House Democrats caucusing today reportedly voted down President Obama's taxes/unemployment compromise, objecting to the generous breaks on the estate tax and generally having been left by the curb. It's not a binding vote. In the Senate, key Republicans say they're also not happy with the estate tax, in that it exists at all.
Quick, economic adviser Austan Goolsbee to the whiteboard!
First, Goolsbee on President Obama's continued objection to continued tax cuts for the wealthy: "The president's position has not changed. He does not support and does not think that this will work for the economy."
Got it. President Obama just did something that he doesn't think will work. Awesome. And now for those tax cuts for the working and middle classes: "But the other thing that hasn't changed is Republican intransigence in Congress. And we've now come up to the very deadline when these tax cuts would expire and deal a very really heavy blow to the overall economy."
So yes, President Obama just did something that he doesn't think will work in order to do something that he thinks will work well enough to outdo the damage, because despite his party controlling the White House, Senate and House of Representatives, he had no choice. That's at least a nuanced sell, and apparently a tough one.
After the jump, Vice President Joe Biden takes a turn.
Mr. Biden sent out an e-mail blast this morning headlined "Here's the Deal." And here it is:
The bottom line is that if Congress does not act to extend unemployment insurance, 2 million Americans will lose their unemployment insurance this month alone. And if we don't extend middle class tax cuts, millions of families will see a spike in their tax bill when they can least afford it.
With that in mind, President Obama reached across the aisle to ensure that middle class families get a fair shake. Here are a few important points:
- No tax hike for middle class families. This proposal would prevent a tax increase of over $3,000 for the typical family.
- Money in your pocket through a reduction in the payroll tax. About 155 million workers will see a 2 percent reduction in their payroll taxes and American families can take advantage of the Child Tax Credit, Earned Income Tax Credit, and the American Opportunity Tax Credit.
- Extension of unemployment benefits. Folks who have been looking for work in these tough times won't lose their lifeline. This is also good news for local economies because unemployment insurance dollars are among the most likely to be spent quickly.
Leave a Comment:
So... the President agreed to the Republican demand for high-income tax cuts (that he thinks are wrong and bad) in order to get them to agree to... more tax cuts? Huh.
But it's okay because it's only for two years, and therefore it doesn't count towards the deficit!
Try again.
Of course, this pushes the high-income tax debate back two years... to the next election. So they can make a big deal of it then. Like they should have in this year's election. (Except, of course, that there wasn't a *presidential* election this year...) Only problem with that is that doing so will also serve to remind people about what they might just have forgotten after two years - that he worked to extend those tax cuts in 2010.
AND, in 2012, they will STILL be "Bush's tax cuts" - and Obama will be a lame duck from November 2012 to Januay 2013......
WOW! One upsmanship in who can Kick-the-Can-Down-the-Road the best!
Bottomline: Rank and file Americans are indeed responsible for the $14 Trillion debt hole they've created for themselves (PLUS the $8 Trillion or so in net interest carrying cost since the Reagan Revolution) via who they've elected to "represent" them. Do Americans, ANY Americans deserve tax cuts for their voters' "stewdardship" of this fiscal nightmare they've created for themselves via their history at the ballot box? 98% of Americans were "deserving" of retaining the Bush Tax Cuts?????? This is an UNPAID for nightmare once again... A Dem trying to out-do a Republican at their own religion is a joke. And the tragic joke is on us.
Did you see the list of tax credits Obama was heaping onto the fiscal nightmare, "insisting" to "reluctant" Repubs? The video assumes us gullible idiots.
Sadly, this is a Scarlett Letter, "GE", for Dems: We are now branded as fiscal criminals, just like the previous three Republican presidents. Generational Embezzlers.
What part of the national debt going up a $100 million per month and costing well over a billion dollars per day in interest don't they care about???
I agree. Problem is once the economy is humming along again, riding that bubble, and creating fictitious wealth.....everyone will forget about the debt. We'll say wow, look at how high its got. But as long as the economy is humming along no one will care its that large.
We don't like shared pain. As long as I'm doing good then who cares about you. But if I'm doing bad then I blame you. If we're all doing good then no one cares about anything. To me that's simply how it works.
The idiots who voted Republicans are the ones who should be hit with a huge tax increase, and those of us who knew better and did not vote Republican should get a good tax break! How's that for fairness?
