2012 #128
Myrina Dec 2012 #132

Response to NeoConsSuck (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 06:52 AM

1. A 3% bump is too much? /nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #1)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 08:26 AM

21. On the top earners, income is easily manipulated..think Romney's last taxes.

The real money is on capital gains tax. If President Obama says were not going to raise income tax back to Clinton levels he comes across as bipartisan. That leaves the Republicans to bring up the capital gains tax issue. I see what he's doing here.... He knows that the top earners can manipulate their income to avoid effectively any real income tax increase. It's much more difficult to avoid capital gains taxes and the elimination of certain loopholes.

So income taxes are getting raised...but if it is framed as " not as high as the Clinton era" then it is significantly more difficult for Republicans to argue the taxes are getting raised too much. And if the focus is on the income taxes And that's where Republicans choose to fight, there going to have much less leverage when it comes to capital gains and loopholes.









Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #21)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 09:27 AM

41. Wishful thinking!

Obama is not going to get higher capital gains taxes.

And the Bush tax cuts will not be significantly changed until we elect a Democratic House.

Obama is just trying to save face until 2014 when we get some new faces in Congress. The situation will have deteriorated by then, and Obama will be able to get what he wants from a more sympathetic Congress.

It's up to us to get that wiser Congress in place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #41)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 10:29 AM

53. Under the fiscal cliff, capital gains goes to 20%. Obama's FYI 2013 asks for a capital gains

increase. I agree that it may be a long shot....

I agree even more strenuously with the idea that a 2014 Congress is what we must all work for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #21)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 09:43 AM

46. Exactly. This is all Kabuki theater

The top tax rates mean absolutely nothing. What matters are:

- Cap gain rate
- Dividend rates
- Loopholes that allow the rich to launder their income into cap gains (e.g. carried interest)
- Loopholes that allow Enron-style fake corporations and offshore accounts to avoid taxation altogether

When was the last time you hear Obama or anybody else talk about any of these 4 things? Obama talked in very vague terms about offshore money several months ago, but all the recent talk has been about the bogus top tax rate that no billionaire pays anyway.

People, wise up. This is just a little melodrama played out to entertain you. Obama plays the heavy. Boehner plays the victim. They put together a phony deal that involves only that bogus rate and everybody is happy.

We are being sold out. It is happening before our eyes and nobody even talks about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #46)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 01:56 PM

80. Yeah ...

When was the last time you hear Obama or anybody else talk about any of these 4 things?


It was way back in September 2012;

President Obama recently restated his support for lifting the top capital gains tax rate next year on those with earnings above $250,000 to 23.8%, or almost 60% above today's 15% rate. If Mr. Obama's Buffett Rule is also adopted, the rate would rise to 30% for those earning $1 million—the highest rate since the late 1970s.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303753904577452260437934858.html


You must have missed his campaign.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #80)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 02:07 PM

86. It is now almost December. Please pay attention.

All of his recent statements have referred specifically to the top marginal rate or implicitly referred to that one factor, never talking about the REAL items.

That you for pointing out that the last time he talked about the really important items was months ago. That is my point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #86)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 03:03 PM

97. He has been talking continuously ...

about his CGs plan ... but, I'll grant you, not everyday. The September article was just the first one I grabbed, but Google: "Obama on Captial Gains" and you will find more recent articles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #97)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 03:45 PM

100. I have heard 100 people talk about this

and not one of them has ever mentioned CG or dividends. All they ever mention is the mythical top rate.

And Obama never mentions it.

I listened to Jay Carney's daily briefing today. I think he mentioned to mythical top rate at least a dozen times and never once talked about the real items.

It could be that Obama is just being coy, and plans to hold the line on these things. But I doubt it. He isn't talking about it because he is keeping open the option of negotiating it away. At some point late in the negotiations, he will turn to Boehner and say "Come on John. You know that top rate doesn't mean anything. The people you are worried about it have a million ways to avoid paying that. And I haven't laid a glove on them in this whole process. You have to give me that top rate because that's what I have everybody talking about. This is a great deal for you. Give me that headline and we both know it will have zero impact on anybody."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #100)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 03:51 PM

103. Okay ...

I can't help you hear, what you do not want to hear ... even when I post what he said, when he said it, but more importantly, where you can find more of what he said and when he said it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #103)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 03:57 PM

105. This Washpo atrticle talks about some of the other revenue

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/robert-samuelson-a-road-map-to-higher-taxes-on-the-rich/2012/11/28/acc0162a-3976-11e2-8a97-363b0f9a0ab3_story.html

I think they are way off on the cap gains number. That looks like a 1-year number, not a 10-year number. But at least they are talking about the whole spectrum -- the $1.6 Tn over 10 years.

My point is not that Obama doesn't understand it.

My point is not that Obama hasn't put it in his budget.

My point is that he is not SELLING it. He only talks about one small factor -- the top rate -- and that is intentional. He is willing to negotiate away the majority of the $1.6 Tn, and he wants to keep the option open to say "Look at me. I really stuck it to the rich. What a good boy am I."

But we don't need to argue about it. We will see soon enough whether I am right or not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #105)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 04:12 PM

107. Yes ...

We will see.

