Skip to main content

This press conference is from last week, before President Obama unveiled his budget proposal. The tax hike buried inside 'Chained CPI' has been highlighted here on Dkos, but I haven't found anyone reproducing the White House's acknowledgement that yes, indeed it is a tax hike. On the middle class.

The White House has confirmed that President Obama’s forthcoming budget contains an income tax increase on middle class Americans.
During a Friday, April 5 White House press briefing, spokesman Jay Carney replied “I’m not disputing that” when asked if a particular Obama budget proposal would raise income taxes on the middle class.

Here's the relevant part of the transpcript:

MAJOR GARRETT, CBS NEWS/NATIONAL JOURNAL:  “A follow-up on Jim’s question -- you do not and the White House does not dispute that if the chained CPI were put in -- to be put into effect, it would raise taxes on middle-income Americans?”
JAY CARNEY:  The chained CPI, which is a technical adjustment to how we measure the consumer price index --
GARRETT:  But its practical effect would be --
CARNEY:  Again --
GARRETT:  -- to raise taxes on --
MR. CARNEY:  I’m not disputing that, but I’m saying that it is not the President’s ideal policy.  It is in a letter from the Senate Minority Leader requesting that it be part of a negotiation deal.
GARRETT:  All right, I'm just saying you don’t disagree, that those things happen?
CARNEY:  Right, but Major, and --
GARRETT:  -- a tax increase?
CARNEY:  -- let’s be clear, as we’ve said all along, that the offer was on the table.  The President made that offer because he was hopeful that we would see commensurate willingness to compromise from Republicans.  Unfortunately, we haven’t seen that.
So the White House thought that offering a tax increase on the middle class would get the Republicans to compromise.
GARRETT:  And to critics who would say to this President, looking at this proposal, this is the last and possibly worst time -- from their point of view -- to raise taxes on the middle class, inflict benefit cuts on elderly on fixed incomes, even in the pursuit of deficit reduction, the President would say what?
CARNEY:  The President would say that as part of a balanced approach that asks the wealthy and well-to-do and well-connected to contribute their fair share through tax reform, elimination of special tax breaks that average folks don’t get, that we can also include entitlement reforms that allow us to achieve deficit reduction in a balanced way and allow us to continue to invest in our economy in ways that will help it grow and create jobs.
So the way President Obama is justifying a middle class tax hike (at the worst possible time as Major Garrett correctly states (gag), is that the wealthy will pay their fair share? What kind of double speak is that?

And on Sunday the White House spokesman proclaimed Obama wasn't enacting Romney's economic plan. Well, taxes on the middle class, um yes he is.

The rich irony is that you have to get this report from Grover Norquist's website.

And who else is in favor of chained CPI? Paul Ryan.

Representative Paul Ryan says President Obama’s decision to include “chained CPI” in his latest budget is a “notable exception” to the otherwise status quo proposals in the document. And the budget-committee chairman is open to considering the policy.

“I want to take a look at it,” Ryan says of the proposal to change how the government calculates cost-of-living adjustments for Social Security and other federal benefits. “I think the president should be commended for leaning into an issue that is not popular.”

But not to worry! The House will never pass this budget.

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

  •  Oh, cripes. Let's not be dense. (9+ / 0-)

    I can't believe I have to say this, but here goes.

    We have a progressive tax system.  Money earned up to a  a certain dollar amount (in wages anyway), call it $A, are taxed at a certain rate.   Money earned between $A and $B dollars are taxed at a higher rate.   Money earned between $B and $C dollars are taxed at a still higher rate.

    With inflation, the A, B and C amount become lower in real dollars, causing "bracket creep.  So some years ago, they decided to raise the amounts according to CPI.

    So there's two points:
    a) if the chained CPI is lower than the current CPI applied to rates, the A, B, and C will be raised more slowly OVER TIME.  The idea that there is a "tax hike at the worse possible time" ignores that there's not going to be a perceptible tax hike this year, or next year, or the year after than, or the year after that.

    b) The point of indexing the A, B and C to inflation is to keep the real tax burden the same.   If the chained CPI is a more accurate measure, in reality or arguably, then what's the problem?

    On top of that, Obama's proposals for an additional top tax rate means that he's not just proposing a tax hike on the middle class, but a tax hike on the rich, now.  

    Remember?  Balanced?

    That's not even "gun control". It's more like "massacre control".

    by Inland on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 07:08:44 AM PDT

    •  "Balanced" is a Fox News term. (10+ / 0-)

      Shouldn't we include the "Fair" part too?

