Obama and the tax cut issue
 

I am SOOOOOO disappointed with prez Obama. I knew during the campaign that he wouldn't be able to keep every promise he made, cause thats the reality of all presidents. But come on, he is spineless! I can't imagine any issue he is willing to risk his presidency over.

On a happier note, Bernie Sanders led a Democrat filibuster of the proposed bill today. Check it out:

http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_new...al-fillibuster

Don't get me started......there's a three page rant in my brain.

On the plus side, the 2012 Democratic presidential ticket is wide open, as it's become clear that Obama will be seeking re-election as a Republican.

I'm watching it live right now. It's kinda sexy.

linkyloo

I watched an interview Racheal Maddow did with Senator Sanders a week or so ago; I would vote for him if he ran for President! He has a whole lot of common sense that most of them seem to be lacking these days.

Plus his accent is kind of sexy. ;)

No seriously, I'm loving his accent. I'm still watching. Oh, and he does make sense and isn't a jackass.

(I'll probably mute cspan for a few minutes so I can watch him on Maddow, though.)

I think that Obama is demonstrating the advanced stages of Battered-Democrat-Syndrome. In year one, I had thought--as it turns out mistakenly--that Obama was some kind of political jujitsu master and that he would allow the GOP to to demonstrate just how uncooperative they were being and then, just when they were getting cocky, toss them over his shoulder with a flip of the wrist all the time looking serene. That is not what I’m seeing. Rather, I'm seeing him capitulate to the GOP time and time again. What's worse is that he does it before negotiations.

My understanding of compromise was that you give up something you want and I give up something I want and we meet in the middle. But that's not what Obama is doing. Instead, he gives up *everything* he wants and gets nothing in return. Hell, the Republicans turn their noses up at their OWN plans if Obama adopted them.

Now, I've read two op-eds basically saying that all of us liberals who aren't Obama, Larry Summers or Tim Geitner don't understand that Obama won. But if this is a win, I'm not sure what defeat would look like.

Cheers
Aj

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hoyt-h..._b_794452.html

At first blush, President Obama's tax cut deal -- trading an extension of tax cuts for the wealthy in return for an extension of unemployment benefits for millions of Americans -- is a setback for Obama and the Democrats. But a closer look at the reality of the deal makes this a clear win for Obama, and probably for Democrats in the long run. Even better, it appears that Obama has finally hit his stride and is now beating the Republicans at their own game.

Granted, it is outrageous to be subsidizing tax breaks for millionaires in the midst of the Great Recession -- not to mention adding to the deficit. But let's look at the facts for a moment -- both of the policy and the politics. First, on the policy front, the tax cut deal amounts to a $900 billion dollar stimulus package at a time when most economists -- notably progressive economists like Paul Krugman -- are calling for continued stimulus to promote economic growth. Can you imagine the reaction from the Republicans and the Tea Partiers -- not to mention Blue Dog Democrats -- if Obama had proposed a $900 billion stimulus package? But that is exactly what the Republicans have agreed to.

This was clearly a case where the White House outfoxed the Republicans by leveraging their own inconsistent ideology against them. At the very same time that the Republicans are screaming about government spending and about lowering the deficit, they were stonewalling any attempt to take away big tax handouts to the wealthiest Americans. Okay, said Obama, have it your way. We'll let you have your tax cut extension in return for extending assistance to the millions of unemployed Americans who desperately need our help. Fine, said the Republicans, perhaps gloating over their tax cut victory, but not realizing that theirs was nothing more than a Pyrrhic victory. The net result -- another $900 billion stimulus package. Try explaining that to the Tea Partiers.

When you look at the politics of the deal, Obama's victory over the Republicans seems even more impressive. Another $900 billion in stimulus funds will certainly help to hasten the recovery, which is already on a slow uptick. By 2012, the economy should be on the upswing, if not in full recovery, which will only help Obama's re-election prospects. Clearly, the single most important factor in the re-election of any presidential incumbent is the state of the economy, and this week's tax cut deal makes Obama's re-election chances look considerably brighter. (For the sake of the country, we must address the deficit for the long term. But I would much rather have rational, progressive approach to deficit cutting than the knee-jerk, inconsistent Tea Party sloganeering).