That makes no sense. The people that voted republican should keep their money, thats why they voted republican. The Dems, who think that we should give more of our money to a govt that doesn't know how to spend it are the ones who should pay more. The repubs are trying to keep your taxes low.
People who vote Republican because "the repubs are trying to keep your taxes low" are unaware of the cost of cutting taxes. If you save $500 in tax you lose $10,000 in investment value because every dollar in tax savings costs twenty dollars in debt. That's Republican math.
No, Mark. People voted for Republicans because the Republicans were screaming about the deficit and claimed they were the ones who would bring DOWN the deficit. But now they are adding billions MORE to the deficit. The majority of Americans do not want this addition to the deficit. The majority of Americans did not think tax cuts for the wealthy should be extended. The GOP claimed that THEY were going to listen to the American people and do what the American people wanted. What is wrong with this picture?
Furthermore, Mark, the Republicans are not trying to keep MY taxes low. They are trying to keep the taxes of their wealthy contributors low. Someone is going to have to pay this bill someday and it's probably not going to be their wealthy contributors. Who does that leave? My kids and my grandkids. Maybe yours too.
Mr. Obama has bought into the GOP meme that any increase of income taxes (even to Clinton-era levels) would be 'job killers'. That assumption, has driven Obama's negotiations to the point where extending all Bush-era tax cuts seems like a reasonable idea.
How about this for a novel idea, allowing all Bush tax cuts to sunset?
The new tax revenues from the return to Clinton-era tax rates can be targeted at education grants, job training, extension of unemployment benefits (including those who have exhausted the 99-week benefit) and more infrastructure projects.
While we’re at it, closing the loopholes for off-shoring corporations (and their tax liabilities) and limits on H-1B visas (to allow unemployed U.S. tech workers a shot at jobs) would be a good idea.
Will the GOP go for it? Hell no, they won't! But, at least start from this moral high-ground instead of giving away the store. And keep hitting the bully pulpit to say why we are the responsible, not irresponsible, party in these negotiations.
Amen, Tom Shafer, AMEN!
Once we had the audacity to hope for change. Cutting taxes for the wealthy paid for with debt is NOT what we voted for.
I disagree with splitting on two categories. He should have added a category for what the Republicans wanted but he didn't and what they agreed on and then what he wanted. It comes down to the only thing he got that the republicans didn't want was the unemployment insurance. By only creating two categories he just lied. My 13 year old is going through a stage where he tries to lie to me by very carefully answering only the portion of the question he wants to and not answering the rest. I'm trying to teach my child this is wrong. With the president doing it its a hard sell.
Boy, aren't you glad he wasn't around during the Clinton years.
Sometimes you hear "tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth".
Republicans are good at not telling the whole truth. For example, advocating "tax cuts for all Americans" as opposed to only 98% of them is not the whole truth.
The income tax rate on the top 1% in the 50s was 90%. Yes, 90%. Anyone care to do the math on how much the decifit could be reduced with a decade of taxing the wealthy at 90% to make up for the decade of Bush tax cuts on the wealthy?
They had so many shelters and deductions that nobody paid thet tax rate. CEO in the 50's had their corporations pay their taxes. See: http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2007/04/are_the_rich_really_different
They paid more than they do now.
Why does anyone deserve to pay 90%. The top 1% most likely have many people working under them. Tax them 90% and they will fire everyone. Do you understand why taxes are job killers now. Even the lefty pres understands.
Mark supposes taxing the top 1% will result in them firing everyone which is why taxes are job killers.
Mark might like to present evidence to support his view. Otherwise he might as well be telling us space aliens kidnap babies.
I used to own a business, if my taxes went up, i let people go. At what point to business owners let the govt. take THEIR money before they have to make cuts.
Mark says that when he owned a business he let people go when taxes went up. Why is that? I suspect Mark is making this up.
yes mark, tell us another.
Just call me a liar then. If thats what works for you. Sounds familiar. No rebuttle, just comments against me as a person. Oh well, I can take it. We both know the truth.
Mark,
I don't think you're lying. I think your business ownership paradigm is totally wrong. This paradigm is our current economic problem. Higher tax rates encourage greater investment in the business: hiring, purchasing equipment and improving infrastructure. Your argument is very short-sited; or you have a terrible accountant.
There are a lot of tax breaks for reinvesting your business's money back into the business if income taxes are high. It creates jobs, it does not eliminate them. You may not directly hire, but when you buy equipment or make improvements, you create a job for someone to build them.