      Working Americans are struggling. The oligarchy is prospering.

      Draw your own conclusions about a "fair" approach to income inequality.

      When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

      by PhilJD on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 07:14:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Fake fear over middle class tax hikes is Fox News. (5+ / 0-)

        Golly, I remember a time when the purist position on Daily Kos, way, way back at the beginning of the year, to let EVERYONE's income taxes GO UP RIGHT AWAY.

        And then before that, I remember that the purist postion was to claim that the payroll tax holiday was Nefarious Scheme to Destroy Social Security Number 238, only to see people howl when it ended because they realized too late that it was a tax break to the lowest income people.

        I know taxes are confusing and no fun, but that's no excuse.

        That's not even "gun control". It's more like "massacre control".

        by Inland on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 07:46:35 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  not to mention that, currently, (0+ / 0-)

          taxes and entitlements do not use the same COLA indexing; what is with this assumption that chained CPI for entitlements means they'll use chained CPI for taxes?  CCPI only "increases taxes" if it's adopted in the tax code.

          Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say - Grateful Dead

          by Cedwyn on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 08:27:38 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  it's not an assumption nt (0+ / 0-)

            "I'm sculpting now. Landscapes mostly." ~ Yogi Bear

            by eXtina on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 08:36:41 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  then where is the proposal to use CPI for taxes? (0+ / 0-)

              where is that being pushed?  which part of his budget specifies that?

              Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say - Grateful Dead

              by Cedwyn on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 08:39:05 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  if you read this diary it quotes Jay Carney (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                PhilJD, TJ

                acknowledging that yes, it is a tax increase on the middle class. Is that adequate for you?

                "I'm sculpting now. Landscapes mostly." ~ Yogi Bear

                by eXtina on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 08:48:48 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  well, it appears that way (0+ / 0-)

                  but riddle me this:  if this supposed chained CPI-induced tax hike is to broadly affect the middle class, it would have to be the tax code and not just entitlement programs, right?

                  or is the argument that most seniors/entitlement beneficiaries are middle class? but i thought they were on the verge of poverty and cat food?

                  so for this to be a widespread tax hike on the middle class, it would have to be in the tax code, yah?

                  i can't account for what carney said or thought he was answering, but neither can i find in obama's budget where it calls for adopting chained CPI for the tax code.

                  and of course norquist is going to wet his pants about anything that sounds vaguely tax-like; there's a reason he's the only one nattering on about it.  and since when are dems opposed to taxes?

                  Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say - Grateful Dead

                  by Cedwyn on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 09:23:39 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  please read Brooklynbadboy's diary explaining it (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Sunspots, Ginger1

                    it's linked in this diary which you obviously haven't read

                    also this

                    The proposal in question is known as "Chained CPI." The term is a Beltway euphemism for measuring inflation at a different, slower pace.  Many tax and budget items are indexed to inflation, so slowing inflation's measured rate of growth has both spending cut and tax increase implications.
                    On the tax side, all income tax brackets are subject to inflation.  Slowing down the inflation rate slows down the annual rate of growth in all income tax brackets.
                    This means the Obama budget contains a tax increase on 100 percent of middle class taxpayers--anyone who pays the federal income tax.
                    Many other tax provisions--the standard deduction, the personal exemption, PEP and Pease, IRA and 401(k) contribution limits, and many others--are also tied to how CPI is measured.
                    Chained CPI as a stand-alone measure (that is, not paired with tax relief of equal or greater size) is a tax increase and a Taxpayer Protection Pledge violation. Various reports peg the tax increase amount as exceeding $100 billion over the next decade.
                    If it's not raising middle class taxes, then you must be saying that Jay Carney is lying when he admits it WILL

                    "I'm sculpting now. Landscapes mostly." ~ Yogi Bear

                    by eXtina on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 09:31:40 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

        •  Fake Fear on Fake News. Where up is down, and (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          eXtina

          black is white (and white is right!!!)

    •  Translated: taxes go up for the middle class (11+ / 0-)

      We're not stupid and understand what you're saying. But bottom line, taxes go up on the middle class at a time when we can't afford and don't need it. If and when we get out of this recession and are back to near-normal conditions and growth, we can revisit middle class tax increases.

      The real question is what GOOD and NECESSARY purpose CCPI serves that could not be better served via some other, more progressive means, like raising the cap on payroll taxes?

      The answer is NONE, making the rest meaningless.

