Skip to main content

This week, the Senate passed a plan that I proposed a few weeks ago to protect middle class Americans and virtually every small business owner from getting hit with a big tax hike next year – a tax hike of $2,200 for the typical family.

Now it comes down to this: If 218 Members of the House vote the right way, 98% of American families and 97% of small business owners will have the certainty of knowing that that their income taxes will not go up next year.



After last week's moving remarks by the president in the wake of the Aurora, Colorado movie theater shooting, this morning President Obama turned back to urging policy prescriptions in his weekly address, advocating for passage of tax-cut extensions for the middle class and letting the upper-income levels revert to pre-Bush tax cut rates.

Too bad Republicans are obstructing those middle-class tax cuts:

Everyone in Washington says they agree on this. Everyone says they agree that we should extend the tax cuts for the middle class. When Democrats and Republicans agree on something, it should be pretty easy to get it done.

But right now, that’s not the case. Instead of doing what’s right for middle class families and small business owners, Republicans in Congress are holding these tax cuts hostage until we extend tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.

Interestingly, it was not only Congressional Republicans coming under fire in the address; campaign season is upon us, and there is a very specific Republican leader being targeted as well:
You see, Republicans in Congress and their nominee for President believe that the best way to create prosperity in America is to let it trickle down from the top. They believe that if our country spends trillions more on tax cuts for the wealthy, we’ll somehow create jobs – even if we have to pay for it by gutting things like education and training and by raising middle-class taxes.

They’re wrong. [Emphasis added]

Why are they wrong, you ask? Been there, tried it, it failed. Let's let go of stale ideas, America!
We can’t afford more top-down economics. What we need are policies that will grow and strengthen the middle class; that will help create jobs, make education and training more affordable, and encourage businesses to start up and stay right here in the United States.

That’s why I’ve cut middle-class taxes every year that I’ve been President – by $3,600 for the typical family. That’s why I’ve cut taxes for small businesses eighteen times. And that’s why I’m calling on 218 Members of the House to do their job and not raise taxes on the middle class.

As soon as they pass that bill, I’ll sign it right away.

All in all, the address this week is a nice, tidy combo of sticking it to his opponent and advocating for a current piece of solid legislative policy. Two birds, one stone.

To read the transcript in full, check below the fold or visit the White House website.

Remarks of President Barack Obama
The Weekly Address
The White House
July 28, 2012

This week, the Senate passed a plan that I proposed a few weeks ago to protect middle class Americans and virtually every small business owner from getting hit with a big tax hike next year – a tax hike of $2,200 for the typical family.

Now it comes down to this: If 218 Members of the House vote the right way, 98% of American families and 97% of small business owners will have the certainty of knowing that that their income taxes will not go up next year.

That certainty means something to a middle class family who’s already stretched the budget as far as it can go. It means something to a small business owner who’s trying to plan ahead. That’s security at a time when folks could use some.

And here’s the thing: everyone in Washington says they agree on this. Everyone says they agree that we should extend the tax cuts for the middle class. When Democrats and Republicans agree on something, it should be pretty easy to get it done.

But right now, that’s not the case. Instead of doing what’s right for middle class families and small business owners, Republicans in Congress are holding these tax cuts hostage until we extend tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.

You see, Republicans in Congress and their nominee for President believe that the best way to create prosperity in America is to let it trickle down from the top. They believe that if our country spends trillions more on tax cuts for the wealthy, we’ll somehow create jobs – even if we have to pay for it by gutting things like education and training and by raising middle-class taxes.

They’re wrong. And I know they’re wrong because we already tried it that way for most of the last decade. It didn’t work. We’re still paying for trillions of dollars in tax cuts that benefitted the wealthiest Americans more than anyone else; tax cuts that didn’t lead to the middle class jobs or higher wages we were promised and that helped take us from record surpluses to record deficits.

We can’t afford more top-down economics. What we need are policies that will grow and strengthen the middle class; that will help create jobs, make education and training more affordable, and encourage businesses to start up and stay right here in the United States.

That’s why I’ve cut middle-class taxes every year that I’ve been President – by $3,600 for the typical family. That’s why I’ve cut taxes for small businesses eighteen times. And that’s why I’m calling on 218 Members of the House to do their job and not raise taxes on the middle class.

