General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: the lies of David W, Corn [View all]hfojvt
(37,573 posts)Number one, is that it would be Congress raising the taxes, and specifically REPUBLICANS in Congress doing so - NOT Obama. He would have the bully pulpit to tell people so.
Number two, he never should have made that promise. Leave the anti-tax zealotry where it belongs, in the libertarian wing of the Republican Party.
Number three. Bush's base is comprised of many anti-taz zealots. Presumably, Obama's is not. Many people, like myself, voted for him with the hope that taxes would go up for people making less than $250,000. That that bullsh*t limit which was way too damned high, would be negotiated down by a Democratic Congress.
Number four. Things change. The economy crashed. The deficit exploded to a trillion dollars. A wise man would ADAPT to such changes. Would explain to the public why such changes required a change of policies. That because of the "deficit crisis" agreed to by so many politicians, that, yes Virginia, taxes need to go up even on "gasp" households making $170,000 a year. And considering that the vast majority of this country makes less than $90,000 a year, we probably would feel that such households could afford it.
Number five, what rightwing arguments are you talking about? The argument that the extension of the Bush tax cuts was a bad deal? That's not rightwing. That's just factual. That the extension of 78% of the Bush tax cuts is a bad deal? Again, just factual.
Unless, you think that progressives SHOULD support tax cuts that favor the rich. Just for fun, I will say it again. The extension of 78% of the Bush tax cuts (Obama's plan) gives $80 billion in tax cuts to the TOP 5%. If gives only $14 billion to the poorest 20%.