Being able to keep large amounts of cash in a business with little tax penalty stops reinvestment in businesses and eliminates jobs. It is a strong incentive to stop reinvestment.
When tax rates were 90% or even 50%, business owners had a strong incentive to reinvest in their businesses, keep less cash around, and take less cash out, thus lowering their total income tax rates and dollar amounts in taxes paid.
We didn't have national debt in the 1950's with the tax, business, corporate, labor, and owner responsibility that existed then. It worked for everyone. The rich got richer, but not like they do now, and the middle class thrived, also paying higher tax rates than now.
The poor had safety nets and could move on to work, even temporarily, since highly skilled jobs were not the norm. Jobs that used life skills were available. (There is no such thing as an unskilled job). The economy would have been even better then if it hadn't been for Jim Crow. There would have been far fewer poor then and today.
Your argument doesn't stand up to the facts of history, or math for that matter.
Demand-side economics has shown it works very well throughout history. Supply-side economics has shown it doesn't work over the past 30 years, since Ronald Reagan.
The guillotine has a remarkable way of focusing one's attention. I do not know if the opposition party would have weakened and struck a better deal as we walked closer to the blade. I do know that there was a lot further the walk.
It is amazing the hypocrisy of the progressives. When Obama was passing all the spending bills to advance his agenda nobody on the extreme left said a word about deficits. This bills were passed to create jobs and keep unemployment at 8% Now that we are at 9.8% the far left, 7% of the electorate, does not want the deficits to increase. POB does not have a choice. If he fights then the lowest tax rate of 10% goes to 15 % and in January he gets a Republican Congress. Who do you think the voters will blame ? Not the Republicans, but POB. The electorate is not to the far left of center, but slightly right of center. You progressives would sacrifice the poor in order to make your point. Get over it the POB made the only deal he had. Lets move on and work on the budget, DADT, The Dream Act.
All you people who say you will not vote for POB next time, I assume you will vote for Sarah Palin?
1. Many did mention deficit, but agreed that it was more important to deal with the immediate crises.
2. The center of the electorate is... the center. Your own natural bias makes you want to see them as more like you, whichever side you're on.
3. POB? Is that President O'Bama? I thought only Sarah Palin made that mistake.
4. You're talking a lot about deficits here. Do YOU support the Republican plan to add $700 billion to the deficit by giving additional tax breaks to the top 2%?
5. Progressives want: Unemployment insurance, education incentives, and (maybe) tax cuts for all income up to $250 thousand (for everyone). That's looking out for the poor and middle class. (And giving a bit of a tax break to even the top 2%.) Republicans are holding all that hostage so they can get an extra tax cut for millionaires and billionaires. Are you seriously suggesting that the problem is that some progressives don't want to give in to that demand? Just because we supposedly need to muster Republican support for... tax cuts?
PBW: we all have biases. We come by them naturally and we express them and sometimes we irritate people who do no agree with us. As we face an opposition that has the upper hand we triy to make the best deal we can. Mr. Obama, POB, is in that position. He tried to get what he wanted and in this case he failed, because the congress did not have the political sense to vote for this prior to the elections. There are other ways to get the rich to pay more taxes. Reform the tax code and eliminate deductions that only apply to them. Make SS and Medicare means tested, increase the cap for payroll taxes, etc.
What I am advocating is that he should save the fight for a battle he can win. He can not win this one.
Well no Robert. Don't assume I'll be voting for Palin in '12. I also will not be voting for Obama. Reason? I don't vote for Republicans.
I don't mean to irritate. Nor do I generally allow myself to become irritated easily. But sometimes it can be hard to get your tone across without non-verbal cues. I was trying to ask questions and respond to points you raised, not to attack you.
How is it that the opposition has the upper hand? The Democrats have big majorities in both houses of Congress, and they have the White House. The Republicans will take a majority in the House, but that's not until January. (And Democrats will still have an edge in the Senate. And will still control the White House.)
I agree that it would have been better to push this issue before the elections. Speaker Pelosi said she thought so, too, but that the majority of her caucus disagreed. Perhaps they know better. It is their job (and their staffs' jobs).
But I still think that when push comes to shove, Republicans will vote for tax cuts, even if they don't include as big a break as they'd like for the top 2%. I think this battle can still be won, and it seems that this time, the voting majority of the House agrees.
