Skip to main content

View Diary: Umm... We're playing chess, not checkers. And we're winning. (536 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  You're lying, straight up lying (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Timothy J

    If you claim that this deal affects "the 98%". That's my point right here. So drop the talking points for a second and get your numbers right.

    The revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

    by AoT on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 04:21:14 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  I don't understand your point (16+ / 0-)

      Didn't the Bush tax cuts lower the tax rate in every bracket by three percent or so?  Here's what my deep research on Wikipedia uncovered:

      EGTRRA generally reduced the rates of individual income taxes:
      a new 10% bracket was created for single filers with taxable income up to $6,000, joint filers up to $12,000, and heads of households up to $10,000.
      the 15% bracket's lower threshold was indexed to the new 10% bracket
      the 28% bracket would be lowered to 25% by 2006.
      the 31% bracket would be lowered to 28% by 2006
      the 36% bracket would be lowered to 33% by 2006
      the 39.6% bracket would be lowered to 35% by 2006
      My taxes would've gone up significantly had all of the Bush tax cuts been sunsetted.  My wife and I are mid-40's, mid-career, with four children.  Definitely nowhere near the top marginal tax bracket, but President Obama's negotiations saved us thousands of dollars.

      So how is the other poster "lying straight up"?

      A 47% return on investment--that's pretty doggoned good!

      by deminva on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 04:28:26 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I stated my point (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Timothy J

        The poster is using crap numbers because they make good talking points. This deal does not protect 98% of people.

        The revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

        by AoT on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 04:34:44 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well, it's true that not all (7+ / 0-)

          of the "lower 98%" pay federal income taxes (versus, say, payroll taxes).  But without some deal, all of the marginal tax rates would have gone up.  That would have affected more than 50% of American workers, unless I'm mistaken.  

          A 47% return on investment--that's pretty doggoned good!

          by deminva on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 04:44:28 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Youre right (0+ / 0-)

            It would have affected a majority of workers. It's the use of wrong numbers as talking points that is frustrating the he'll out of me in this case. The poster is obviously trying  use occupy framing of the issue with the use of "the 98%" over and over. Its an obvious attempt to shut down people opposed to the compromise by presenting it as being hyper populist.

            The revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

            by AoT on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 04:59:02 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Certainly a possibility (4+ / 0-)

              My more charitable interpretation is that the poster was using a frame that has become very popular here and elsewhere.  Really an adaptation of "we are the 99%," changed to 98% because the top marginal tax rate is said to affect the top 2% of taxpayers.  

              In my humble opinion, a gentle corrective here would be more conducive to discussion than "you're lying."

              A 47% return on investment--that's pretty doggoned good!

              by deminva on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 05:41:31 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  The 98% Who Are Not Getting A Tax Increase (6+ / 0-)

      Numbers are dead-on bullseye. But lets throw them under the bus so we can get the GOP to agree to hit the 250,000 -450,00 income earners until they give in. That might be good. Let the economy get another blip downward like it did in the summer of 2011.

      •  No, i was never getting a tax increase (0+ / 0-)

        Because I don't make enough.There are plenty of other people who also don't make enough to pay income tax. Are you just going to pretend those people don't exist so you can continue to use your pretty number.

        The revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

        by AoT on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 04:41:57 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  So The 250,000 Number Is Nothing To You (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          etherealfire

          You don't care if taxes go up on a much lower number and the Democrats rhetoric about the middle class? I guess that is just pandering that you are OK with to get victory?

          •  So you don't care that 98% is a made up number (0+ / 0-)

            That describes no group of people who would have had their taxes raised? You're trying to spin this as some sort of populist victory when it just isn't.

            The revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

            by AoT on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 05:04:28 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (137)
  • Community (67)
  • Elections (26)
  • Environment (25)
  • Culture (24)
  • Media (23)
  • Science (22)
  • Civil Rights (22)
  • Law (22)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (21)
  • Josh Duggar (20)
  • Labor (19)
  • Economy (19)
  • Ireland (17)
  • Rescued (17)
  • Memorial Day (17)
  • Marriage Equality (17)
  • Bernie Sanders (16)
  • Republicans (16)
  • Education (16)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site