      "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

      by kovie on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 07:15:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  How do "taxes go up"? (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wishingwell, ericlewis0, Cedwyn, Fury

        There are no taxes involved here at all, as far as I can tell. Sure, benefits go down a bit from lower cost-of-living adjustments, but how do taxes go up?

        PS. I'm not arguing in favor of the policy here, just taking issue with how it's described.

      •  You certainly did NOT understand me. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wishingwell, ericlewis0
        But bottom line, taxes go up on the middle class at a time when we can't afford and don't need it.
        That's the part., as I explained, that's just not true.

        That's not even "gun control". It's more like "massacre control".

        by Inland on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 07:40:57 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Sure they do, however you try to hide it (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TJ, eXtina, Words In Action, greenbell

          For the same income, unless I'm at the poverty level, my taxes go up, because of bracket creep. You're being too clever by half here.

          "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

          by kovie on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 07:43:53 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  No, that's wrong in three ways. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            wishingwell, ericlewis0

            The first way I've already told you about.

            The second way is, it only counts for people who are at an inflection point.  These brackets are pretty wide, since we only have, what, four now, and most people aren't going to move out of one bracket to another even if we never adjust them, much less "at this time".

            Now would be a good time for everyone to do their own taxes and try to understand them.  

            That's not even "gun control". It's more like "massacre control".

            by Inland on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 07:51:16 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I know how taxes work (3+ / 0-)

              And it's not just people at the inflection point. Every dollar one makes PAST that inflection point gets taxed at the higher rate. Why are you continuing to insult everyone's intelligence here with this self-evident dishonesty?

              No one moves from bracket to bracket. Only a part of their income does. EVERYONE knows that (who isn't a RW moron).

              "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

              by kovie on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 07:59:54 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  If you read my original post, you'd (0+ / 0-)

                see that I'm quite aware of how the marginal rates work.

                However, you are not.  Most people still will not have A DOLLAR move from one bracket to the next.   Why?  Because the amounts are still going to be moving, for one, and because most people earn in the bottom bracket or lower and are going to STAY there.  Your hypothetical thirteen cent tax hike (not thirteen per cent, but thirteen cents) isn't even necessarily the case and why are we talking about it? .

                And we're still left with errors one and two: one, the "hike" isn't going to be "at this time", and as far as we know, the chained CPI is an accurate measure of the real value of the dollars and is fair.

                That's not even "gun control". It's more like "massacre control".

                by Inland on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 08:14:08 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  CCPI is NOT an accurate measure of inflation (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  eXtina, Sunspots

                  It's an accurate measure of how much the rich hate the non-rich and old and wish they'd all just die already, a la Grayson.

                  And most people do NOT only earn in the lowest bracket, which is the poverty level and thus by definition is NOT middle class. And who cares if my wages go up and thus offset my higher taxes? My tax rates STILL go up.

                  I'm fine with the top rate going up and the addition of a new top rate. I'm not fine with lower rates going up or brackets coming down or not being adjusted according to the real cost of living increase. This will make peoples' buying power decrease in the middle class, which is all that really matters.

                  "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

                  by kovie on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 08:20:08 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  You're not adding anything. (0+ / 0-)

                    I don't know that chained isn't accurate, you don't tell me why it isn't, you don't show me any tax hike "at this time", and you don't show it to be anything but peanuts.

                    Why are we still talking about this?  The diary is wrong.

                    Boy, I remember the good old days when the party line on Dkos was to let all the tax rates return to Clinton era rates, including on the middle class, and the payroll tax holiday was only for the purpose of destroying SS.

                    I'm all for being careful with middle class taxes, but this?  No.

                    That's not even "gun control". It's more like "massacre control".

                    by Inland on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 08:29:38 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Plenty of diaries and articles written (0+ / 0-)

                      by people far more qualified than me showing how CCPI is inaccurate and unfair. Just because you don't "know" it doesn't mean they're wrong.

                      Please, enough. Your side lost. As always. Reality always wins.

                      "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

                      by kovie on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 08:35:50 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  Accurate... Let's say the Village is right. (0+ / 0-)

                      Let's say, for the sake of argument, that Superlative nee Chained CPI is a "better," more accurate way of calculating the rate of inflation.

                      Who the fuck cares?

                      If, when the present accounting method was decided on, the Dems pulled a fast one on the fiscal conservatives of the day and convinced them to agree to a flawed "inaccurate" system...

                      good for them!