As soon as they pass that bill, I’ll sign it right away. And in the meantime, I’m going to keep fighting for an economy where we’re not just putting folks back to work, but making sure that work pays off – an economy where every American, no matter who you are, what you look like, or where you come from, can have the confidence that if you work hard, you can get ahead.

Thanks, and have a great weekend.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  please, next week, hit them on the minimum wage (5+ / 0-)

    more money to people who will spend it on things small businesses are selling.

  •  The mass media misrepresents the law by (5+ / 0-)

    neglecting to say that the first 200K (single person) or 250K (married) of income will not draw increased taxes, only the excess over those numbers will, so 1%ers will still benefit somewhat from the law.  That should help all those bleeding hearted wingers who worry so much about the 1% who clearly don't worry about any of them.

    Romney went to France instead of serving in our military, got rich chop-shopping US businesses and eliminating US jobs, off-shored his money in the Cayman Islands, and now tells us to "Believe in America."

    by judyms9 on Sat Jul 28, 2012 at 07:12:31 AM PDT

    •  bargaining (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      hester, Alden

      Obama is not a good negotiator-- you start high and settle for your minimum.  He should be proposing a millionaire's surtax--say a tithe amount--10% of all earnings--from all sources--above $1 million.

      Apres Bush, le deluge.

      by melvynny on Sat Jul 28, 2012 at 07:28:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's all useless now. Our tax system is set up (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        maryabein, melvynny

        to collect revenue when money moves.  Moving money around in accounts doesn't count. The money of the rich is effectively sequestered.  They don't care what the tax rate is on money they don't spend or collect.
        What we have to figure out is how to get the stash moving or levy a stash tax.  A transaction tax would help by capturing some as the hoarders take the money out to play.

        Willard's forte = "catch 'n' cage"

        by hannah on Sat Jul 28, 2012 at 08:23:39 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  That would just be symbolic (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        maryabein, melvynny, judyms9

        If you lose taxes from the $250,000 to $1,000,000 category, you don't address the shortfall in taxes that has put us in this mess.  Not enough money is raised.

        Personally, I hope the whole thing fails.  We need to pay sufficient taxes to pay for government.  As long as we are going to sustain an outrageous military expense for incursions here, there and elsewhere, we need to cover the cost.

        The Muslim said "I wished I had met Christ before I met the Christians" - Rev. Marvin Winins

        by captainlaser on Sat Jul 28, 2012 at 08:30:41 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  In a fury of frustration I made my own comment on (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Alden

      this below without seeing yours.  It amazes me that they have never made this case, not just this year, but for the last two.  It is beyond stupid.

      The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell

      by accumbens on Sat Jul 28, 2012 at 07:32:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Actually, the mass media is not to blame for (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Alden

      misrepresenting the law - Obama does it repeatedly himself along with nearly all other Dems.

      The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell

      by accumbens on Sat Jul 28, 2012 at 07:41:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I said to myself, I bet someone will criticize the (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        palantir, michelewln, kitebro

        President even after a statement such as he just delivered where there he really framed the debate and boxed his opponents in hard and beautifully.... Literally nothing to criticize here, and yet, I knew someone would pour on the criticism. And yours could get the blue ribbon prize.... The "media is not to blame"...Obama and all Dems misrepresent the truth.... Yes, in the spirit of the Olympics, yours deserve a medal....

        •  And you would get the gold for denial. (0+ / 0-)

          How does he box the Repubs in by making it sound less fair than it is and setting it up as a rich vs. poor policy.  Seems to me he gives them the counterarguments.

          And instead of criticizing the messenger and the fact that I criticized Obama, what do you find wrong with the substance of my criticism?

          The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell

          by accumbens on Sat Jul 28, 2012 at 08:16:34 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  It's the Saturday Weekly Address diary. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          NedSparks

          Criticism of Obama is what it's all about!

          Taxes Are For The Little People, My Friend!

          by kitebro on Sat Jul 28, 2012 at 08:25:32 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Democrats "misrepresent" it too. I'm sick of (0+ / 0-)

      hearing generalities from Dems. The fact is, a married couple with a $251,000 annual income will pay $30 if the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy are allowed to expire.  THIRTY DOLLARS! How many jobs are those 30 bucks going to cost us? Shit.