Reforming the tax code sounds like a good idea to me, too. But I think that's a separate issue. (It's also a lot more tedious and involved than setting tax rates.)
PGW: With the filibuster rule in the Senate and 5 Democratic Senators supporting the extension of all taxes, this bill to increase the taxes for the rich had as much chance of passing as a snowball in hell. You can not reconcile it, have a simple majority, because it increases taxes.
Robert says the bill in spite of being passed by House and Senate Democratic majority had a snowball's chance in hell of passing due to Republican filibuster.
This is exactly why Obama should have left it alone. With Republican filibuster, the blame for raising taxes and cutting benefits falls squarely on the shoulders of the Republicans, where it belongs. Obama has NO business opposing the will of his Party and the American public to save Republican ass.
"If he fights then the lowest tax rate of 10% goes to 15 %"
Robert is still unclear of the difference between tax bracket and tax rate. Please look this up and get back to us.
Covah: I gave you citation yesterday. Watch L. O'Donnell show tonight. Just in case you forgot, here is another: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/12/09/lawrence-odonnell-and-other-liberals-make-fool-rep-alan-grayson
The poor marginal income tax rate will go to 15%. The rich can afford 39.6 but the poor can not afford 15%.
Did you have a problem when the Democrats filibustered every judge being nominated by Bush? What is good for ones side is good by the other. The filibuster rules were created in 1917 to please a Democrat President: Woodrow Wilson.
Does Robert expect us to give Republicans a pat on the back for cutting bottom tax bracket? That's pretty funny since Republicans whine continuously that it's UNFAIR that the poor get a free ride. Robert should be hooting for repeal of Bush tax cuts so poor can pay their share.
But Robert misunderstands the meaning of "poor". A family making $50,000 is not "poor" but after deductions would pay little tax. Perhaps if Robert prepared his own taxes he would be more sensitive to the impact of deductions.
This is not O'Donnell's blog and his playing gotcha with Grayson is irrelevant here as is "the Democrats filibustered every judge being nominated by Bush". The topic is Obama's defiance of his Party and the people who elected him to submit to Republican blackmail. Let Republicans filibuster and if the unemployed lose benefits and middle class have higher taxes they know who to blame.
Robert, I think those who say they won't vote for Obama next are referring to the PRIMARY election. No one in their right mind would vote for Palin over Obama. It is reasonable to assume that Obama will get a primary challenge and at that time, we will decide whether to vote for Obama or the challenger. If it is Russ Feingold, I am going there. But Palin?????? What a joke.
Dems have never had a filibuster proof Senate as they did not have a cohesive party even when they had 60 votes. Given the procedural hurdles, they have never really "controlled" the Senate. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous.
If you don't have firm enough control to ram anything through that you like without discussion (which is probably not a good idea looking to a future where you may become the political minority) you are going to have to have a discussion and compromise.
When did the words "discuss" and "compromise" start to equate to "sellout" and "cave in"?
IMO, save the political capital and energy for the real fight ahead that the President alluded to in the last press conference- real tax reform.
Discussion and compromise are good. It's how things should work. Frankly, I hate the growing partisan divide and I think it weakens us as a country.
But the Republicans have stuck with "just say NO!" to pretty much everything for the last two years. Even their own ideas. I'm for discussion and compromise, but I'm not for giving them whatever they want just so we can maybe get a little piece of what we want. Not when we're (supposedly) in the majority. And especially not when it means doing what's clearly bad for the country just to try to get Republicans to support a plan that calls for tax cuts for everyone? Boehner said on record that he'd support it if that's all he could get.
Political capital and energy were spent on stimulus and health reform. Time to build some more by standing up for what's right and good.
My ex-wife was always convinced that "compromise" meant she got what she wanted and I backed down. The relationship between the President and the Republicans is no less unhealthy.
1. You can't rule in our political system through simple majority.
2. You can't feed your kids principle.
3. The time when Boehner was willing to take what he could get (before the landslide Republican midterm win) has passed.
4. Negotiate better if you are getting nothing you want.
Compromise isn't going to get Obama the sort of ra-ra flag waving enthusiasm that sticking to his guns would, but he's running a nation now, not a campaign.
My opinion: Democrats have no one to blame for this current mess but themselves. The Democratic party made a major blunder- two in fact.
First, they did not move this to the floor before the election. The Senate be damned. This needed to be on the floor to get House members votes in the mid term election.
