General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsMr President, take your measly tax cuts and stick 'em where the sun doesn't shine.
I hope I am wrong, but if you think the people that voted for you care more about measly tax cuts than they do about standing up for liberty and the social programs that we have struggled for, then you are sadly mistaken, Sir.
Break yourself away from Tim Geithner and the Republican sound machine and come to your senses before it is too late. Take a vacation or go someplace and hide before you give away everything we have worked for.
Sorry if this offends anyone.
unblock
(52,123 posts)i actually think the tax side politically easy -- go off the "fiscal cliff" and then take up[ the already-passed senate bill to raise restore the cuts for all taxable income over $230,000 or whatever it is. republicans will have a hard time voting against it.
it's the spending cuts that are more punishing, and especially to those who don't even make enough to pay income tax, i.e., those truly in need.
nevermind the damaging effect of less government spending on the economy.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021915362
I'm not seeing the basis for telling the President to "stick 'em where the sun doesn't shine."
The tax cuts for the rich expire in 22 days.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021948493
kentuck
(111,052 posts)<snip>
REPORTER: Is there no deal at the end of the year if tax rates for the top 2 percent arent the Clinton tax rates, period? No ifs, ands or buts? Any room in negotiating on that specific aspect of the fiscal cliff?
THE PRESIDENT: With respect to the tax rates, I just want to emphasize I am open to new ideas. If Republican counterparts or some Democrats have a great idea for us to raise revenue, maintain progressivity, make sure the middle class isnt getting hit, reduces our deficit, encourages growth, Im not going to just slam the door in their face. I want to hear ideas from everybody.
You see the deal thats becoming clear here?
Talk to smart folks in Washington, and heres what they think will happen: The final tax deal will raise rates a bit, giving Democrats a win, but not all the way back to 39.6 percent, giving Republicans a win. That wont raise enough revenue on its own, so it will be combined with some policy to cap tax deductions, perhaps at $25,000 or $50,000, with a substantial phase-in and an exemption for charitable contributions.
"I guess we hear what we want to hear?"
...you do, especially when listening to bullshit media talking points.
Krugman: I Hope This Isnt True
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021943877
WEEKLY ADDRESS: Congress Must Extend the Middle Class Tax Cuts
Right now, middle-class tax cuts are set to expire at the end of the year. Time is running out. And there are two things that can happen.
First, if Congress does nothing, every family in America will see their income taxes automatically go up on January 1st. A typical middle-class family of four would get a $2,200 tax hike. That would be bad for families, it would be bad for businesses, and it would drag down our entire economy.
Now, Congress can avoid all this by passing a law that prevents a tax hike on the first $250,000 of everybodys income. That means 98 percent of Americans and 97 percent of small businesses wouldnt see their income taxes go up by a single dime. Even the wealthiest Americans would get a tax cut on the first $250,000 of their income. And families everywhere would enjoy some peace of mind.
The Senate has already done their part. Now were just waiting for Republicans in the House to do the same thing. But so far, theyve put forward an unbalanced plan that actually lowers rates for the wealthiest Americans. If we want to protect the middle class, then the math just doesnt work.
We can and should do more than just extend middle class tax cuts. I stand ready to work with Republicans on a plan that spurs economic growth, creates jobs and reduces our deficit a plan that gives both sides some of what they want. Im willing to find ways to bring down the cost of health care without hurting seniors and other Americans who depend on it. And Im willing to make more entitlement spending cuts on top of the $1 trillion dollars in cuts I signed into law last year.
But if were serious about reducing our deficit while still investing in things like education and research that are important to growing our economy and if were serious about protecting middle-class families then were also going to have to ask the wealthiest Americans to pay higher tax rates. Thats one principle I wont compromise on
After all, this was a central question in the election. A clear majority of Americans Democrats, Republicans and Independents agreed with a balanced approach that asks something from everyone, but a little more from those who can most afford it. Its the only way to put our economy on a sustainable path without asking even more from the middle class. And its the only kind of plan Im willing to sign.
