Skip to main content

View Diary: 3 Progressive Principles for the Next Deal (130 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  That's not tough ... (8+ / 0-)

    That's fair. Good suggestion.

    President Obama also wanted a 1-1 ratio of program cuts to new taxes.

    I wonder how these two principles interact.

    •  The president should target a GDP percentage (23+ / 0-)

      He should be aiming for a higher proportion of GDP in government revenue, to properly fund the government.  I'd go for big ideas like the financial transactions tax,  changes in corporate taxes to avoid the offshoring of profits, and for a tiered estate tax to hit estates over $1 billion at 60-70%.  It'd be hard to demagogue that as hitting "small businesses."

      Lifting the cap on Social Security, needless to say, should be the uniform Democratic response to any whining about Social Security.

      Citizens United defeated by citizens, united.

      by Dallasdoc on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 05:36:44 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  He has already ... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        pHunbalanced, Lujane, Puddytat

        PBO already conceded the point on "balanced" cuts and revenues. So, if the Rs agree to raise a lot of revenues through taxes, he'll have to offer up a lot of cuts.

        Kinda counterintuitive ...

      •  Amen to the lifting the cap! I don't understand (8+ / 0-)

        why this doesn't get mentioned on the widening and lowering ongoing talks on taxes.  If there was no cap couldn't we still get enough revenue to insure Social Security's viability with the possibility of actually lowering the percentage somewhat?

        3.3 million Texans voted for Obama in 2012....give us a break!.

        by mkoz on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 06:09:12 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  We could also increase benefits. We could go back (4+ / 0-)

          to giving orphaned kids their survivors benefit until the age of 22 as long as they stayed in school.

          Right now, kids who age out of foster care are more likely to wind up in prison than to achieve any college degree.  That includes associates degrees.

          For 35 years, we helped them get through school as long as they kept their grades up.

          We can go back to that.

          "Furthermore, if you think this would be the very very last cut ever if we let it happen, you are a very confused little rabbit." cai

          by JesseCW on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 04:14:16 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  I guess one thing that strikes me -- (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Dallasdoc

        -- and I hope I'm not in error here -- but we're looking at a 2% bump in the payroll tax used to fund Social Security. (My employer's human resources office just sent us a chipper little email to that effect.)

        I recognize that this is a result of a temporary reprieve negotiated in 2010, and it's probably unrealistic to expect that drop to be made permanent. But one thing that it highlights is the regressive nature of that tax: not one dime of income greater than $110,000 is subject to the payroll tax. This is a tax that is punitive towards the middle class, and rewards the rich.

        (And as an aside, here I mean the real middle class, and the genuinely wealthy: in this economy, the "middle" is a lot closer to $50,000 than to $450,000. And -- at least in my neck of the woods -- if you're making over $110,000, you're pretty darn comfortable. I realize that this may not apply in lower Manhattan or in West Hollywood, but for the vast majority of us, $110,000 seems to be a much more reasonable threshold of wealth than the $450,000 that was just agreed to.)

        Anyhoo, perhaps one thing that progressives could push for, as part of any agreement, is that the funding for Social Security -- to the degree that it's even an issue -- should be addressed as much through the raising of the arbitrary payroll tax cap of $110,000, rather than any (and I do mean any change in the formula for benefits.

        Nothing requires a greater effort of thought than arguments to justify the rule of non-thought. -- Milan Kundera

        by Dale on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 10:54:32 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  OMG -- I'm stupid. (0+ / 0-)

          I didn't read your note through, Dallasdoc. You had the payroll tax cap issue right in there. Please ignore.

          Nothing requires a greater effort of thought than arguments to justify the rule of non-thought. -- Milan Kundera

          by Dale on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 10:55:38 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site