                      Today's Dems should still defend it tooth and nail, the way the Thugs defend their bogus tax cuts, because it puts more money into the pocket of folks who badly need it.

                      The Dems should be all about supporting anything that strengthens the safety net. Period. The wonks can go wonk themselves.

                      When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

                      by PhilJD on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 08:44:17 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

    •  But, everyone in this great country, built with (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      eXtina

      the sweat and blood and tears of our forefathers and foremothers, proud patriots all, who sacrificed for their children and for the country they so loved, wants everything....without paying taxes!  Connect the dots people (not us...them); social security and medicare and medicaid are taxpayer supported programs! Duh!

    •  Yeah, but, what have learned since death panels? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      eXtina

      Apparently nothing.  Up is down, remember?  Complex issues don't poll well.  

  •  So never raising taxes on the middle class (5+ / 0-)

    is no longer operative, as Agnew used to say.

    •  Not unless you raise them on the upper class first (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      eXtina, SpecialKinFlag

      And considering the upper class are doing better than ever I think they can better afford to pay them.

      Or did you not notice that after 6 months of dire predictions of impending doom and gloom from tax increases on the rich, the sky has in fact not fallen.  Taxes on the rich went up and the stock market has broken records since.  The Housing market at the higher ends are doing quite well and second homes markets are doing better.  Luxury items are selling well and the gap between rich and poor is STILL growing.

      I think the taxes on them can go up a bit more.  Once that's done, then maybe we can talk about tax increases for everyone else who has anything left to pay taxes on.

      This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

      by DisNoir36 on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 07:54:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  They were raised on the rich at the beginning (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        eXtina

        of the year...so the middle class is next!

        •  No, they were only returned to their (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TJ, PhilJD

          original levels pre-Bush, and only on $450k and above

          "I'm sculpting now. Landscapes mostly." ~ Yogi Bear

          by eXtina on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 08:58:49 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Not even (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Sunspots

            The rich STILL got HUGE tax breaks from the Clinton rates when you figure that ALL their income below $450,000 is at reduced rates and cap gains and dividends are taxed at lower rates than back then.  

            So how about we start by getting back to the Clinton rates on the rich or at least something comparable before even discussing raising taxes on everyone else.

            This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

            by DisNoir36 on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 09:55:36 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  It's looking more and more like the President (6+ / 0-)

    was played for a fool by the Republicans.

    Now we get the excuse from the White House that Mitch McConnell said, "Say, why don't you include that chained CPI thingy in your budget?" Really?!

    Instead of laughing and saying, "Nice try, Mitch"  the President apparently thought, Wow, that would make me a Very Serious Person willing to make hard choices and sell out the seminal Democratic accomplishments of the 20th Century and infuriate a giant block of Dem voters -can't be more Bi-Partisan Compromisy than that. "Sure, Mitch - consider it done."

    What this reminds me of is when Harry Reid told George W. that it was a completely swell idea for him to nominate Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court and then stood back and let the !@# hit the fan.

    “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR

    by Phoebe Loosinhouse on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 07:16:10 AM PDT

    •  Since entering office it's been the same (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      eXtina

      Republicans: Give us X!!

      Obama: Ok, even though it's the opposite of what my party wants here's X, gimmie X+Y

      Republicans: YOU STINKING COMMIE!!! HOW DARE YOU PROPOSE X??  And Y is entirely out of the question, you Kenyan Marxist Muslim.

      Media: Obama refuses to even attempt bipartisan compromise.

      Lather, rinse, repeat.  He's learned nothing.

      We do not forgive. We do not forget. The whole world is watching.

      by Tracker on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 07:45:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  And we were also told that the White House (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        eXtina, Words In Action

        designed sequester at the behest of the Republicans. They acquiesced to writing their own ransom demand.

        Apparently there is no request by the Republicans too abhorrant to not be fulfilled by the Obama White House.

        This truly is not the normal order of things.

        “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR

        by Phoebe Loosinhouse on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 07:55:32 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Unless he wants what they wants. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      eXtina, SpecialKinFlag, Sunspots

      And I think he wants it.

      Frankly, I'd rather take down Exxon or Goldman Sachs, the way we're taking down RushBeckistan, than elect another "better" Democrat whose going to wind up singing for the bankster choir.

      by Words In Action on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 07:56:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  It's not the first broken promise but... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eXtina, Chi, Words In Action

    ...if the first priority was jobs and unemployment was low in all communities then the hesitancy about raising middle class taxes wouldn't be necessary. We need to push for the infrastructure investments as loudly and vociferously as pushing back on raising costs for average Americans.