      Two hundred million Americans, and there ain't two good catchers among 'em. --Casey Stengel

      by LongTom on Sat Jul 28, 2012 at 11:32:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Nice and clean (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Eddie C, Alden, palantir, michelewln, TexasTom

    way to go, Prez!

    "For what profit a man, if he gain the world, but has to pay taxes on it?" -ontheleftcoast, The Book of Paul

    by MsGrin on Sat Jul 28, 2012 at 07:23:01 AM PDT

  •  Does Obama have some kind of a communication (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hester, MsGrin, Alden, LongTom

    block?  Why doesn't he simply say that everyone is getting a tax break on the first $250k of income, but that the richest people will pay a little more for income over that.  It just amazes me that he and other Dems - with the recent glaring exception of Pelosi - can't explain this.  It makes the cut even more fair than what they are saying now, namely, tax cuts for the middle class and an increase for the richest.  Just plain stupid.

    The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell

    by accumbens on Sat Jul 28, 2012 at 07:27:34 AM PDT

  •  Great leverage for the Democrats (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Alden

    And sanity for the people.

    Another thought that should be broadcasted by the Democrats would be the claim that this coming Republican stalemate along with the ruckus they are planing to raise over raising the debt ceiling is causing more uncertainly about our economic future that any possibilities of regulations that the Republicans are making up. The fact that the Republicans are deliberately undermining the economy for political gain.  

    I hope this difference of ideologies gets as much air time as possible and that the Republicans get crushed making their false claims.    

  •  Raise my taxes. (6+ / 0-)

    This dance around taxes on the rich ignores the (to me) more important point.  Taxes are nowhere near enough to cover spending.  All of the Bush tax cuts should go, along with ending the special treatment of dividends, the restriction of Social Security to the working poor and middle class, and the plethora of business loopholes.  

    This "argument" will probably end in another "compromise" by Democrats.  And Romney will laugh.

    I am become Man, the destroyer of worlds

    by tle on Sat Jul 28, 2012 at 07:34:51 AM PDT

    •  Yes, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Alden
      This "argument" will probably end in another "compromise" by Democrats.
      in large measure because Obama and most Dems are framing it as a middle-class versus the rich argument, when it's an income argument - namely, a tax break for incomes under $250k so everybody benefits the same.  The way they case it now means they will most certainly have to compromise because their position as advertised is too extreme.

      The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell

      by accumbens on Sat Jul 28, 2012 at 07:38:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yes! (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Kinak, captainlaser, maryabein

      I want my taxes to go UP. It will signal a return to sanity.

    •  I suspect this is the final move in this 11 (0+ / 0-)

      dimensional chess match.

      Obama will be Brer Rabbit and bemoan the Congress throwing him into the briar patch.  "I wanted to cut your taxes but the Republicans made us throw out the tax cuts for everyone.  Blame them."

      The Muslim said "I wished I had met Christ before I met the Christians" - Rev. Marvin Winins

      by captainlaser on Sat Jul 28, 2012 at 08:32:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  If Obama Wins And GOP Wins Congress (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Alden

    There will be 2 more years of posturing rather than policy. Is this what the voters who will vote for Obama and their Republican congressman want?

    •  That's why you target the Tea Party congressmen (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Leo Flinnwood

      and get their asses out of Washington.

      See DCCC.

      The Muslim said "I wished I had met Christ before I met the Christians" - Rev. Marvin Winins

      by captainlaser on Sat Jul 28, 2012 at 08:35:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Hoping It Works (0+ / 0-)

        And may they be replaced with new and better Democrats. You can tell the difference between the two parties when you see who they run in swing districts. The Republicans don't go to the middle. The run teabaggers. The Democrats do and they have run Blue Dogs.

        •  Blue Dogs don't beat Tea Baggers (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Leo Flinnwood

          It works the other way around.  If Democrats don't see the difference between a Blue Dog and a Tea Partier, they don't go to the polls.

          A lot of Dogs got their asses handed to them in 2010.

          The Muslim said "I wished I had met Christ before I met the Christians" - Rev. Marvin Winins

          by captainlaser on Sat Jul 28, 2012 at 08:47:04 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  It's way too late for all that. Obama's presidency (0+ / 0-)

        failed on election night 2010. Repubs are going to win the Senate, not lose the House, and the next 4 years will just be Obama trying to preserve scraps of our economy and civilization from the barbaric right wing.

        The huge defeat in 2010 was incomprehensible in early 2009. Obama engineered it all by himself.