Second, most Americans do not understand the tax code. Hell, I don't understand most of it. Instead of pushing for a rollback on all tax brackets, they should have extended all of the Bush tax brackets and rolled back the dividend and capital gains tax rates. The Republicans would have been irate, but to the American people it would have looked like they were getting what they wanted, and still wouldn't budge. In order to make that fight Republicans would have been forced to actually explain their position.
How popular do you think that position would be?
What part of TRILLIONS being added to the National Debt, compounding into infinity, at this rate of explosive deficits being forever added to the national debt, can be labeled "will have no long-term impact" as Austan audacioucly claims!!!???
Bill Clinton was ONLY Dem elected in the past 30 years, and he REVERSED the Republican's fiscal nightmare. Obama was welcomed with a GW Bush legacy dump of $1.3 Trillion annual deficits on his lap. What does Obama do? He kills off any "HOPE" of being fiscally responsible like his only Dem predicessor in the last 30 years, and become one of THEM... a fiscal criminal engaging in tax cut schemes for the wealthy once again. "HOPE"? What a crock of CRAP.
The Bush/Obama Tax Cuts... the fiscal H-BOMB ticks closer to the point of no return and Empire ruin.
There's still Nothing for the 99ers!!! So millions of us will soon be screwed Very Soon!
And, sad as it is, Goolsbee and Biden are both right. It's time to stop acting like petulant little children and acknowledge the fact that sometimes, as adults, we have to do things with which we disagree in order to accomplish things that need to get done. Everyday I do things demanded by my clients that I know, based on 20 years of experience, will not work. I advise the clients as best as I can but, in the end I often have to do these "wrong" things because the clients demand it. So I craft a solution that incorporates something that offsets or counteracts the clients' demands, so that ultimately the project will emerge, if not successful, at least not damaging to the client or my professional reputation. This is a part of life. Deal with it. The Democratically controlled Congress has proven over and over again that they could not deliver the Obama agenda. The Senate Dems proved it as recently as the two votes on Saturday. It's time to move on. Maybe we could take a shot at DADT before this bunch of hypocrites goes home for the holidays.
And the clients here are?
Well, in this circumstance, the clients would be the American citizens, but you can't work with them directly because they're being held hostage by the Republicans. So effectively, the Republicans are clients, too, and must be dealt with. So, to keep with the metaphor, it sometimes becomes my job to craft a professional compromise that allows a client's business to move forward successfully, therefore enabling that business' employees to retain their jobs, despite the stupidity of their boss (the Republican Party) and his crackpot ideas. And that's basically the situation we're in. How do we keep a dumb boss from destroying a company and wreaking havoc on his employees. Unfortunately, Congressional Dems have allowed the Republicans to sit in the Boss Seat.
Very true! Why Dems are voting with the Republicans is beyond me, but this is reality, so let's stop the "filibuster proof, Democratic controlled Senate" fiction.
An "All or Nothing Bet" on Republicanism, on GROWTH... hauling us out of the fiscal deal with the devil? And if a Japan style "recovery" is our future? 15 - 20 years of standard of living decline (1990 - 2010), Japan style? That kind of "growth" Austan? You know, we could have elected the real thing, a real Republican; not a DINO... and gotten these kind of "assurances".
30 years of these kind of tax cut fueled "assurances" have resulted in:
$14 Trillion National Debt (was $1.0 Trillion in 1981)
$8 Trillion +/- in Net Interest carrying cost for past 29 years.
An $8 Trillion accumulated trade deficits in the Current Account (since Nixon)... which is "borrowed prosperity on an epic scale" according to David Stockman, since we decided to default on American obligations to balance our books with the rest of the world in trade under the 1944 Bretton Woods agreement.
The National Debt growing by over a $100 Billion PER MONTH.
The National Debt COSTING over a billion per day, over $7 Billion per week, over $30 Billion per month in interest costs, expense, and burdens. The Carrying Cost we Americans PAY.
A hollowed out economy. Value-added jobs outsourced overseas. Forklift driver jobs left for us ... to move the imported goods around here at home.
An UNPRODUCTIVE dominating Financial Sector to our economy, that extracts its FEES for moving credit-created (out of thin air) money around.
But Greed is Good, no? That kind of "growth", Austan?