But I guess I'm tired of the all too familar pattern here at DU ... "President Obama is (isn't/hasn't/won't) going to do {insert freak-out of the day} ... Oh, he didn't (did)? Well, he's certainly going to do that."

It get really old and tired.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #107)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 06:53 PM

111. I look at it the other way

Politicians respond to pressure. Almost nobody on the left is talking about the truth of the high income tax evasion (that WashPo article is a rare exception.)

It does no good to talk about it AFTER Obama has negotiated it away. If people talk about it now they can make him take a firmer position on it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #111)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 07:02 PM

112. Or ...

your pressuring him to talk about it, just might draw attention to what he had planned to quietly negotiate, without the gop having to come out strong against BECAUSE President Obama is only TALKING about high income tax rates.

No negotiation can net you all you hope to get, when you telegraph what it is you are after.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #112)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 08:38 PM

113. Come on. That doesn't make sense.

You are saying that in a negotiation is is best not to stake out your position because there will be an opportunity later in the negotiation to add more demands.

Sorry. It never works that way.

Let's just look at the final product. We will know in 3 weeks, because I know Obama doesn't have the balls to let the "cliff" stuff expire.

WORST.
NEGOTIATOR.
EVER.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #113)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 10:20 PM

115. No ...

My position is that in a negotiate it is est not to PUBLICALY stake out a position because there will be an opportunity later in the negotiation to add one's original demand.

Question:

Have you EVER particpated in a high stakes negotiation, e.g., labor contract or litigation settlement?

From what you are writing ... I think not!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #115)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 11:23 PM

116. I worked for 18 years selling products that had ...

an average contract of about $20 million. Yes, I was involved in a little negotiation, to say the least.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #116)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 11:35 PM

118. Not the same, imo ...

you had a product to sell ... the only negotiable term was the price, and maybe the terms of service ... all of which are pretty fixed and discernible with a little study. But whatever ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #118)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 11:50 PM

119. And you know that how?

Have you ever sold any product in that price range?

It ain't used cars. It isn't a matter of looking up this week's incentives and seeing if the customer will buy undercoating. Each campaign took at least 4 months and involved lots of complex agreements, and had dozens of people involved in the delivery. Every deal was unique and required a separate negotiation.

The only real difference is that some our our deals were not as adversarial as the Obama-Boehner deal, but when that kind of money is involved, people negotiate hard. I would argue the negotiation is actually harder in a high stakes business transaction because it is a competitive market. You get greedy and the other guy has an option to go with a different supplier. Boehner and Obama have no such option. They have to get a deal done.

Obama caved so easily every time during his first term that what we are seeing right now is a disbelief by the Repugs that he will actually stand his ground. That is why things are stalled at the moment. We are about to find out if it is the same old patsy Obama or if there is a new Obama this time. I hope the new Obama shows up. He will never have a stronger hand than he has right now. If he caves in at this point, he'll be a lame duck for 4 years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #119)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 10:08 AM

120. okay n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #80)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 09:22 PM

124. Let's go back to before president Obama was nominated in Denver....

he talked tough about health care, taxes on the rich and the crooks on Wall ST. within weeks after getting the nomination it was "Now is not the time to point fingers." Then the fight for single payer went down the drain. Then on sixty Minutes it was "Wall ST. did nothing illegal. There is no rope-a-dope, no slight of hand with the president. He will roll over like a puppy and the repugs will walk away with what ever they want. If the man had any fight, any spine we would have seen it by now. If he had any guts he would turn his back on the repugs and stop talking to them and let the cliff happen then watch them squirm. He'll cave in to their demands. The corporations own him just like the presidents before him and the ones that come after him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #46)


Response to msanthrope (Reply #21)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 10:25 AM

52. Thats a shitty way to negoiate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #21)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 10:34 AM

56. He has said he is serious about fighting climate change.

Capital gains is the way to go. Every dollar in Wall St is a vote against fighting climate change. We need to make sure they pay enough in taxes to start slowing down the damage they have done and continue to do. When we look back at those who had a chance to make a difference with their lives and choose not too, we can just look at their investments.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #21)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 01:50 PM

78. Yep ...

President Obama has already talked about raising the CG and Dividend Tax rates.

Now prepare for the "But what about all the elderly depending on CG and Dividend income to survive" melt-down.

Could this open the door for a progressive CG and Dividend taxation model, like we see in the "WORKED FOR IT" income tax model?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #78)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 02:14 PM

88. It won't hurt anybody to go back to 20% cap gains and dividents as ordinary income

The elderly are typically in a low tax bracket already, so the dividend scale is already progressive. And if anybody is getting enough in gap gains to make a real difference, they can afford it.

But the point is it has been months since these items were discussed publicly. Instead they are ONLY talking about the mythical top income rate that none of the wealthy ever pay (to any significant degree).

Another problem with this whole thing is that Obama is offering to take a TEMPORARY tax cut that we couldn't afford and turn it into a PERMANENT tax cut that we cannot afford. That just plain sucks.

We are spending about 24% of GDP for government. We are taxing about 16% of GDP and might end up taxing 16.5% of GDP once this Kabuki theater is over. We cannot cut our way to 16% and that would be horrible economic policy. We might be able to cut our way to 22% and grow our way to 20%, but that still leaves us with a 4% structural shortfall as a PERMANENT matter.