As for the Republicans, the tax cut deal rips open the inconsistencies in both their politics and their policies. From a policy standpoint, they are screaming about the deficit and government spending while they push for tax cuts for the richest Americans at the expense of millions of the unemployed. In any universe, that is both bad politics and bad policy. Their position will come back to haunt them as they try to explain their position not only to the Republican base, but especially to independents in the future.

Perhaps more importantly -- from the perspective of political optics -- the public will recognize before long that the Republicans cut a very bad deal, and that Obama was particularly adroit in outmaneuvering them. In fact, this deal may be the same kind of important turning point as the Gingrich shutdown of the government in 1995. Looking back, the tax cut deal may be regarded as the point when Obama finally regained his stride.

From a purely political perspective, the opposition that Obama is experiencing from Democrats in Congress is actually a positive for the White House. When the rest of the country -- especially the independents -- see Obama getting flack from his own party for the deal, he will rise in their estimation as someone who is willing to take on his own base. In truth, when the outlines of this Obama victory become clear, it is likely that most Democrats in Congress and around the country will realize that Obama has regained his mojo and outfoxed the Republicans at their own game.

I feel pretty hopeless about the state of the country at the moment. I think this really defeated my hope. I feel like going into hibernation now. My feelings on Obama regularly change. I think he's a human being, that he ran - as most politicians do - on empty promises. I think he's better than McCain. I don't think he does anything based on his own convictions or conscience alone, and I guess I am starting to personally dislike him. But I will still be voting for him in two years and I hope things look better by then.

extended tax cuts for the top 2% IS NOT A 900 billion dollar stimulus package. extended tax cuts for the top 2% IS NOT going to create jobs for the bottom 50%. trickle-down economics DOES NOT work.

Clinton be damned, he was way too compromising with republicans during his presidency too. This deal stinks and it is an insult to everyone who is making less than 250k per year. The extreme economic injustice of it is horrific, and Obama should be calling the Republican's bluff. Pure and simple.

Taxes need to be raised
 

http://beta.images.theglobeandmail.c...1_1303387a.JPG

U.S.: In state of denial over taxes?

“Historically and internationally, the U.S. can’t be categorized as anything other than a low-tax country,” remarked Gordon Betcherman, an economist and professor at the University of Ottawa’s school of international development and global studies.

“Either Americans don’t realize their economy is taxed less than other major economies, or they just have a different standard of what an appropriate tax level is,” said Prof. Betcherman, who spent a decade at the World Bank in Washington.

...

For decades now, the U.S. has increased spending, but hasn’t ratcheted up taxes to pay for bigger government – the military, health care, pensions and the like. The country has been generating tax revenue equal to roughly 18 per cent of its economy for a generation, but spending has climbed steadily to nearly 25 per cent of GDP, from roughly 16 per cent in 1965. The results are huge deficits, and more than $14-trillion (U.S.) of debt.

...

“Tax increases are the only way to ensure that high-income households pay a fair share of the deficit burden,” Mr. Marr said. “Without higher taxes as part of the fiscal-reform package, middle- and low-income households, which tend to feel spending cuts most acutely, will end up bearing almost all of the burden.”

Most of the rest of the developed world – Canada included – has managed to bear higher tax burdens for decades, without grinding their economies into the ground. Economists say even an economically weakened U.S. could cope with a heavier tax load.

The total tax burden on Americans, as a percentage of gross domestic product, stood at 24 per cent in 2009 – lower than it was in 1965 and still falling. That compares to 31.1 per cent in Canada, 34.3 per cent in Britain, 42 per cent in France, 37 per cent in Germany and 43.5 per cent in Italy. The Japanese, Australians and South Koreans all pay significantly more.

The United States is the only major country without a national value-added tax and its sales taxes are lowest in the OECD. Likewise, U.S. fuel and sin taxes are at the bottom among rich countries. And generous tax breaks mean many businesses and individuals pay few taxes, placing a heavy burden on a relatively narrow tax base.

Uh ... keep in mind that I'm not terribly involved with politics. I know what's going on and I have my strong-minded opinions, but I'm not a die-heart politician or anything. I'm in the field of law.