  •  My taxes should go up (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eXtina, ban nock, wishingwell, Cedwyn

    as should most middle class taxes, they are historically low. When did the idea take hold we could have a civilization and not pay for it?

    •  Not before taxes on the rich and corporations (5+ / 0-)

      get a lot more fixin'.

      The concentration of wealth is so fucked there is no way the Middle Class should pay a dime more until something sane, healthy and sustainable is put in place in terms of how wealth is distributed and then re-distributed in this country.

      Frankly, I'd rather take down Exxon or Goldman Sachs, the way we're taking down RushBeckistan, than elect another "better" Democrat whose going to wind up singing for the bankster choir.

      by Words In Action on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 07:58:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I can afford higher taxes as well... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      eXtina, Whatithink, milkbone

      and I'd pay them with genuine good cheer, if...

      the increase was used to fix our crumbling infrastructure and improve the lives of working Americans, rather on boy toys to blow up Muslims

      and if

      the sacrifice was "shared" in a way that ensured that the oligarchs would feel the same pinch I do, not in absolute dollars, which obviously matter more to me than to the 1%, but in its effect on our respective lives. Call it "pinchiness."

      When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

      by PhilJD on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 08:26:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The tragedy in all this is that there was some (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Chi, eXtina, Words In Action, PhilJD

    good stuff in the President's budget, like an increase in the minimum wage and tying it to inflation, but all that got lost because the President foolishly insisted on inserting a Republican Trojan Horse that derailed his entire budget and undermines his own credibility perhaps for forever. That's how big of a misstep this was.

    The constantly reviled Progressives (Emo and otherwise) tried to jump up and down and scream about this since the first time he introduced the topic of Social Security in deficit discussions in the summer of 2011.

    He's now hit with being . . . .insincere in his assurances that he would not raise taxes on the middle class and would not cut Social Security and his personal failure on these topics puts the entire Democratic Party in the position of repudiating their leader.

    Instead of following Republican suggestions and falling into Republican dug pits, he should try listening to his own constituency for a change. Why did we win an almost landslide? Mitt Romney and Republican dogma was REJECTED and soundly too. We won, Mr. President - Stop trying to grab defeat from the jaws of victory!

    “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR

    by Phoebe Loosinhouse on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 07:32:16 AM PDT

  •  Relying on Grover Norquist? Seriously? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ban nock, wishingwell, Cedwyn

    Wow

    I ♥ President Barack Obama.

    by ericlewis0 on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 07:46:36 AM PDT

  •  I'm Not Against Tax Increases for Me (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eXtina, ban nock, wishingwell, PhilJD, milkbone

    And people who make a similar income. But we need to bring capital gains taxes into the same schedule as taxes on wages first.

    "I'll believe that corporations are people when I see Rick Perry execute one."

    by bink on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 07:48:18 AM PDT

    •  Need to do more than that (6+ / 0-)

      Raise cap gains AND dividends to the same level as earned income.  For starters.  

      Estate taxes.  Payroll taxes (or rather cap on SSDI).  

      Corporate taxes should be collected.  Close loopholes.  It's a fucking crime that these  corporations are sucking us dry and instead of paying taxes we're paying them in the form of rebates.  

      There are so many other things that can be done BEFORE even considering starving granny to make up the $230 billion in going to the Chained CPI.

      This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

      by DisNoir36 on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 07:59:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  DING DING DING FUCKING DING ^^^^ (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        eXtina, DisNoir36

        Frankly, I'd rather take down Exxon or Goldman Sachs, the way we're taking down RushBeckistan, than elect another "better" Democrat whose going to wind up singing for the bankster choir.

        by Words In Action on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 08:07:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  But I'm granny, and I find it (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        eXtina

        laughable that you're in a frenzy about my annual, sometimes, COLA increase being $3 a month not $5 a month because that $2 I lose buys me a really good bar of chocolate if I have enough in the checking account for groceries.  

        It's the base benefit that needs a genuine COLA scrutiny and NO ONE here stops screaming "chained CPI" loudly enough so they can hear what's really the problem.

        I'm not looking for a love that will lift me up and carry me away. A love that will stroll alongside and make a few amusing comments will suffice.

        by I love OCD on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 09:26:05 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  So the solution is? (0+ / 0-)

          instead of giving you that piddly $3 a month giving you even less?

          I find THAT laughable.