        Two hundred million Americans, and there ain't two good catchers among 'em. --Casey Stengel

        by LongTom on Sat Jul 28, 2012 at 11:38:29 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  So are you out campaigning for Mitt? (0+ / 0-)

          You sure are not inspiring me.

          The Muslim said "I wished I had met Christ before I met the Christians" - Rev. Marvin Winins

          by captainlaser on Sat Jul 28, 2012 at 12:35:41 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I worked for Obama in three states in 2008. (0+ / 0-)

            I was a big booster in the run against Hillary. Of course I hope he can eke out a win against Romney (and I must say that last year I thought if the Repubs nominated Romney, Mitt would win 40 states! I never thought he would get nominated by these right wing freaks, but who could have anticipated the relentlessness of his unprecedented pandering?).

            Unlike most, my gripe with Obama has nothing to do with policy, though I think his policy positions and goals are mostly tepid and only occasionally consequential. His abysmal failure in 2009 was to treat the deservedly moribund Republican party as if they mattered. Dems controlled the House and had a 59 vote majority in the Senate. Republicans had just engineered the worst economic disaster since the Great depression, hard on the heels of an unpopular and endless war of attrition that they started for no reason. The Republicans were FUCKED in 2009.

            Instead of dismissing them with disdain and humorous contempt, Obama acted like they mattered. In a supreme fit of egotism, Obama fancied himself a Lincoln, healing the wounds of the politically polarized nation by reaching out to the party he had beaten. But they weren't a demolished and vanquished army of impoverished southerners. They were a vengeful, wealthy league of oligarchs determined to destroy him and retake power so they could strip every normal American of their little bit of wealth. Obama hadn't destroyed an army in the field, as Lincoln had; he had just won an election, and there was going to be another one pretty soon.

            In 2009 and 2010, Obama was like a moron halfback, running the wrong way down the field to score the winning touchdown for the other team. His incompetence was historic--his defeat in 2010 was the worst off year drubbing of a newly elected president since 1922. Harry Truman took a bad hit in 1946, but recaptured both Houses in 1948. Obama hasn't a prayer of duplicating that. We'll all be very very lucky if he manages to beat Romney. Then 4 years of stalemate with a fascist Congress. What an achievement.

            Two hundred million Americans, and there ain't two good catchers among 'em. --Casey Stengel

            by LongTom on Sat Jul 28, 2012 at 04:18:35 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  "We can’t afford more top-down economics." (9+ / 0-)

    Most people understand that you can't even build a doghouse from the top down...so why do we let them get away with saying it works for the economy?

    this should be easy to easy to illustrate in a short commercial.

  •  Puzzled by the "low taxes" ideology here at dKos (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    maryabein

    I think Republican talking points have invaded this community. Since when am I happy to "have the certainty of knowing that that their [my] income taxes will not go up next year"????

    Republicans want to kill government and starving it for tax income is how you do that. Why is this promoted here?

  •  Why do they keep explaining this so badly? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    captainlaser

    It's almost imperative to explain this proposal as a tax cut for everyone on the first $250,000 of income.

    And then to say that a tiny handful wants an extra tax cut only for people making more $250,000.

    Why does our messaging continue to generate daily facepalm moments?

    ------
    Ideology is when you know the answers before you know the questions.
    It is what grows into empty spaces where intelligence has died.

    by Alden on Sat Jul 28, 2012 at 07:51:58 AM PDT

  •  Heavens to Betsy! (0+ / 0-)

    The Bush Tax Cuts were supposed to be temporary.  If the Democrats can't make a case for letting all the taxes sunset why should I continue to vote for them?  If the politicians just want to go ahead and make them permanent and continue the inequality slide toward a new feudalism then let them do it; just stop calling it a "temporary tax cut" or be honest and make the d**n things permanent.  

    •  Bush didn't intend them to be temporary, he (0+ / 0-)

      just took what he could get, being unable to invoke cloture: a tax cut that passed without being subject to filibuster. It wasn't temporary by design, but by necessity. As a budget bill, it wasn't subject to filibuster, but by Senate rules expired in X years.