That being said, I might as well put my neck out there and express what I think about our political situation in general. I could never be president because I think the liberals as well as the republicans are wrong as long as they're jadedly stuck to one side. I was sitting back one day listening in on a conversation between my father and sister in the other room. My father is a total rigid conservative and my sister is liberal. As the minutes ticked by, I realized that the more heated and intense the argument became, the more they both were running into a wall. I think that my sister was a little bit more on the win though just because she was willing to admit the faults of the democrats, while my dad was totally unwilling to give way in the least.

This is how I see it, based solely on the past decade: when Bush was elected for his first term in 2000, we were already 5 trillion dollars in debt. At the end of Bush's 8 years in office, we were twice that: 10 trillion in debt. Now Obama's been in office for 2 and a half years. He's managed to do exactly what Bush did in a 4th of the time. Now we're about 15 trillion dollars in debt. This country is broke, and Obama's truly not helping us, but Bush didn't do much for us either. Now our paper money is losing value fast because there's nothing to back it up. Here's my thought on that: Bush screwed us over, Obama screwed us over worse, now we're officially screwed. The republicans absolutely refuse to admit any fault, neither do the democrats. So once again, we're running into a wall.

Here's something else little to think about. I'm a well-earning person, I have a pretty big paycheck, so to speak. But I'm working class, just like the whole of my family. Our hard-earned money is being taken away from us in order to pay (in a lot of cases) people who simply don't want to work. I understand that there are people on wellfare who honestly can't work and need help. I'm all about helping the poor and people in need, but don't deny that there are plenty of people out there who gladly take mine and your tax dollars to sit on the couch and smoke weed all day. I'm in tough times to, why the hell do I want to pay for them? The way my mind works, I have to think of myself and my family first. But here's the other side of that: There are rich people who, like someone else said, barely pay a fraction of us working class people's taxes because they can. So the government wants to take a bit of money from the people earning 1 million bucks a year to help the starved. I could easily live off of 75 hundred bucks a year, trust me. We're in a tough spot. My only question is, why in hell are we arguing? Why are we making such a big deal out of the right and the left? Right now no one has jobs, no one has money, many don't even have food to put in their children's mouths. Why are we worried about the rich or the poor in particular, why aren't we worried about the honorary citizens of this country. We need to balance each other out.

How about dumping all that money into all those countries who've never done a damn thing to help us? Again, I may sound terribly unamerican when I say this, but we need to think of ourselves and ours first. Feed your people, not theirs. When we can aford to dump billions of bucks into the sea, let's do it. But we need to quit the spending as well as quit the rich people money hogging. So the democrats want to dump all the money at the poor, and the republicans want to dump it at the rich (basically speaking). So what goes to us?

This is why I'm a centrist. Unable to ever become president, but always the one who wins those political discussions with my family whenever I have half a mind to engage in them. That day I walked into the room with my father and sister, sat down, thoroughly humiliated their rigid arguments, and shut them both up once and for all. Keep in mind again, I'm not all educated in politics; my views are purely my own that I picked up by watching a little bit of news and junk. What I've said up above is a tiny taste on the tip of the tongue compared to all my political views, so don't think that that's all I got. I hate this topic so I'd rather not unfold completely. lol, not a very serious person and not much into huge political debates. We're all wrong in a way, and we're all right. I agree with liberals about gay rights (obviously), I agree with conservatives about guns in the home. I agree with liberals about birth control, I agree with conservatives about the healthcare bill (ugh). I'm independent. Thank you.

Let the backlash begin!

Kobi,

I understand that the other countries, including mine (Canada), provide universal health care and equitable education and a host of other services that the USA -- all of which is possible through our higher tax rates.

However, the frustration I feel with your country is that these services/rights will NEVER come to fruition b/c citizens already complain about the relatively low taxes that you do pay. Also, the wealthy/and corporations are certainly not paying their fair share (as the article points out) and the burden, therefore, is felt largely by those making under 200 000.

Our tax rates DO afford us a lifestyle that most of us would not give up for a lower tax base. Largely, we understand that taxes are needed to afford to NEVEr care about a hospital bill/surgery, have equal funding for education, and our regulations helped us avoid a collapsed economy. However, the way that Canada and other countries operate is decried as (dirty!) socialism and, therefore, somehow antithetical to certain American *values*.