          This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

          by DisNoir36 on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 09:53:15 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  No, that's a really silly response to my comment, (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Sunspots, misslegalbeagle

            and insulting as well.  My comment, please listen, is that the base benefit for far too many of us is not even remotely an amount that human beings can survive on in the current economy.  

            The princely $5 a month increase is not keeping up with the cost of groceries, or gas, or underwear even from the thrift store.  Dropping it to $3 a month means ????.  

            If we want to have a serious discussion about reforming entitlements let's start with increasing base benefits for those of us who, for reasons not entirely our fault, have been low-wage workers for decades.  Or funneling some of the billions we endow on corporate welfare programs into SS welfare programs.  Or negotiating prescription drug prices.  Or raising the minimum wage so significantly that people on the bottom of the ladder can still retire with some security.  

            Stuff like that might make a difference.  Your inability to respond to my comment with some common sense understanding of what I'm saying is fairly typical of what I've been getting here for 3 days.  I'm left with a sad conviction that most of the screaming about chained CPI does not come from people who understand or care about the reality of SS, it comes from people who really like hating on politicians.  So why are they here, on a political blog?    

            I'm not looking for a love that will lift me up and carry me away. A love that will stroll alongside and make a few amusing comments will suffice.

            by I love OCD on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 10:17:47 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  A silly response to a stupid post maybe (0+ / 0-)

              tough shit if you're insulted.  

              While I understand what you're saying, I repeat the solution is not Chained CPI.  You're arguing for more benefits?  Support Mark Begich.  He has a plan for just that.

              The problem is you're attacking us for screaming about Chained CPI because you feel we don't understand.  In reality it is you who has an inability to understand.  If we don't make noise and stop this push to cut SS benefits by the DEMOCRATS then you can fucking kiss SS goodbye because the Republicans have been hell bent on destroying the program for 75 years now. We're trying to stop SS from being cut further and you're sitting there basically calling us idiots because we should be talking about increasing benefits instead.  Get with the fucking program.  You're living in lala land while we're confronting reality.  Oh and I'm here to prevent more cuts from happening because I DO understand SS, more than you may think.

              So why the fuck are you here?  To stir shit and divide people who actually give a rats ass about saving a vital program from further cuts.  Because it's so constructive to discuss increasing benefits and call us haters when OUR president just offered up cuts to SS.  Hey maybe we can discuss going to Walmart HQ and picketing them to offer up paid sick leave, maternity leave and 2 weeks paid vacation time to their employees.  Because we all know that's what they really deserve even though they're cutting hours.

              This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

              by DisNoir36 on Fri Apr 12, 2013 at 05:46:33 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  It's not the thought that counts. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eXtina, Klusterpuck

    If it doesn't pass, it never happened.

    This is not the budget you are seeking.
    (Obi Wan hand gesture...)

    Frankly, I'd rather take down Exxon or Goldman Sachs, the way we're taking down RushBeckistan, than elect another "better" Democrat whose going to wind up singing for the bankster choir.

    by Words In Action on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 07:54:23 AM PDT

  •  I'd love a tax hike (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Words In Action, eXtina

    That would mean I make enough to pay taxes.

    "middle class" covers a lot of ground.

    How big is your personal carbon footprint?

    by ban nock on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 07:58:38 AM PDT

    •  I wouldn't think of asking you for one (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      eXtina

      until the current policies for distributing and re-distributing wealth in this country are much saner, healthier and more sustainable.

      Frankly, I'd rather take down Exxon or Goldman Sachs, the way we're taking down RushBeckistan, than elect another "better" Democrat whose going to wind up singing for the bankster choir.

      by Words In Action on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 08:01:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The current system is set up like a Matrix, using (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eXtina, PhilJD, Klusterpuck, Sunspots

    the 98% to feed the 2%, but mostly the .1%.

    Centrists may be okay with that. I'm not.

    It's insane, unhealthy and unsustainable.

    With 40+% 16 and over unemployed, and another 40-50% underpaid, things are going to get very hot this summer.

    You might want to stay locked up in your gated communities, centrists. Stock up on food and drink now.

    Frankly, I'd rather take down Exxon or Goldman Sachs, the way we're taking down RushBeckistan, than elect another "better" Democrat whose going to wind up singing for the bankster choir.

    by Words In Action on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 08:05:50 AM PDT

  •  It SUX (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eXtina, Sunspots

    and what's worse is it gets overlooked because of all the attention on SS cuts.

    Paul Ryan praised this in an interview with NPR - it will be broadcast on tomorrow's Morning Edition program.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site