We voted them in now they are responsible for their vote. So do it and take the consequences. We are already poor and hurt so a little more doesn't matter. More people are not affected by this compromise than helped. Politicians,go to one poor community and see. You are blinded by greed and cannot see.
Kick the Can Down the Road, Obama style.
No WAIT, Kick the Can Down the Road, Reagan/Bush/Bush Tax Cut style; endorsed by Dino Obama.
If you want the real thing, vote Republican in 2012.
Personally I think that rather than tax cuts we should reform the tax code to a flat rate tax on any earnings over $40,000.00 No loopholes no credits and have it apply all the way up the line. It would make accounting easy and would actually raise money proportionally across the population. I make over $40k and would be okay with that income being taxed if I knew that GE and ExXxon/Mobil would have 10% of their revenue taxed instead of paying nothing and getting paid by the US government.
Watch the entire presidential press conference. He says exactly this (not the flat tax part, the reform the tax system part), only the media filter you are seeing this deal through didn't exactly focus on this.
Check out the White House Youtube channel. Look for whitehouse (one word).
It has every address, every speech, every press conference- unedited.
Someone coined the phrase "government by crisis." As dire as all this sounds, it takes a crisis like the "Great Recession" to get anything done by Congress with regard to a balanced budget. Well, that crisis WILL come. I can't predict just when or exactly what form it will take, but it's down the road (and not all that FAR down the road). Only then will the political rhetoric have to be bypassed in the name of the hard decisions involving BOTH tax INCREASES and deep spending CUTS that EVERYONE is going to feel and hate. Sooner or later we will all have to pay the piper. I pity the politicians temporarily in charge when that happens because the American people are going to create a wave of retributioon on a scale that will make this past election look like a minor splash in the kiddie pool.
I don't like the deal Obama is making with the GOP any more than he does, apparently, and calling the Republican bluff might be fun to watch, but what if they're NOT bluffing? I'm hoping House Democrats find some unity even if the ineffectual Senate majority can't, and blow this deal out of the water forcing the Republicans to put up or shut up. If not, the crisis I talked about above may be in the offing for as early as this winter as all tax rates go up, unemployment insurance ends and both political parties find there's hell to pay. If Obama's smelly deal brings down unemployment rates by 2012, then he has a good chance against whatever Republican dark horse (hopefully Palin) who comes around. If not, even Dick Cheney could beat him. Cheney-Rove anyone?
Giving in to Republican demands, again, will only serve to embolden
them to demand more and more. They've been able to push Obama so
far that the onus is now on the Democrats, who seem like the bad
guys who are blocking the unemployment checks.
If Republicans can get tax breaks for their wealthy buddies now, think
what they'll do in 2 years when they'll (probably) be in the majority again
and (probably) control the White House.
The problem, for me, is not just the details of the deal. It is the fact that this was the "best deal the President could get." That is really what steams me-- that reality itself. Yes, it was the best he could get, but that's a admission that the minority party controls the agenda. That is unacceptable. Especially since, when the DEMS are in the minority, that doesn't hold true!
This deal is the culmination of everything wrong with our legislative system--it is the poster child for legislative malpractice. The filibuster, the Senate rules are completely distorted to prevent what the Framers intended. Everybody KNOWS this. It is criminal that the Dem leaders haven't addressed this when they have the chance. There is no reason the Repubs should have this much power--negotiating with terrorists is ALWAYS wrong, and ensures that as of now, these repugnant Republicans can get whatever they want.
Mark my words-- everything is now on the table: SS, Medicare, church/state issues--everything. Because the Dems WANT things, and the other side doesn't want anything done. Therefore, they have the upper hand in any negotiation.
Enough of the posturing by the Democrats in Congress! NO democrat is going to vote for a tax increase for Americans (which is what you'd get if the Bush tax cuts expire), and the Democrats in charge, not the Republicans, would be blamed for this tax increase. This compromise bill seems to be the only way we can get extension of the unemployment benefits, tax credit extensions for undergraduate college expenses and child tax credits, and payroll tax deductions, all part of this bill. So let's pass this bill, move on and let the Democrats, especially in the Senate, start blocking Republican measures in the 2011 congress and get a clear message across to the American people, if that is possible for Democrats to do.
Fact: Dems are the majority.
Fact: That doesn't seem to matter much, since forty people can hold the Senate up over anything that it tickles their fancy to hold up.