The deal ought to be to end the Bush cuts for the rich now and to end the rest of the Bush cuts once we get to 6% unemployment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #1)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 10:15 AM

50. and the great lie begins. he has a madate and

Still he writes us off. It was too much to hope for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NeoConsSuck (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 07:00 AM

2. Here we go.

Deja vu all over again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NeoConsSuck (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 07:16 AM

3. Yup.

Deja vu it is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NeoConsSuck (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 07:23 AM

4. Bowes is another FUCKING blue dog

Why are these blue dogs are always the ones up front leading the negotiations on our side.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigdarryl (Reply #4)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 07:37 AM

7. Because they say the things the media wants to repeat.

While maintaining a facade of balance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NeoConsSuck (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 07:27 AM

5. That's Great News!

And very unexpected.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #5)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 08:35 AM

25. It's pretty smart, actually...think Mitt Romney's taxes where he manipulated his income

to avoid paying greater income taxes. How do you stop top earners from manipulating their income? You can't but you would eliminate loopholes and hold fast on the capital gains taxes where the real money is. So people like Romney can manipulate income anytime they want---what they can't manipulate are gains.

In other words President Obama's signaling if he can't get them on the front end he's going to get them on the back end. Offering to not raise income taxes "as much" leaves the Republicans with very little to argue about.














Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #25)


Response to msanthrope (Reply #25)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 09:37 AM

43. And your optimism is based on what facts?

Did President Obama say anything about raising capital gains taxes? And do you seriously think that John Boehner would agree to that? Or any other Republican in the House for that matter?

Neither higher capital gains tax rates nor a return to earlier rates will happen. Not for years anyway. The votes just are not there.

We will be lucky if we can avoid giving the rich a tax break on the money they repatriate from their lucrative overseas investments. As long as the Republicans have the majority in the House where tax legislation originates, we will barely be able to hold onto what we have now.

Face it. We have a lot of treasonous rich people in this country. They fatten their investment portfolios by weakening American industry and infrastructure.

I assure you. We could have wholesale publication of every military secret we have right now, and it would not harm us nearly as much as the refusal by wealthy Americans to pay a fair share of the wealth of the nation in taxes and to invest their money in the third world.

Ordinary, working class Americans pay dearly in terms of jobs, education, opportunities and savings for every dime a guy like Romney makes -- and he makes a lot of dimes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #81)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 02:33 PM

92. Why No ... He did not

 

According to the link, he's made noise about deductions, nothing specific, just noise. All the talk here about CG rates is wishful thinking. The fact is, HE'S CAVING AGAIN. Get Geithner out of the negotiations - the man is a menace.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hypergrove (Reply #92)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 03:13 PM

98. Yep ...

President Obama recently restated his support for lifting the top capital gains tax rate next year on those with earnings above $250,000 to 23.8%, or almost 60% above today's 15% rate. If Mr. Obama's Buffett Rule is also adopted, the rate would rise to 30% for those earning $1 million—the highest rate since the late 1970s.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303753904577452260437934858.html


That's pretty non-specific noise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #81)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 03:33 PM

99. Those links don't work for me. Sorry.

I don't actually get an article. It may be because I don't subscribe to the Wall Street Journal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #99)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 03:47 PM

101. But didn't ...

I post the relevant excerpt? I know, we would prefer to see the entire article for context and to eliminate misperceptions based on parsing; but trust, I try hard not to post stuff that is out of context or inappropriately parsed. That's why I post links, because I assume that I will be fact-checked.

Integrity is important to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #123)

Sat Dec 1, 2012, 12:56 AM

129. Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NeoConsSuck (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 07:33 AM

6. As long as they take on loopholes

And change the capital gains tax rate, I'm good with this. Capital gains tax is where the huge money is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftynyc (Reply #6)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 08:15 AM

15. Correct. The income tax rate isn't the big money...Mitt was able to adjust

his income to avoid greater taxes. It's capital gains where the money is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #15)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 10:40 AM

57. Perhaps not. Capital gains are a relatively a small fraction federal tax receipts

"Figures from the Congressional Budget Office and the White House Office of Management and Budget show that for fiscal years 1995 through 2009, capital gains taxes as a share of all federal income taxes, both individual and corporate, averaged about 7.4 percent."
Source: http://wiki.fool.com/What_Percent_of_IRS_Revenue_Comes_From_the_Capital_Gains_Tax%3F.

FactCheck.org puts the percentages even lower. Source: http://www.factcheck.org/2008/06/breakdown-of-government-revenue/

Based on those numbers, if you doubled capital gains tax receipts (think Obama is going to push for that?) you could cover somewhere between 5% and 13% of last year's annual budget deficit.

Another way to look at it...7.4% of 2011 federal tax receipts equates to $170B from both individuals and corporations. If that represents 15% of capital gains for the year, then the total capital gains where $1.1 trillion for the year. They could have been taxed at 100% and would not have covered the budget deficit for the year.

I may be doing my math incorrectly (please help me if I am), but I'm not sure where income or capital gains tax rates could set high enough that they'd even come close to fixing the deficit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mostlyconfused (Reply #57)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 11:16 AM

59. Your first link is empty, and to a site called "The Motley Fool." Your next link is to a FY 2007

pie chart.