Everyone agrees we need to bring down our deficit and strengthen our economy for the long-term. The question is whether we can do it in a responsible way that allows us to keep investing in the things that have always made America strong. Im convinced we can. And if both sides are willing to compromise, I believe we can give businesses and families a sense of security going into the New Year.
Thanks, and have a great weekend.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/12/08/weekly-address-congress-must-extend-middle-class-tax-cuts
The tax cuts for the rich expire in 22 days.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021948493
kentuck
(111,052 posts)And this is part of the problem. Giving up 90% of the Bush taxcuts is not going to bring down the deficit. It is only going to call for more and more spending cuts. Who do you think is going to bear the brunt of those?
I'm sorry, but you are sadly mistaken.
"Giving up 90% of the Bush taxcuts is not going to bring down the deficit. "
...deal with the facts:
Krugman: What Defines A Serious Deficit Proposal?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021914963
kentuck
(111,052 posts)Krugman's last sentence. I think you have misread his point?
"I guess we have to understand the definition of serious: a proposal is only serious if it punishes the poor and the middle class."
He was discussing the definition of "serious" versus "nonserious" proposals. He was not supporting them.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"I guess we have to understand the definition of serious: a proposal is only serious if it punishes the poor and the middle class."
Again, you're focusing on a point attacking the pundits.
Since you skipped to the end, Here's Krugman on Obama's proposal:
muriel_volestrangler
(101,271 posts)"Giving up 90% of the Bush taxcuts" sounds to me like "putting back tax rates to regain 90% of the revenue from before Bush", and, therefore, only extending 10% of the tax cuts. But that doesn't seem to match with what you say in your OP.
Can you be clear about what you object to in Obama's proposals, and what you'd rather see happen?
kentuck
(111,052 posts)"Giving up" the Bush tax cuts is giving up on letting them expire. Instead, we are supposed to be happy if we make them permanent except for maybe a 1% increase on the most wealthy. That is not going to solve our problems. It is only going to make them worse.
Sorry for the disturbing language but I think it is about time somebody said something similar to the President. I do not like the direction we are going and it doesn't look good, in my opinion.
GeorgeGist
(25,311 posts)coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)actually said.
To paraphrase, if the Rape-publi-scum can figure out a way to bring down the deficit without raising the burden on the middle class, then I want to hear it.
In other words, Obama is saying, you can keep your tax cuts on the rich if it will not raise the deficit nor burden the middle class more. That's like saying, "If the sun rises in the west, then I will celebrate Christmas in July." The 'if' portion is never satisifed, and the 'then' consequence is a non-event.
I never thought I would be defending Obama! But really, your interpretation of his words stretches ingenuity to its limits.
what are you responding to?
I don't know what all the berating is about. All the president has done, so far, is advocate for higher taxes on the wealthy. As far as i can see, this President has done quite a bit to keep the social safety net in place. I don't see him 'giving away everything.' wtf?
great white snark
(2,646 posts)But it's ok because the author "hopes he is mistaken" and is "sorry to offend"
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)bigtree
(85,977 posts)This President has expanded, enhanced, and defended the social safety net throughout his presidency. I'm not talking about the speculation, gossip, and unsubstantiated rumor that passes for fact in Washington. I'm talking about the President's actions.
That response from the President that Kentuck provided says absolutely NOTHING regarding what's implied in the op.
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)We can now gripe if he doesn't do what we want him to do. And griping *WILL* happen most fiercely anytime there is talk of raising the eligibility age for Medicare, when the exact opposite really needs to happen.
If we had some controls on health care costs like other civilized nations, this would be a non-issue.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)... offend me.
You and your thoughts? Not in the slightest.
eridani
(51,907 posts)If the tax cuts expire, our income tax would go from $100 to $150. If that goddam fucking pukeworthy chained CPI for calculating COLA gets approved, we eventually lose ~$2800+ a year. This is typical for senior households, and is vastly worse if you are disabled and have been on SocSec for a much longer time than average.
CheapShotArtist
(333 posts)Let's quit beating around the bush (no pun intended) with these false alarm threads.