Wed Jan 2, 2013, 12:30 PM
hfojvt (33,004 posts)
Why I really hate this deal [View all]
I am being told the deal is not that bad because it is not that different from where Obama started.
But what if Obama did NOT start at a very good point?
In discussing the deal, Krugman writes this "Obama wasn’t going to let all the Bush tax cuts go away in any case; only the high-end cuts were on the table."
and leaves out the word "very". Becuase the high end cuts were not on the table, only the VERY high end cuts.
As I have said over and over again, Obama's STARTING point was "tax cuts that favor the rich". He started from a point of keeping 78% of the Bush tax cuts and finished at the point of keeping 85% of them. From start to finish this whole business favored the top 30% over the bottom 70%.
Once again, nothing very progressive is even "on the table". It is a battle between Democrats fighting for big tax cuts for the "haves" and Republicans fighting for big tax cuts for the "have mores".
It is what I always said about the Bush tax cuts. They were not just for the super rich, they were for the rich as well. The top 1% got 26% of them, but the top 4% got 13.4% of them, compared to 7.4% that went to the bottom 40%. Which is even more uneven if you look at dollar figures. $10,000 for those close to the top and $241 for those in the bottom.
That is what Obama proposed to keep to help the "middle class". As if members of the top 5% are part of the middle class.
I don't considere members of the top 20% to be part of the middle class either. They are above 80% of the rest of us, and they did well by Obama. 26% of the Bush tax cuts went to the 80-95th percentile. Tax cuts that give over $100 billion to the top 20% and only $15 billion to the bottom 20% are simply not progressive.
That the Democratic Party is embracing them now, shows the dominance of the Reagan ideology of tax cuts, and the Democratic Party's abandonment of the lower working classes.
So, Obama started from a point where he made huge concessions to the Republicans and the rich. Anything better was NOT "on the table".
Then he made even more concessions.
And in return he got - unemployment benefits.
The expiring tax cuts were a sword of Damocles hanging over the Republicans heads. Something which could have been used to protect the big three in future debt ceiling negotiations or that would eliminate future debt ceiling negotiations.
Instead of getting something for his hostages, Obama just snatched the sword away so he can head into February with no leverage. Unless the threat of default is some sort of leverage. It was not worth much in the last round.
In 2010, Obama punted on first down and promised that he would fight next time. With no re-election to worry about, it still looks to me like Obama punted on 2nd down.
Or even reminds me of another Joe. Joe Pisarcik of the New York Giants. Instead of just taking a knee and letting the Bush tax cuts expire, Joe opts to hand the ball off, fumbles, and the other team scores a touchdown.
And now we are supposed to cheer. 85% of the Bush tax cuts got extended!!! Permanently!! What a victory for progressives.
The tax code is much less progressive than it was before Bush and less progressive than it would have been if the Bush tax cuts had been allowed to die.
And now there is no HOPE of CHANGING it.
One person can make a difference and every person should try. JFK
61 replies, 3167 views
Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Why I really hate this deal [View all]
|Harmony Blue||Jan 2013||#1|
|Harmony Blue||Jan 2013||#3|
|Harmony Blue||Jan 2013||#7|
|Harmony Blue||Jan 2013||#28|
|Harmony Blue||Jan 2013||#13|
|Harmony Blue||Jan 2013||#27|
|Harmony Blue||Jan 2013||#31|
|Harmony Blue||Jan 2013||#20|
|Harmony Blue||Jan 2013||#17|
|Eddie Haskell||Jan 2013||#49|
|Eddie Haskell||Jan 2013||#22|
|No Compromise||Jan 2013||#54|
|No Compromise||Jan 2013||#61|