Now since the Dow has doubled since then---in fact, let's be clear--the Dow has doubled under President Obama, I'm suspecting that there's a very good reason why you are citing capital gains tax info that downplays the potential revenue stream to be had from the 1%.

Simply put, there's a lot more out there to be had from the 1% than a mere 7.4% of the revenue. Your suggestion that we shouldn't tax the 1% more because it won't be enough to pay down the deficit is laughable.

Your concerns are noted. Please feel free to share more of your concerns, and enjoy your stay.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #59)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 11:46 AM

66. Weird. Here's a corrected link.

I've looked at information directly available from the IRS, but they do not break out what percentage of individual and corporate income tax comes from capital gains.

Here's a better link to the Motley Fool article. I think I left period at the end of the prior link. Sorry about that.
http://wiki.fool.com/What_Percent_of_IRS_Revenue_Comes_From_the_Capital_Gains_Tax%3F

It appears to be quite well sourced, from the CBO and such. If there are updated sources I'd love to review those as well.

Your suggestion that I'm suggesting that we shouldn't tax the 1% more because it won't be enough to pay down the deficit, is laughable. I didn't state that all. It's one of the things Obama ran on, we re-elected him, and how he needs to stick to his guns and get it done.

I was merely stating that there is not enough there to be taxed, even at a 100% rate, to be able to solve the problem. It can only make a tiny dent. If you follow the link from the Motley Fool article, to page 85 of the CBO report, the data says that individual capital gains could be taxed at a 100% rate, not just on the 1%....on everyone, and it would not cover one year's budget deficit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mostlyconfused (Reply #66)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 11:54 AM

67. Your claim that taxes should not be raised on the 1% because it won't "solve the problem" is a RW

talking point.

The idea that any one tax increase cannot solve the problem, and therefore, NO tax increase should happen, is a laughable one. You solve things with lots of little dents.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #67)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 12:07 PM

68. I don't think you are reading my posts correctly

I've not once suggested that the taxes should not be raised on the 1%. Not once.

But if we're talking about using tax increases to attack the deficit, which we should, don't you find it alarming that taxing 100% of individual capital gains from everyone would not solve it?

They're debating in Washington about whether the rate should go from 15% to 20%. As someone else in this thread said...BFD.

Take the 1%....tax their capital gains at 100%, and tax every penny of their income above $250,000 at 100%, and you cannot cover the budget deficit for one year. The money is just not there. I guess I kinda thought it was.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mostlyconfused (Reply #68)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 12:54 PM

71. Oh, I think I'm reading you just right. The argument that taxing the 1% isn't enough, therefore why

do it at all, is a specious RW talking point based on the false premise that one must have a solution that covers the entire budget deficit before one talks about the deficit.

That's Repuke Obstructionism 101--throw your hands up in the air and decry that because you can't solve it all, you can solve nothing. It's gridlock at its finest, and it doesn't play here.









Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #71)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 01:39 PM

76. Not at all. Let me repeat...I have not once said don't raise taxes on the 1%. Do it. Do it now.

Double their capital gains tax rate and double the top marginal income tax rates. And probably not just on the top 1%, but maybe the top 5-10%. We're unfortunately not going to get increases anywhere close to that, but even if we did it will put a little bandaid on a huge problem. How do we then address the other 90% of the annual budget deficit that will remain?

I'm not saying that it won't fix the entire problem, so therefore we shouldn't do it. I'm saying do it, but since it won't even begin to fix the problem, what next?

I think a lot of us have underestimated how little impact even a much more progressive and equitable tax system will have on our deficit.

That's what I'm writing....whether you are reading it or not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mostlyconfused (Reply #76)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 01:53 PM

79. "I think a lot of us have underestimated how little impact even a much more progressive and

equitable tax system will have on our deficit."

Tell ya' what. I'm willing to experiment. Put in an equitable tax system, and let's see what happens.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftynyc (Reply #6)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 02:04 PM

85. Investment income, including dividends and Cap Gains, differs fundamentally from ordinary

income because the investment is at risk.

If you want no risk, bank it in a FDIC-covered institution and your interest, as small as it is in this economy, will be taxed as ordinary income.

If you instead assume investment risk, and can wake to to find it all wiped out, the tax rate should be much smaller. As long as the government does not (and should not) cover your losses, why should you pay the same tax rate as those who are backed-up by the taxpayers? Just ask anyone who worked 50 years and then invested their nest egg with Bernie Madoff, or GM, if their investment losses were reimbursed.

But there is room for creativity. Don't tax the first $50K (or $45K or $75K) investment income but then apply a 25% rate to the amount above the cap. Intuition says that those tax rates would exempt any of the 99% and focus on high-earners.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NeoConsSuck (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 07:42 AM

8. What are the repukes upset about, again?

This should make them happy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NeoConsSuck (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 07:49 AM

9. Interesting facts from another DU thread about those poor rich folks...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021899669

It is insane after the results of the recent election to be diddling around about the rates!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FailureToCommunicate (Reply #9)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 08:18 AM

17. Which is why you go after capital gains as opposed to income taxes.

The families that are described in your link have the ability to adjust their income as Mitt Romney did in his latest taxes... so going after the income tax of these individuals is futile. The big money for these individuals is capital gains tax.










Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #17)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 08:36 AM

26. They won't do a thing with capital gains.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blackspade (Reply #26)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 08:45 AM

33. Capital gains jumps to 20% if no deal is reached. Further, the Obama 2013

budget calls for an increase in the capital gains tax rate. Things moving too slow for you? Help elect a House of Representatives in 2014 that will pass a budget we can all live with.












Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #33)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 09:56 AM

49. That is exactly why a deal will be reached.

and it won't be good for the 99%.
And I have helped send a Democrat to the house already.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NeoConsSuck (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 07:50 AM

10. What happened to the Spine of Steel?

Compromise again?

Does he ever learn?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NeoConsSuck (Original post)


Response to San Patricio (Reply #11)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 08:13 AM

14. Your concern is noted. Please feel free to share more of your concerns and enjoy your stay. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to San Patricio (Reply #11)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 08:28 AM

22. ...



Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #22)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 09:47 AM

47. THAT'S what got this guy PPR'd?

The lock-step mentality was supposed to ease at least somewhat after the election -- looks like it's getting worse


If that's possible, which apparently it is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cherchez la Femme (Reply #47)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 09:55 AM

48. Was a good hide and an excellent pizza...nt

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cherchez la Femme (Reply #47)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 10:21 AM

51. Don't forget Sids on MIRT, he is defending America.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bahrbearian (Reply #51)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 11:18 AM

61. All the best U.S. Democratic patriots are Canadian on DU.

:salute:

Are we living in Crazytown,
or is it Bizarre-O-World (sp?)?

LOL I know *someone* alerted on that post, anyone have the results?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cherchez la Femme (Reply #61)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 12:45 PM

69. It must have been disappointing for Sid

" But, but It should have been a good hide" he will just have to find more disruptor's to PPR

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NeoConsSuck (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 08:11 AM

12. Maybe if he gives them what they want they will be grateful and work with him.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NeoConsSuck (Original post)


Response to NeoConsSuck (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 08:16 AM

16. Compromise is not a dirty word.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pterodactyl (Reply #16)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 08:24 AM

19. It is if one side ALWAYS gets everything they want. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pterodactyl (Reply #16)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 11:25 AM

63. when one side fails to ever make compromise, then it becomes capitulation..

why don't you demand that republicans make compromise for a change?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NeoConsSuck (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 08:19 AM

18. I knew about this weeks ago....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NeoConsSuck (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 08:25 AM

20. Erskine Bowles is a Wall Street bankster and...

...calls Paul Ryan "honest", "sincere", and "straightforward".

God help us all if Obama is listening to these fools.

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/SimpsonBowles.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NeoConsSuck (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 08:31 AM

23. And the cave in begins...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to on point (Reply #23)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 08:37 AM

27. Your concern is noted. Please feel free to share more of your concerns and enjoy your stay. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #27)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 09:43 AM

45. msanthrope, I fail to see what facts that give rise to

optimism at this point.

Maybe I just woke up on the wrong side of the bed, but I don't see any rainbows above our tax policy debate.

We just don't have the votes in the House. We are going to have two more years of stalemate unless we stick it out and the Senate backs letting all the tax rates rise. That's my view.

What specific facts make you more optimistic. What makes you think we can reach agreement on the capital gains tax changes. Isn't it most likely that Congress will give relief on the capital gains taxes and justify that as necessary to encourage investment? Isn't that what they always do?

In my opinion the Republicans in the House represent the rich, not the rest of us. They don't care about the deficit at all really. They just want the low tax rates for their rich buddies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #45)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 10:33 AM

55. The thing is, the HoR has no leverage at this point. None. So we hold fast and

let 'em panic--instead of us panicking. These guys want re-election in 2014--and they know their approval numbers. Watch, and wait. We have a long way to go on this fight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #55)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 11:18 AM

60. No leverage? They have the majority.

At this time, no one is thinking 2014. Rs have advantage in House and Senate, as far as blocking, which they love to do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to godai (Reply #60)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 11:22 AM

62. They don't have a veto-proof majority. And the President has already told them they are getting

a veto if the middle class isn't protected. You watch and wait.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #62)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 03:57 PM

104. That's just it ...

they have no faith in President Obama, despite all he has said that he would do ... and got done ... and how he has done it.

This is just another manufactured DU freak-out. Worry must make the Democratic garden grow!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #55)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 11:34 AM

64. I'm with you - I figured O to be too young to show any spine

the first time around. But by now he's got the game figured out - & he knows he'll only have this power for 4 years. I think he'll hold. We've got the sobs' down, keep em there and make em work their way out.