What was striking to me is how do people think an increase in services (including military spending) can be managed without increasing taxes? Something Reagan even did (who is lauded by The Teabaggers) too offset the federal deficit (he also raised them in the state of Calif. when he was gov. (largest tax hike that state had seen since then).

The USA will never have the standard of living as other industrial countries b/c people seem unwilling to admit that services must be paid by the people of that country and that includes proper taxation.

The USA has the lowest tax rate now since pre-1965 and spending has increased dramatically. Yet, tax hikes (on corporations and the wealthy esp!) is denounced by the GOP. (when they spent more in the last eight years before Obama)

*off for a massage...need it now after reading the article again! ;)

See, I can't live on $7,500 a year. Keeping a roof over my head--no food, no clothing, no utilities, just the roof over my head--runs me around $14,000 a year. My utilities run another 6K a year, or so only one of those (the cable TV) is optional. Fuel for my car runs me about ~$2400 a year if ALL I do is drive to and from work and shopping trips.

The reason we are making a big deal out of the right and left is that these are meaningful distinctions. Having a right-leaning government or a left-leaning government makes a world of difference! It's the difference between public schools and libraries (favored by left-leaning government) or a gutted public education system and no public libraries (favored by right-leaning government).

What is a better return on investment, one-half of 1% of our GDP going to foreign aid or a several hundred billions of dollars to clean up after a terrorist attack? I'm going to argue that the former is a better investment. Btw. of the G-8, we spend the least amount on foreign aid. Japan, which has a population only slightly larger than the state of California, spends every year what we spend in five in foreign aid. Japan. Which has ten percent of the population of the United States.

The Democratic party is trying to preserve the middle class, the Republican party is trying to dismantle the middle class. What's more, modern American conservatives are not conservative. The more I read conservative thinkers (not Limbaugh et. al. but real thinkers like Russell Kirk, Edmund Burke, etc.) the more I realize that *I* am a conservative and that what passes as conservative is actually more along the line of libertarian-theocratic. The Democratic party are the real conservatives in American politics. The Republican party is the party of right-wing radicals.

Cheers
Aj

At this point, I am much more unsettled with how the US Congress is behaving than what upsets me about Obama (although, most likely I will support his re-election- just have to see who the GOP candidate ends up being). I'm registered as "decline to state," which in California, is "Independent."

Frankly, I was amazed that the GOP didn't want to even consider the initial debt-ceiling proposal that Obama said he was willing to support ($3 of cuts to every $1 of revenue via reform of tax loopholes). Although, I support social programs and the health care reform bill, we do need to pay down our debt. At this point, who and how we ended up with it, doesn't matter to me. Both major parties contributed to the mess the US is in.

There are some things that I bet I would be called conservative about- others, liberal or even progressive. Sometimes I feel like as I age, I am just more of a political moderate. Don't know. It pissed me off that Obama did not support the Simpson-Bowles comission findings last year. The fact is, some cuts in entitlement programs do have to be made- and can be without direct hits to beneficiaries. I support "means-testing" for example. There are many, many very, very wealthy retirees that do not need the level of benefits they now receive.

I was angry when Obama allowed the Bush tax credits to be extended and I don't want this to happen again. Yet, reform of the tax code (big time reform) is needed.

My main frustration right now is how much power a fringe group (the Tea Party) weilded during the debt-ceiling debate and Obama caving in on revenue. My guess is that he realized that the House TP members really are ignorant about what the extent a default would have caused. Yet, I think he should have invoked the 14th Amendment although we all know that he would have faced a legal fiasco and calls for impeachment via the GOP. BUT- the numbers to actually pull impeachment off are not there and I think his doing so would have gone a long way in establishing his leadership qualities during a crisis. Hell, he already is vulnerable in terms of re-election.

Honestly, I believe the GOP (the whole party) just wants our economy to tank more- even to the point of an actual depression so that a Republican is elected in 2012. This is what bothers me the most. This is just plain sick and evil because this is not just about Obama failing- it is about millions of us losing everything.

The only way I see as a way for real change in the US political system that can bring what is good and fair in democracy is public funding (only) of elections- federal, state, local- every election held in the US. Now, the chances of this happening anytime soon is pretty damn slim! The "Citizens United" Supreme Court decision cemented the class divisions that decide who will hold office in the US.

I am a big believer in taking people at their word. If someone says, for instance, that they believe that we should lock up criminals and not worry overly much about legal niceties such as trial by jury (as a poster here suggested back in June) that what they *mean* is what they said. Well, the Republican party is on record as saying they want Obama to fail. Keep in mind that one of the chief ideologues of the GOP, Rush Limbaugh, flat out said that his goal was to make certain that Obama's presidency failed. Let's presume he meant that. Let us also presume that all of those GOP elected officials who parroted Limbaugh meant it. Now, view their behavior through the lens of their words. They are trying to make certain that he cannot govern! If that means tanking the economy, so be it.

What better way to win the next election than to make certain that the economy is in the tank?

Quite honestly, this reminds me a lot--a LOT--of end-stage Weimar Germany. At the end-game, the right-wing in Germany (the Nazis, the Conservatives and the Junkers) simply made the Reichstag non-functional. The idea was to make the nation unstable so that the German people would vote for anyone who would bring about stability. Doesn't that sound familiar?

Cheers
Aj

Yep AJ; Then hardcore nationalism and then complete industrialization for the purpose of war...I don't think it will be as bad as Germany, but the focus will be more on waging war.

http://www.randirhodes.com/pages/rrn...rticle=8909602

and

http://www.randirhodes.com/pages/rrn...rticle=8914378

Very interesting pieces about how Obama fucked over the Republicans with the Debt Ceiling Bill that he negotiated and signed.....it seems the Tea Party crazy fucks lost big time in this deal.....

I think everyone lost big time in this deal. It's a shit sandwich if you ask me. This bill is going to slow the economic recovery and result in even higher unemployment.

Did you read the articles?

I don't really think it will truly affect the economy all that much....good or bad.

Congress now MUST deal with jobs. We need another much bigger stimulus to continue re-building the infrastructure of this country. I'm thinking Tennessee Valley Authority or Hoover Dam or all the Army Corps of Engineer projects kind of things. It will create tens of thousands jobs and the economy will take off again.

We also need to create new revenue besides the Bush tax cuts which sunset out at the end of 2012. Close the checkbook on corporate welfare, raise taxes on those making more than a million bucks a year. Leave the frigging middle and working class alone.

Some major work on the infrastructure would be good all the way around...creates jobs, enhances safety, speeds transit....and how about upgrading some schools and libraries and rural hospitals while we're at it? These are things that I would support my tax dollars going for...and would do a lot of good for all of us for years to come.

Hmmmm...see, my reading of Germany is that the focus was on waging war. This might just be an artifact of the material I've read focusing on how the entire German economy and culture was pointed toward war but it seems to me that from January 1933 onward the entire nation was gearing up for war in Europe. I think what will be different is that Germany under National Socialism was far less theocratic than what I think is barreling towards us. My concern is that we are just this side of a theocratic takeover. Now, this theocracy won't look like Saudi Arabia but rather more a mash-up of Iran after the Islamic revolution and John Calvin's Geneva with a little of late-19th century Utah (Under Brigham Young) thrown in for good measure.

Cheers
Aj

Standard and Poor's downgraded the US credit rating
 

This from Bloomberg News website:

As I said before, the bill is a shit sandwich. I can't believe our government created such a clusterfuck.

S & P is the only rating agency of the 3 that downgraded the US.

just remember all this come Nov 2012 and vote for Obama and give him a majority in the House and 60 Senators so we can get on with the business of the people and restoring the economy.

If we taxed Exxon and the top one or two percent of the wealthy at normal rates for a developed nation, our deficit would disappear. We don't need to cut anything. We are still a phenomenally wealthy nation. Our gdp is one fourth of the entire wealth generated on the planet. We have the money. We don't have the will to demand that the richest pay their share.

A flat tax is regressive, so i have never supported it. But damn, now it would be a good thing. It would solve this problem in about a second.

This is not a REAL problem. We are not out of money. We are not poor. The question is how badly are we going to damage our country and the global economy before we face the inevitable.