Obama and the tax cut issue

[Kobi]

I am getting a little concerned with how Obama is handling this issue. I am surprised at how he is spending so much time negotiating with the Republican leadership while seemingly ignoring his own party opposition in the House.

Given the coming changing of the guard come January, is this a prudent approach or an example of the Stockholm syndrome?

Discuss.

[atomiczombie]

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

[MsDemeanor]

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.

[betenoire]

Originally Posted by atomiczombie

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

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

linkyloo

[MsTinkerbelly]

Originally Posted by betenoire

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.

[betenoire]

Originally Posted by MsTinkerbelly

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.)

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Kobi

I am getting a little concerned with how Obama is handling this issue. I am surprised at how he is spending so much time negotiating with the Republican leadership while seemingly ignoring his own party opposition in the House.

Given the coming changing of the guard come January, is this a prudent approach or an example of the Stockholm syndrome?

Discuss.

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

[katsarecool]

Being the President is the hardest job in the world!!! That said, I stand behind President Obama in his decision. Why you ask? The behaviors of the Republicans in the last few weeks especially will without a doubt bite them in the ass in 2012.

Republicans have flat out said they would not be renewing Federal Unemployment for the nine million Americans and their dependents. And their extended families who are bound to be angry at their behavior and not likely to forget this slight and abuse of power. They have also made disparaging remarks repeatedly about those who are out of work. And have referred repeatedly to Unemployment Insurance as Entitlement Programs which it is not. Employers pay for this insurance each month while processing payroll. So it is not a handout as Republicans would wish all Americans to believe.

Obama's decision was a very intelligent one and in addition it clearly demonstrates his concern for the middle class in this country. Which is what we all want in a President; a person who shows compassion and the ability to be able to perceive how he can best help the majority of our citizens. Thats what I want.

The Republicans will feel the sting of their DADT actions as well. I feel the citizens will also remember the Republicans vicious manovers in pushing through the tax cuts for the rich!!!!

All of the behaviours will rise to the surface during the campaign of 2012 and I hope many of us participate in getting the word out.

The Democrats who are opposed to his actions are for the most part postulating for their constituents; it is mostly for show. They ought to be careful of their behaviors as well.

There are some financial experts on sites such as Huffington Post who are expressing similar opinions as mine.

[katsarecool]

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.

[Nat]

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.

[betenoire]

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.

[katsarecool]

Originally Posted by Nat

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.

Don't loose hope!!! Things will turn around for the better!!! I have been through many recessions in my life and can feel consoled at the ability of our country to bounce back. I began voting in 1968 if that tells you anything (besides the fact I am OLD!!! LOL)

[Kobi]

Kat,

I have sat here trying to see the rationale as you and the article are seeing it. But I cant get my head around it.

To me, I dont see this as a Democratic victory or Obama hitting his stride. For someone who campaigned on the promise of change, I see him as perpetuating the politics as usual at every turn. For someone who was so charasmatic, he cannot even unify his own party or get them to back him.

This "compromise" isnt a compromise. For Obama to get unemployment extended, he had to bend over and take it up the hiney in the form of letting the rich continue to hoard more and more of their money. And, he hung the country out to dry by saddling us with more debt. That doesnt sound like compromise to me. That sounds like giving in to extortion.

The Republicans do not see maintaining their income perks as a bail out in any way shape or form. They see it as solidifying their entitlements. They see extending unemployment as a bail out. Perspective is everything in life.

Essentially, the Republican party has endeared itself to their constituents with this move by reinforcing the proportional discrepancy between income and taxes that those with money enjoy. Proportionally, you and I pay more in taxes than the rich do. Catering to the desires of those with money, while throwing peanuts to the rest is just business as usual.

The economic recovery is not likely to be as smooth or quick a process as people think. We used to have an independent economy and could act as needed to get ourselves out of a jam. We don't have as much freedom or independence in a global economy. When we do a bailout, we are, in many cases, accumulating a lot of debt for international corporations - not American corporations. There is a new economic reality smacking us in the face. There is a new workforce picture slapping us in the face and its not a pretty one.