No give. More games to come, but underneath it all - we hold the cards.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #27)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 02:25 PM

90. Your condescending tone is offensive.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hypergrove (Reply #90)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 12:14 PM

133. +100

Totally agree. Welcome to DU, by the way!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #27)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 09:04 PM

114. Leave the new posters alone

 

Not everyone who opposes Obama on this is a troll. It is a cave-in, and we don't have to support him on every issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to on point (Reply #23)


Response to NeoConsSuck (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 08:33 AM

24. There was no Clinton era 'peak'

This is such utter bullshit.
There is no reason to negotiate on this issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NeoConsSuck (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 08:38 AM

28. WSJ GOP-shill bunk!

Asked Wednesday if the top rates need to go to 39.6%, White House press secretary Jay Carney said, "I'm not going to negotiate every detail" of a plan. He said Mr. Obama views returning rates to the Clinton-era levels as "the sensible, clean, simple way" to achieve his target of an additional $1.6 trillion in revenue over 10 years, but that the president is open to other ideas.

Retreating from the Clinton-era levels opens up a number of new possibilities. Negotiators could pursue having tax rates rise on upper-income Americans to 37% or 38% instead of 39.6%. That could be coupled with new limits on the tax breaks for those households, something GOP leaders say they would oppose.

Another option would be to leave rates unchanged but lower the income thresholds for when higher rates kick in, which Democrats would dislike.

This is the WSJ trying to sell people on a stupid idea. Republicans have no friggin leverage.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #28)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 08:47 AM

34. Poutrage d'jour!!! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NeoConsSuck (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 08:38 AM

29. From 15% to 20% capital gains tax BFD


So what's Obama willing to accept?

17.5%?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SHRED (Reply #29)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 03:50 PM

102. It is a pretty big deal.

It would have increased Romney's taxes by 33%

Granted, there is no economic argument for letting ANY of Romney's Bain income be taxes at CG rates. We need to end the carried interest provision and the other loopholes that have made a sham out of the whole concept of cap gains.

It isn't JUST carried interest. Notice that most of the executive compensation comes through "options". That isn't to give executives "skin in the game" so to speak. The only reason they do it that way is that the money they pay through options escapes payroll taxes and can be taxes as CG. It is a complete sham. There is no risk on these options. It is essentially guaranteed pay. There is always a gentleman's agreement between the board and the execs that if the stock price goes down, the option will be revalued so the exec still gets his pay.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NeoConsSuck (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 08:41 AM

30. Here we go again.

The repukes keep sending out feelers to see if they can keep rolling him. Taxes, Susan Rice, more to come.

Yep, they can.

Gulf of Mexico goes up for sale today. Keystone pipeline approval any day. Not enough taxes means benefit cuts.

Same shit, different flies. Change that to same flies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fuddnik (Reply #30)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 08:43 AM

32. Maybe the duopoly...

...really does want a revolution?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fuddnik (Reply #30)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 12:47 PM

70. But you did hold your nose, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NeoConsSuck (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 08:42 AM

31. NONE of the highest tax rates,...




...INCLUDING capital gains, are going up very much at all should they return to the Clinton-era rates.

So start compromising from an already weak position?

This is healthcare (public option) debate deja vu... all over again.


---

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NeoConsSuck (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 08:59 AM

37. the caver in chief

 

here we go

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NeoConsSuck (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 09:00 AM

38. Progressives Increasingly Confident That Obama Won’t Cave On Fiscal Cliff Deal

Progressives Increasingly Confident That Obama Won’t Cave On Fiscal Cliff Deal
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021900034

Stay away from the MSM

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #38)


Response to NeoConsSuck (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 09:18 AM

39. no real surprise there, us "concern trolls"

had already anticipated that based on his prior records others chose to ignore

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NeoConsSuck (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 09:22 AM

40. They will compromise at $500K...

...which is nothing in the big picture

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NeoConsSuck (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 09:33 AM

42. I am completely and utterly surprised

not.

It is amusing to see all the tortured attempts at justification on this thread though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NeoConsSuck (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 09:37 AM

44. Oh FFS

This guy just loves wheeling-dealing; especially to his own detriment.
Seriously, is it some kind of addiction?

I'd love to have this President as a car salesman, hopefully after this present gig he'll consider that new type of job.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NeoConsSuck (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 10:33 AM

54. What mandate?

I'm glad we won and we hold the cards, but it was a hard fought three-point win which hardly indicates to me a mandate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NeoConsSuck (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 11:05 AM

58. I'd accept not increasing tax rates if it meant that we'd decimate our defense budget

Our excessive defense spending is extremely worrisome to me. That money could be much better spent or invested on America than on starting wars like the on I was a part of in Iraq. However, I'd more than decimate our military as decimate infers that you'd cut it by 10% (courtesy of the Roman tradition of decimating their units when they acted cowardly in combat, where 1 in 10 Soldiers was executed at random in a unit). I'd advocate trimming our military budget 50% - and we'd still be spending more than double the second most spending country spends on their military budget.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Victor_c3 (Reply #58)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 01:10 PM

72. You'd think we'd learn from the lesson of what used to be the USSR ...

... all of their money went into their military budget (which was still outdated) and it crashed the empire. But apparently nobody in Washington DC bothers to read recent history.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NeoConsSuck (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 11:35 AM

65. If Obama was a hostage negotiator,

would the hostage always die?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rusty fender (Reply #65)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 01:11 PM

73. His client would end up flat broke and yes, the hostage would still die.

n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NeoConsSuck (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 01:30 PM

74. Democrats SHOULD be fighting for a return to Eisenhower/Kennedy Tax rates.

Now THAT would be worth fighting for,
and a good Starting Point for a "compromise,"
not some meager 3.5% hike on the Highest Bracket.
That would also Put-the-Bullshit-Sticker on the current "Fiscal Cliff" framing.
We aren't facing a "Fiscal Cliff".
We aren't even facing a small bump.
We ARE facing rampant propaganda being catapulted by BOTH Parties.