      Two hundred million Americans, and there ain't two good catchers among 'em. --Casey Stengel

      by LongTom on Sat Jul 28, 2012 at 11:43:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  There was a great article here on DK (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    palantir, Icicle68, Santa Susanna Kid

    That I cannot find, but here is part of it that I saved:

    The economy didn't just crash under a Republican president, it crashed under Republican policies. It crashed with low taxes. It crashed with deregulated markets. It crashed with huge restrictions on union activity. It crashed with massive cuts in environmental regulations. It crashed with lowered trade barriers. It crashed with big fat Pentagon spending.

    They got what they wanted. They got CEOs with no limits on their wealth. They got banks with no limits on their "creativity." They got trade agreements that guaranteed manufacturing could be moved to the dirtiest, cheapest, most desperate source available. They got massive cuts in capital gains taxes and equally large boosts in the wealth they could pass along in estates. They got everything they said would make us all wealthy. They got record oil and gas drilling. They got record giveaways of public land. They got everything they said would create jobs. They got the middle class to shoulder more, more, more of the burden so that those beautiful job creators would be free to work their magic.

    They can't say the economy crashed because taxes went up, because they didn't. They can't say that the economy crashed because there was a raft of new regulation, because there wasn't. They can't blame it on "union thugs" or Saul Alinsky or the guy who writes Happy Holidays cards at Hallmark. They can't blame it on a president who was elected when the world was already in free fall. Only, of course they do. They say it because they have no choice.

    Only the weak & defeated are called to account for their crimes.

    by rreabold on Sat Jul 28, 2012 at 08:14:53 AM PDT

  •  Well, actually, because water flows (0+ / 0-)

    most easily downhill, we assume that the money rich people accumulate comes down when it trickles. That's wrong.  What actually happens is that whenever money changes hands, that's an opportunity for the highwaymen to divert a small stream or trickle into their own pockets. This trickling stream has various names.  Sometimes it's called "interest;" other times it's referred to as "dividend," as a share that's properly distributed to a contributor. Sometimes this trickle arrives in the form of a guaranteed profit margin on a contractual obligation our public corporations undertake to deliver goods and services indirectly at the behest of bondholders who want to make sure their cohorts in the private sector get a cut of whatever is spent from the public purse.

    Indeed, bondholders make out like bandits by tapping several trickles for themselves. Accumulating money and lending it to governments not only generates dividends, but cuts down on other tax obligations even as the dividend trickle is tax exempt. Which at least suggests that the whole brouhaha over the public debt is a sham.  If there is not deficit, there is no opportunity to lend and no opportunity to collect dividends. Which is why the surpluses in the '90s had to be terminated by Bush. Unfortunately, the halcyon days of 1991, when the U.S. Treasury promised to pay dividends of 8.1% did not return. The Federal Reserve Bank, you see, in a last ditch effort to exercise control over the economy, decided to lower the benchmark interest rate, which had the likely unanticipated effect of depressing all rates, including the certificates of deposit on which the elderly depended for a secure income, and prompting a move to more risky "products" -- money that then poured into mortgages and derivatives, all in pursuit of a higher return by really desperate people. The trickle turned into a flood and then the dam burst.
    Where did all the money go? It evaporated into thin air, just like real water does.

    Willard's forte = "catch 'n' cage"

    by hannah on Sat Jul 28, 2012 at 08:17:35 AM PDT

    •  These metaphors were used by Hoover (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      hannah

      when the head of GM stated "A rising tide lifts all boats".

      Not if you are anchored down in debt.  You just go under.

      The Muslim said "I wished I had met Christ before I met the Christians" - Rev. Marvin Winins

      by captainlaser on Sat Jul 28, 2012 at 08:38:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I don't think that ANYONE really beileves (0+ / 0-)

    in the trickle down theory anymore...The republicans work directly for the very rich, and they do not give a shit about the rest of us.

    I am convinced they passed legislation with no regard to the effects on the majority of Americans, so long as the rich benefit...remember, Boehner is known for passing out checks from lobbyists to GOP house members on the floor of the House while it was in session...He might was well just spit on the constitution.

    The republicans DO NOT CARE about fairness, about the working people, about safety, economy or environment and the certainly do not care for the constitution, except for those  parts that enhance the power of their rich owners.

    They really are anti-American.

    Retired AFSCME Steward and licensed gun carrying progressive veteran.

    by old mark on Sat Jul 28, 2012 at 08:19:53 AM PDT

  •  Nancy Pelosi nailed this (0+ / 0-)

    This tax cut benefits everyone.  The rich get a tax cut on their first $250,000.   Everyone else gets a tax cut.

