Skip to main content

View Diary: omigod! "they" actually WENT there! (195 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Obama (13+ / 0-)

    When the President agreed with the Republicans to only go back to the  Clinton tax rates on incomes over 450,000 a year, instead of 250,000 a year, in exchange for a 2 month delay in the sequester, I was livid.  I knew that Obama had just sold out the only leverage he had on the Republicans (the fact that unless they made some kind of deal the tax rate would go up to Clinton era for everyone over 250,000).

    There were legions in here gushing forth, that once again, Obama had outfoxed the Republicans and played another game of his 12 dimensional chess.

    Well, I knew this would happen.  Boehner, afraid of his own shadow, (the tea party), would dig in his heels.  The sequester that was delayed in january would now come looking in March, along with the upcoming "negotiations" over the funding the government until September 30th and raising the nations debt limit.

    The Republicans will demand their pound of flesh and continue with their government  by hostage taking.  The  President willl say all the right things (and some wrong things, such as offering the "chained CPI", but it looks like the USA is doomed to austerity alley, as the President threw away the only leverage he had last January when he agreed to move the tax rate increases threshold up to 450,000 instead of 250,000.

    If you are not in the top 1% in the usa, and especially if you are in the bottom 47% or so of us who depend on some sort of government assistance, things are about to get much harder on all of us.

    •  I'd like to hear a little more here. To get the (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      edrie, concernedamerican, Smoh, elwior

      expiration of the low rate on income over $250,000, how would you have done that?  What could have been used to produce a different outcome?  I want to go over this closely.  One step at a time.  Who was holding which cards and how they should have been played differently

      I have an open mind but I'm not seeing how your thinking process reached its conclusion.  For example, I don't see how raising the number from $250,000 to $450,000 was an exchange for the sequestration postponement.

      In other words, how would the income be improved, if the terms were undone?

      There is no existence without doubt.

      by Mark Lippman on Sat Mar 02, 2013 at 02:53:13 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Just hold firm, stick to the 250 limit (5+ / 0-)

        Let all the tax cuts expire if the Repubs don't go along.

        I agree with WaryLiberal; that was the time we had the most leverage, and Obama settled for far too little.  He could have gotten the 250 limit if he had just held firm, and he caved.  I wrote about this a lot also.

        So Obama hold all the cards and should have called the Repub bluff.   The limit would have been 250 rather than 450, and lots more revenue would have been obtain from people who can afford it.

        If Repubs don't agree, so be it.  Let all the tax cuts expire.  We were doing just fine in 2000 before Bush took office.

        •  Cliff then, cliff now - sick and tired of it all. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          elwior

          If the Dems had stood up to threats of this and that the first time when the "fear" factor was the biggest of the big, the GOPs probably would have caved.   Now, it's like a serial killer's 10th  murder.   The horror is gone, and they're getting into it.

          Sometimes Obama is just too clever for his own good.  

          What we need is a Democrat in the White House.

          by dkmich on Sat Mar 02, 2013 at 08:16:11 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Not a winning argument. I'll explain why . . . (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          edrie, Cats r Flyfishn

          If we let all of the tax cuts expire, we would hand the Republicans exactly what they want.  It's the final stage of a long running massive wealth redistribution from the lower 80% to a comparatively tiny number of privileged few at the top.  

          If we let all of the tax cuts expire, we'd be allowing the Republicans to have the full culmination of their game.

          Here's a very brief description how it works:  every earner with more than a million in income per year gets a million dollar bonus.  The total cost of these generous gifts is
          $1 trillion. There's no way to fund that amount so it goes into a bucket we call "Public Debt."  Whenever any portion of that $1 trillion in "Public Debt" is paid off, who should pay it?  Should the recipients of the $1 million gifts pay it off.  Or should the $1 trillion cost be socialized across the general population, so that everyone contributes something to pay for the gifts that were given to a few?  

          What if this scheme could be institutionalized and made permanent so that a tiny number of privileged few at the top are continually given such extravagant gifts while we hit up the rest of the population to pay for it?  

          Is that really what you want?

          There is no existence without doubt.

          by Mark Lippman on Sat Mar 02, 2013 at 10:22:44 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I don't understand what you're saying (0+ / 0-)

            How do million dollar earners get a million dollar bonus if the Bush tax cuts expired?  They'd be paying a higher rate on all of their income; now, they're just paying a higher rate on income over $450k.

            Besides, the Repubs would never have agreed to let all the cuts expire.  They would have caved and agreed to the $250k limit.  Otherwise everyone would have blamed them for taxes going up.

        •  that time it was about emergency unemployment (0+ / 0-)

          benefits due to expire.  the damage would have been catestrophic then!

          EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

          by edrie on Sat Mar 02, 2013 at 12:02:19 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Take a step back. Did you vote for Obama? If so, (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Smoh, S F Hippie, KJB Oregon, exterris, edrie

      what you voted for was a package of possibilities and paths, not all of which would be to your liking as a Democrat or as a Progressive, but which would be much less onerous and harmful than the package that Romney represented.

      That's one more thing to add to my long list of small problems. --my son, age 10

      by concernedamerican on Sat Mar 02, 2013 at 04:41:38 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's not an answer (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        dkmich

        Of course Obama is much, much better than Romney.

        But the deal he got was much, much worse than he could have.

        Why is it not fair to comment on that, try to sway public opinion, so we get a better deal?

        •  It absolutely can and should be commented on. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          edrie, Cats r Flyfishn

          But WaryLiberal and others here seem to want to have it both ways:  idealistic even as they make claims of cynical "I knew it would happen all along" prior knowledge of how all this shit was going to happen.

          Any idealism we had about President Obama should have been kicked out of us during his first term.  

          And now more than ever adopting a "well I always knew he would sell us out" posture is unhelpful.

          Focus on the local, on organizing and making a difference for one's community.  Outside of national politics, where the few Sherrod Browns and Al Frankens and Elizabeth Warrens are the exception.  It's a rough ride we've been having and will continue to have in this country, and the President's maddening and bewildering insistence on not seeing Republicans as the bomb-throwers and aggressors that they are, is not the only factor leading up to the pain that the sequester is going to cause.

          That's one more thing to add to my long list of small problems. --my son, age 10

          by concernedamerican on Sat Mar 02, 2013 at 07:25:47 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  idealistic and cynical is not having it both ways (0+ / 0-)

            One wants the best and expects the worst.  9 times out of time, one gets what they expect.  

            You also missed the boat here.  We never were or are idealistic about the President.  We were and are idealistic about the country.  The President is where the cynicism comes in.  

            Most posters here already know the importance of their local politics; and they also know they are entitled to an "I told you so", even if you don't think it's helpful.

            Colbert's spoof about tying the damsel to the railroad track only to untie her as the train approaches so they can re-tie her to the track further up the line clearly mocked how immature and stupid the whole idea was in the first place.   And America's best and brightest, Obama, the Dems and the GOP elected leadership, were all so proud of themselves.     Stupid suicide pact.

            As I said, the Dems should have stood their ground the first time when "murder" was still a scary idea to the GOP.  Now, they're acclimatized.

            What we need is a Democrat in the White House.

            by dkmich on Sat Mar 02, 2013 at 08:43:51 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site