After WW2, Republican President Eisenhower set the top rate on the richest Americans at 91%,
and stated that the RICH and the War Profiteers had a Patriotic Duty to help pay down the National debt.

JFK later lowered the top rate to 70% after the War Debt was paid down.

America PROSPERED,
built the largest, wealthiest, and most Upwardly Mobile Working Class the WORLD had ever seen,
small businesses THRIVED,
and some people STILL got RICH!

THAT would be an Easy Sell to the American People who want their America back....
IF our Party would take THAT program On-the-Road,
AND it would scare the JUBUS out of the Republicans.

They would come crawling and begging on their knees for 39.5%.

When viewed from the perspective of the last 1/2 century, today's Democratic Party is Fighting FOR historically LOW Taxes on the RICH,
and will declare VICTORY if the highest rate is set at a historically low 39.5%.

Man..."They" are really GOOD at framing the issue.



"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want a party that will STAND UP for Working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone


photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed



"By their WORKS you will know them."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #74)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 02:48 PM

95. Bingo, spot-on, you've nailed it.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NeoConsSuck (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 01:39 PM

75. What happened to fairness and shared sacrifice? It's time the rich ante up. The rich own the most.


You can't tell me the rich don't benefit.

What's wrong with Obama?
Can't he learn how to negotiate?
Can't he learn to walk away from a bad deal?
Can't he learn you can't negotiate with people who refuse to negotiate?
Is it a character flaw he lets bullies pick on him again and again.

He's like Charlie Brown willing to let Lucy hold the football,
promising she won't pull it away if he tries to kick it.

She always pulls it away. Charlie Brown always lands flat on his back.

Charlie Brown will never learn.

President Obama is smarter than that. President Obama can, and must, learn.

Sorry for my rant.

I hoped President Obama wouldn't go into capitulation mode so quickly and easily and early.

Please tell me my rant is unfounded. I want to be wrong. I very much want to be wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NeoConsSuck (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 01:48 PM

77. Has anyone else notice his flexibility always has the same bias as a Diebold BBV machine?

Why couldn't he have said "I am willing to consider returning to the Eisenhower rates"?
He only seems to stand strong against Liberal positions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NeoConsSuck (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 02:01 PM

82. Victory! Yes! We won!

I figured I should get started since this is going to be the reaction by many on here. I like to get a head start.

No tax hikes on the wealthy?
"We won! Why can't you be grateful to the President for his hard work in acheiving this victory?!?!"

Cuts to Medicare?
"Victory! This is a huge success for our side. Let's all thank our Democratic leaders for saving the country!!!"

Cuts to food stamps and other social programs?
"This is amazing news for our side. This was really the best deal we could get and it's a testament to the power of the President's negotiating skills. He's really got the Republicans right where we want them!!"

And on, and on, and on, and on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vi5 (Reply #82)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 02:08 PM

87. At least we will get good, progressive Supreme Court nominees. Oh wait. Never mind.

I guess, to be fair, the jury is still out what kind of Supreme Court nominees President Obama might nominate.

It is fair to say, the Senate Republicans will filibuster anyone I might like.

The title of my reply was supposed to be sarcastic.

I know how to put a sarcastic thing in the message text, not the message reply title.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RickFromMN (Reply #87)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 02:50 PM

96. I figured it was sarcasm.

But to be honest with you, I don't think he's going to be appointing any supreme court justices unless one of them dies.

Roberts and Alito are too new.

Scalia and Thomas would never, ever, under any circumstances retire under a Democratic president knowing they would appoint their successor.

Maybe Kennedy. Maybe. Even him I don't think would retire willingly under a Dem president.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NeoConsSuck (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 02:15 PM

89. Just cave and get it over with. Could do without the theatre.

Whole process sickens me. A bunch of rich dudes trying to blame each other for helping out other rich dudes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to harun (Reply #89)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 02:45 PM

93. all dribs & drabs - childish negotiating style

 

It's so simple. Just go over the cliff, and point the finger in unison at the Rs. The Admin should present a best and final, walk away, and go to the country. Ontop of income taxes, the full package must include measures regarding carbon & transaction taxes, inheritance taxes, social security & medicaid taxes, and UI taxes.

But what do we get... Obama's proposals tread as lightly as they can so as to "achieve consensus", when they should be running over 'em like a f**in' train.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hypergrove (Reply #93)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 10:46 AM

121. If they actually wanted to get what they say they want that would be the path.

Say, x, y and z has to happen or we go over the cliff. It isn't happening though.