    Nobody gets a tax cut on money earned over $250,000.

    How could this be more universal?

    The Muslim said "I wished I had met Christ before I met the Christians" - Rev. Marvin Winins

    by captainlaser on Sat Jul 28, 2012 at 08:27:21 AM PDT

  •  Trickle down, trickle down, trickle down (0+ / 0-)

    To 99% of Americans the term trickle down is completely offensive.

    Obama and the Dems should never stop labeling the Mitt campaign as a trickle down horror.

  •  It's so frickin' simple (0+ / 0-)

    1. If low taxes on the 1% create jobs; and
    2. We extended those tax cuts in 2010; then
    3. We should be up to our asses in jobs.

    As #3 clearly has not occurred, and #2 certainly did happen, assumption #1 must be false.

    I know, too complex for teabaggers to understand. Sorry.

    Progressives are defined by who they want to help; Conservatives are defined by who they hate.

    by frsbdg on Sat Jul 28, 2012 at 10:39:31 AM PDT

  •  Mr. President, WE ALL save by extending tax cuts.. (0+ / 0-)

    on the first $200k of taxable income for singles, or $250k for married couples filing jointly.  The benefit isn't to "98% of households and 97% of small businesses."  It's to everyone, 100% of tax filers on a huge chunk of income.

    For most Amercans, $250,000 is an income they can only dream about.  To be scared of saying that it's a good cut-off point, below which we retain the old tax rates established from the 2003 tax cuts is to show lack of leadership and willingness to cave.  

    Mr. President, be strong and lead.  In the debates, you have to position this issue better than you have in today's video.

    (Disclaimer:  I personally feel all Bush era tax cuts should expire as they never should have been enacted into law in the first place, and have already been responsible for trillions of dollars added to our national debt.  But that argument gets nowhere in D.C. due to lack of leadership and political will.)

  •  I dunno. This was weak tea from Obama. Still (0+ / 0-)

    not explaining it well.

    Two hundred million Americans, and there ain't two good catchers among 'em. --Casey Stengel

    by LongTom on Sat Jul 28, 2012 at 11:45:37 AM PDT

  •  They were just as unpopular back in 2010 (0+ / 0-)

    when Obama and his Wall St. party had 60% of the votes in congress --

    and just passed them whole hog, shoving them down our throat because they were too stupid to figure out how to run a midterm campaign against billionaire tax cuts --

    a non-winning strategy, BTW, pushed fervently by the current chair of the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee, someone who never met a rich person she didn't like

    Sen. Patty Murray!

    Yeah, the Democrats will retain control of the Senate with this brilliant strategist at the helm!

  •  Right wing priorities (0+ / 0-)

    There is simply no data to support the supposition that providing disproportionately huge tax cuts for the top 2% of the wealthiest people results in job creation or other significant economic growth.

    Enter the Congressional Republican think tank: since the currently provided huge tax breaks for the wealthy clearly have had no stimulating effect on job growth, let's conclude that we need to further extend said tax cuts indefinitely in order to stimulate job growth.

    In reality, the only result that the GOP truly expects is the one that will occur -- the rich will get richer at the expense of everyone else.

    Suggestions that tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy will stimulate job growth is simply their cover, their disingenuous talking point designed to try to sell their Reaganomic bill of goods to the public. Ultra-wealthy Americans made a major investment in the Republican Party during the 2010 mid-term elections. The GOP is simply carrying out the job for which they have been duly paid.

    Fiscal conservatives are primarily interested in two outcomes:
    1) Increasing the income divide between the wealthiest Americans and the rest of society
    2) Increasing profit margins for corporations via lowered taxes and minimized environmental and workplace regulations

    Reducing unemployment is a secondary issue -- if said corporations opt to use their increased profits to hire additional employees, that's their prerogative.

    Alas, historical evidence overwhelming demonstrates that increased corporate profits do not translate into increased hiring -- increased demand for goods and services does.

    And, of course, increased demand requires increased purchasing power by that subset of society which does the majority of the purchasing, i.e., the middle class.

    Don't pee on my shoe and call it trickle-down economics.

    Let us pause now for a moment of SCIENCE

    by labman57 on Sat Jul 28, 2012 at 04:12:21 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site