Fact: It is better for the Republicans to freeze Congress because then the President has no major accomplishments to run on in the next year. Republicans, in turn, can (and will) campaign on not allowing the President to "mess up the country any more than he already has." The Nose said it quite clearly. Their first priority is making the President a one term President. They don't give a flying f... about anything else.
Fact: The President has this wonderful thing called a veto pen. So instead of backing down to the conservatives who are the minority and who are wrong on this issue, HE should be the one making threats. I think Obama's problem is that he is still thinking like a Senator--believing that he has to negotiate. He's not a Senator anymore. He's the flippin' President! He doesn't have to negotiate about jack if he doesn't want to. Especially not on this issue, where pretty much every poll shows that he's on the right side of public and economic opinion.
President Obama, STAND UP! Stand up for your ideals, stand up for the change that you promised us. Stand up for what the American people have said they want, which is no tax cuts for millionaires. I want the man who campaigned so eloquently in 2008 back, not this man who thinks he needs to get along with the Republicans because that will somehow create a better America.
GOP = Greedy Oligarchical Plutocrats. Our country is now ruled, yes ruled, by the the few rich.
They are Republicans, Democrats and Independents in name only. Their political party is Capitalist. Their religion is Greed.
The hard part is figuring out exactly who the closeted GOPer's are...Blue Dog Democrats? "Moderate" Republicans? The Tea Party? The majority of Republicans are out and proud GOP. Most of Congress is at least upper middle class, regardless of political party. Many progressives in Congress are also rich or upper middle class by most of our standards.
Whatever we do, we have to stop off-shoring jobs so the educated, professional middle class--like me--can get jobs commensurate with our experience and with some semblance of parity with our past salaries and benefits.
My professional position was off-shored in 2004 when my company moved that product line to Asia, South America, and Siberia. My job was eliminated and me with it. Since everyone else was doing the same thing, there were no comparable jobs and there still aren't. I've changed careers, because I have to work to make a living, and the pay is far less. We went from rising middle class back to working class living on a tight budget.
As I recall, we were all doing relatively well in the 1990's during the Clinton tax rates. I know I was and most of the people I know were, too. I'd rather sacrifice tax cuts for the middle class than give them to the richest people. We could use that money for jobs and more stimulus.
Extremely few people pay their actual income tax rate anyway. When my tax bracket was 29%, my actual tax rate on my MAGI (modified adjusted gross income) was only 12% because of deductions, before 2004. Now, it's -48% because we technically live in poverty with unstable income.
We really are moving toward a third-world country if things don't change soon. Where is President Clinton saying "It's jobs and the economy, stupid"?
So damn the tax cuts, where are the jobs!!!
This deal does nothing for the '99ers.' Second, the President gave up too soon. He could have gotten the same things (e.g., extending unemployment compensation, keeping the middle class tax cuts, etc.) without the compromise. The temporary decrease in payroll taxes which according to Mr. Goolsbee saves people about $1000/year. That's not a lot of money! While cutting payroll taxes is good, some economist recommend lowering it from the current 15% to 10% then raise the lower exemption to $25000 of income and eliminating the upper exemption. Another suggestion is keeping the estate tax at 55% (where it was bb - before Bush) and put the revenues generated into Social Security. Want to reduce the deficit and helping the States, some ideas might an internet sales tax (5% or 6%), taxing capital gains and dividends as regular income or a securities transaction of 1.5% like they have in Britain.
Or we could just burn the country to the ground. Both would have similar effects.
Just as a quick question, out of curiosity...
Are any of you folks lambasting Obama for this decision actually long-term-unemployed and your next meal and rent payment is hinging on a decision being made about these damned unemployment benefit extensions?
'Cause if you are, I guarantee you'd be looking at his decision differently.
Sally:
Being one of the unemployed (approaching 18 months now), I feel your pain. However, giving in to the Republicans is not the answer. They would have extended unemployment benefits because if they didn't, they wouldn't win the next election. And at the end of the day, that is all politicians care about (on BOTH sides of the aisle) and to hell with what is right for the country.
Sally, you should realize that this deal is only putting a band-aid on a gaping wound. Maybe more like pouring acid in a gaping wound. It is only going to make things worse. It is NOT going to create jobs. The GOP is holding your benefits hostage and paying the ransom is NOT the answer. Instead of spending billions of dollars for tax cuts for the wealthy, we should be collecting money from them and using that money to put people to work.