They are going to cave and then say, "Sorry, big bad Republicans were the reason." Blaming it on them. Standard Operating Procedure of D.C.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NeoConsSuck (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 02:27 PM

91. Why do I get this feeling in the pit of my stomach that Democrats are about to ...

...snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Yet again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NeoConsSuck (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 02:46 PM

94. Which will make it easy for him to bend over.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NeoConsSuck (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 04:00 PM

106. I work part time

So I currently have no insurance. I just started a new job, but it's only part time (15 $ hr). My major problem right now was when my wife was fired we liquidated her retirement to pay down some of our major debts. So on paper we made close to 70 thousand this last year. Of course with taxes, fees and penalties we actually realized much less than that. Much less...
As a result we do not qualify for anything that is needs based.
With a family of 4 with a special needs child, a mortgage that is upside down and plenty of debt we are dancing on the head of a needle. Fortunately we both found new jobs. I found one after nearly a year of searching and my wife after only a couple of months.
But, I still can't afford a few hundred dollars a month (300?) for insurance that will have a 5000 dollar a year OOP.
If Obama's Insurance love letter were to start soon I probably would be forced to pay top dollar for insurance that I couldn't use that would also force my family into difficult financial circumstances.
What am I missing here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NeoConsSuck (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 04:26 PM

108. Of course he is.

And we should avoid describing what he is doing as "caving" or losing his spine. This isn't a matter of weakness or shyness. It is not a psychological problem.

It is a matter of a corrupt, purchased system.

There is no strange epidemic of pathological timidity that has infected only the Democratic side of Washington, and only when they need to push against Bush-style corporate economic, war, or police state policies.

We have a SYSTEMIC problem of billions of dollars in corporate money flooding our government and making our representatives, including our President, reluctant to represent us on these issues. We need to recognize that serious, serious problem, and we need to deal with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NeoConsSuck (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 04:39 PM

109. "POTENTIAL ENTITLEMENT CUTS"

FLEXIBILITY ON TOP TAX RATES" so not only does it appear at this point that the President will probably not be keeping his word that he would make the rich pay their fair share, as the majority of the people in this country voted for, he is prepared to give the PUKES the whole Sundae with a nice little cherry on top by handing out earned benefit cuts too.

If this article is true, it says to me the Middle Class get's screwed and the rich get to keep their money as always.

The sacrafice is ours and only ours.

We are being sold out completely. The PUKES get what they want and we get worse than BUPKISS. We end up with even less than what we have now? Explain to me how this is winning again? How is this a good deal? How is this good negotiating?

I am sorry but I am genuinely scared about losing my Medicare. I can barely afford to pay for my meds as it is.

So I think I am entitled to be ticked, that once again the burden for a debt we didn't create falls on the backs of those who can least afford it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NeoConsSuck (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 05:10 PM

110. did he decide this at lunch with his new pal Rmoney while promising to keep in touch?

 

how nice it must be for Republicans--they are significantly defeated in elections, but still get their way just because they stomp and whine the loudest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NeoConsSuck (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 11:34 PM

117. I dont mind them being somewhat flexible on the tax issue provided

every single loophole the rich and corporations are using and the ones they could use to skirt around paying taxes is closed also corporate welfare has to be ended period.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NeoConsSuck (Original post)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 09:32 PM

125. flexing in the wrong direction, of course

He could have proposed an additional upper bracket for income over $2million/year, e.g. Or offered to restore top marginal rates to Reagan-era levels. Instead, this.

Then again, consider the source... not sure how much of this is to be believed at face value.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NeoConsSuck (Original post)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 09:36 PM

126. Increase capital gains taxes to be the same as income taxes

The discounted capital gains tax is primarily not being used to fuel real investment, instead it is being used to entice speculation which further destabilizes our economy. We should not be rewarding this behavior with preferential tax rates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NeoConsSuck (Original post)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 09:38 PM

127. The ACA already raised rates 3.8% on investment income and 0.9% on the rest.

 

He already has them at Clinton era rates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #127)

Sat Dec 1, 2012, 11:53 AM

130. That would be 3.8% on certain unearned income

above $250,000 (i.e. it is not 3.8% tax on all investment income - the first $250,000 is exempt), and it only applies when other criteria are also met.

The .9% is a Medicare surtax for individuals earning more than $200,000 (or couples earning more than $250,000).

Neither of these have taken effect yet.

Please don't repeat (false) right wing talking points.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ms. Toad (Reply #130)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 11:08 AM

131. For "rich people" that probably has more impact than raising income tax rates.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #131)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 04:54 PM

134. My point is not whether it impacts people,

but that you chose to describe it inaccurately, perpetuating right wing scare tactics.

The 3.8% tax, specifically, has been used to scare middle class people who might have one time high proceeds from the sale of a home about the Affordable Care Act, without explaining that (1) it is only profit which is taxed not proceeds (2) it only applies to the portion of the profit above $250,000, and (3) only in certain circumstances which are not likely to have much (if any) impact on the group being targeted by this particular scare tactic.

Although you are using it slightly differently, you still chose to portray it inaccurately. You could make your point just as well, without distorting the facts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NeoConsSuck (Original post)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 09:46 PM

128. He should have started by insisting top marginal rates go

back to those under Eisenhower.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NeoConsSuck (Original post)

Sun Dec 2, 2012, 12:11 PM

132. GODDAMMIT!

The only flexibility he should be willing to consider is "Do you rich assholes want a tax rate of 70% or 90% on anything over $500k/yr?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread