Skip to main content

View Diary: President Obama got exactly what he has wanted for 4 years tonight. Updated (253 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Our difference is one of semantics. (6+ / 0-)

    Republicans will not permit stimulus that's unfunded -- stupid for any limited program, but that's their position.  So, in our current political context, revenue is required to fund the government that supplies stimulus.  More to the point was my argument that it's needed to fund the safety net.

    •  It is still Neo-liberal bulls#!t (7+ / 0-)

      We are supposed to be progressives.  

      We can accept that we just got a deal that is less austere than what otherwise would have happened.  But, I don't think we should be happy about it, and I think we should be doing our best to try to drive our representatives away from the austerity vs more austerity debate.

      If we can't start from the point of real stimulus, how can our representatives ever get there.  Requiring funding for stimulus is not terribly stimulative and can only generate any kind of stimulus if whatever you are taking money from creates less jobs than the stimulus.

      I am looking at the long haul. It is time we changed the conversation. Our reps can compromise on the legislation, and we can (re)elect them even when we don't like the compromise.  But, we need to push to change the rhetoric and the debate.  The debate should be between stimulus and austerity, not austerity and more austerity.

      •  Exactly. That so many people don't understand (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        AreDeutz, MPociask

        how our monetary system works is political suicide.

        We should be using language that is reflective of our fiat reality, rather than out dated gold standard rhetoric.

      •  Making change requires either power or compromise (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        zizi

        I agree with you on desired policy.  However,

        Unless and until we can actually force passage of legislation, nothing radical can be done.  Nothing.  This means that activism requires political change -- taking the House and enacting Senate filibuster reform.

        Otherwise, nothing will happen without the G-No-P, and therefore without compromise.  Deal with it.

        Being a progressive never meant living in fantasyland.

    •  Taxing lower classes is not a path to (11+ / 0-)

      stimulus, but the opposite. Paying down the debt in a recession is not a priority or stimulative, but the opposite.

      What matters here is exactly what the diarist wrote about. Creating a more progressive tax structure for the long term. With the poorer earners paying less and the richer paying more.

      •  For crying out loud,... (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        grollen, TomP, Agathena, Pescadero Bill

        ...people making 250k or 450k are not the lower classes.

        I'm guessing you just want to pick at me and don't actually care what the reasoning behind my position is. But for the record, I'm a socialist who has lived abroad under systems that are generally held high here at this site as models to be emulated.  Taxes there were higher than here and were used to fund a much more extensive array of benefits: socialized medicine, socialized education, amply funded retirements, and other benefits that more than made up for the higher tax rates.  The taxes we in the real middle class in the US -- not the 250k range -- pay are low and should be raised to provide such services to all.  And those taxes should be steeply progressive.  We -- you and I -- appear to differ most in where we would have that increase in rates begin to take place and toward what purpose.

        I agree with you that we should ignore the debt until we're out of recession, but since we are not doing so, I argued above for something that would draw us closer to where we should be.  Okay?

        •  That was the ONLY crumb the GOP got!! (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          OhioNatureMom, Beetwasher, Vicky

          Can you not grasp that?

          400k is peanuts to the Wall Street crowd that Boehner & co. answer to!

          •  They got all the bargaining chips for next time. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MPociask, Pescadero Bill

            Look, I've negotiated contracts and labor agreements.  I know what we just gave up, and I've seen this administration's bargaining abilities when they had the upper hand (a week ago) and when they didn't.  This will get ugly fast.  If it doesn't, I'll openly admit my error.  I will not hold my breath for any of the defenders of this deal to do so if they are wrong.

            •  Name All The Leverage Beside Crashing The World (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              zizi, FiredUpInCA

              Economy. Which is not leverage, it's insanity, and the Money guys (most of them) will not brook that.

              What other leverage do they have? Name it.

              You're claim to have negotiated contracts is irrelevant. I negotiate contracts for a living as well, and I say you're wrong.

              This post is dedicated to myself, without whom, I'd be somebody else. Though I'd still be an asshole. My Music: [http://www.myspace.com/beetwasher]

              by Beetwasher on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 07:14:40 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  the actual rich people.... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Pescadero Bill

            don't pay income at those rates.  The carried interest loophole remains safely in place thanks to Obama.

            •  No, it doesn't. Loopholes go with tax (0+ / 0-)

              reform. So do a lot of other things which will generate more revenue.

              What Obama did was take away the R threat to raise taxes on the lower 97% of US.

              We took away the R's big bargaining chip.

              I'm asking you to believe. Not in my ability to bring about real change in Washington ... *I'm asking you to believe in yours.* Barack Obama

              by samddobermann on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 03:08:31 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  To clarify further,... (7+ / 0-)

        ...when I say the taxes we in the middle class pay are low, I should make clear I believe the taxes those making 250k are paying are ridiculously low for a modern state and should be raised more to pay for a more equitable system that would give the actual poor a chance at the prosperity we are so eager to demand for ourselves.

        •  That's true. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          glorificus, JBL55

          And I wasn't talking about those brackets. I was talking about the lower classes. Not, not the lower classes.

          Obama's tax cuts for the lower classes, that is, people making under 100k a year all the way down to making 0 are extended for 5 years and the 5% tax cuts they received from Bush are made permanent.

          These people matter. And going over the cliff, while raising more tax revenue during a recession (not a generally good idea) would raise taxes on the lower classes more than on people making 60-400k; who would see %3 tax increase compared to a %5 increase in taxes, for those making less than 60k. And, as stated, they would lose the Obama EIC too.

          Going over the cliff was not a more socialist tax code but to a less socialist tax code.

          The debt was ignored in this deal.

          •  I don't recall anyone arguing that... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Odysseus, Pescadero Bill

            ...going over the cliff should be an end point, or "socialist tax code."  It was a tactic to change the starting point for establishing a new set of rates and benefits.  You are setting up a straw man.

            And 100k is not lower class, either.  Most in this country would consider it the bottom boundary of the upper middle class.

            •  The straw man is an imagined deal, (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Beetwasher

              a vision in a crystal ball. A hypothetical at best.

            •  There is a lot of fear on this site. Fear of (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              dance you monster, Meteor Blades

              actually taking a hard line. It's no wonder independent-minded voters loath democrats. That is, up until democrats campaign as if they're going to take a firm stance.

              I agree with everything you've said, and I'll add that this deal pushes us further into the realm of conservative governing.

              We are very near becoming a hardcore conservative nation. It's why the republican radicals of the Tea Party are accepted while left-wing radicals, or even moderate liberals are completely dismissed.

              As proof I'll offer up three points: One; the outrageous military spending. Two; the ongoing erosion of civil liberties. Three; tax cuts in place of government services.

              We, via the slick liberal facade presented during the Obama campaign to hide is conservative nature, have been lured into a conservative victory.

              And people here seem blinded by that fear, or misplaced adoration for the handsome, smooth-talking conservative president, and refuse to, or can't see, what just happened.

              Physics is bulls**t. Don't let them fool you. Fire IS magic.

              by Pescadero Bill on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 08:43:41 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site