And DADT? Within the realm of the new reality, exactly how important is THAT going to be at election time to the general public? I cant see it meaning much.

I dont see a victory here or a stride here. I am very disappointed in what I am seeing happen within the Democratic party. I am very disappointed in how ineffective Obama is becoming. Heck, he is making Kerry look decisive.

And, I am very concerned as to how all this bickering, catering, and bending over is going to affect the lives of everyday people. I just cant see a really positive side to it.

[katsarecool]

I still feel 100 percent confident in our President's ability to continue to improve the economy, work for the good of the common people, extricate our troops out of war and harm's way and defeat any candidate the Repugs throw at him.

I do get how frustrating all these events are. We all lived through eight years of pure hell under the Bush administration. I thought it would never come to an end and stayed angry for his entire term. And I had high hopes that our situation would improve quickly but it soon became obvious that the Republicans and the Tea Baggers were engaged in a battle to make sure Obama failed including many dirty tricks of their bad behaviors. I am amazed that rather than work with him to help our country succed they engaged in all out warfare.

I hope when Nov. 2012 rolls around the voters are better educated and that our economy is at a greater recovery phase.

[katsarecool]

Very interesting news conference from former President Clinton today...http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_obama_clinton

[atomiczombie]

Originally Posted by katsarecool

Very interesting news conference from former President Clinton today...http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_obama_clinton

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.

[Soon]

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.

[Kobi]

Thanks for this info How Soon.

Within the scheme of things, overall and comparatively speaking, we do pay less overall taxes per person than many other countries. What the graph doesnt show is the disparity in what those taxes include.

Hard to equate US taxes with Denmarks when they use taxes to provide health care and higher education for all- among other things, while we dont. I am suspecting if we add in what the average US citizen pays for what other countries provide thru their tax base, there may not be much of a difference.

Also, us everyday folks, pay more in taxes, percentage wise in relation to our incomes than those in higher income brackets. I always remember an interview Warren Buffit gave where he chuckled how his sectretary paid more in taxes percentage wise i.e. close to if not more than 35% of her income, while he as a multi-billionaire didnt come close to paying that percentage of his income.

To me, it boils down to what is fair, minus all the misleading marketing. I am tired of hearing how we have to provide taxpayer dollars to industries making billions in profit a year. I get tired of hearing how we cant "overtax" the wealthy cuz they are the ones providing jobs and sustaining the economy. And, if we tick them off, they might take their toys and outsource the job elsewhere

I get tired of the billions we send to foreign countrties year after year without any appreciable change of their part to become self sustaining. A helping hand now and then is nice but to consistently and continuously dole of billions and billions we have to borrow is kind of unwise. Check out this breakdown - might be accurate, might be flawed, hard to find official stuff -
http://www.vaughns-1-pagers.com/poli...oreign-aid.htm

It gets tiring when politicians want to (maybe) balance the budget on the backs of everyday folks with little to spare while John Kerry can splurge on a 7 million dollar boat which he moors out of the state he represents so he can avoid the piddly tax on it.

There are real class/haves/havenots issues that are effectively sidestepped in budget talks because the very people who are deciding this stuff are trying to protect themselves, financially, and those who line their pockets. It may be 2011, but the good old boy network is alive, well and thriving.

Sadly, we the voters, allow ourselves to fooled by the marketing and advertising strategies that are used to obscure the real issues and to deflect attention away from the real issues.

And, it is so much more complicated than that. There is a warped kind of thinking that starts at the top and filters its way down. And it is done in such a way that those of us down here fight amongst ourselves rather than taking the fight up the ladder to where it belongs. Someday, maybe, we will stop shooting ourselves in the foot.

Just my take on things for today.

[The cute widdle wesbian]

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!

[Soon]

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!