General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWill President Obama really help the middle class this time (talking about the tax cut extension)?
| 12 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited | |
| Yes | |
3 (25%) |
|
| No | |
6 (50%) |
|
| I don't know | |
3 (25%) |
|
| 0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided. | |
| Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll |
|
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
tawadi
(2,110 posts)Listening to him speak right now.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Talking about the tax thing, cite an instance where President Obama DIDN'T really help the middle-class.
tawadi
(2,110 posts)Hope I am included in the 98% and not the 2%.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)How does that not help the middle class?
marybourg
(12,645 posts)a year and they all know who they are. They aren't going to be chosen at random.
karynnj
(59,507 posts)If you are in the top 2% you are most assuredly not the middle class - and you will get a tax cut on the first $250,000 of TAXABLR income.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)the middle class terribly. Propping up the banks and especially the real estate fraud has utterly devastated the middle class. There's three of the big ones, and more than the $$$, although that is really beyond true comprehension, by refusing to alter the course of the nation he may have delivered the coup de grace to the middle class.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)since that is what we are talking about.
To argue that the tax compromise (extending the tax cuts for everyone) hurt the middle-class, one would also have to argue that allowing the tax cuts to expire on everyone (middle and working class, and wealthy alike) ... since those were the only two options on the table ... would have been less harmful to the middle class.
Right?
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)off today had the Bush cuts expired. It also would have allowed the Democrats to bring the UI extension into focus and that could have been helpful in the election they were destined to lose anyway.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)That revenue would not have forestalled the gop's mission to cut social spending, nor would it have gone to "cut the deficit.
But what it WOULD have done was contribute to Americans missing meals, having their houses and cars repossessed and severely reducing middle and working class demand.
safety
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)making $40+K. That is just ridiculous.
The people for whom that little money over a year would make the difference to don't enter into this issue because they make so little. The big taxes we pay are things like FICA and various sales taxes and fees.
Any more republican talking points you want to try to make?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)that the extension compromise that was reached, last go round, was mainly about extending the tax cuts for the middle/working class AND EXTENDING UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION? That is the "difference between eating and starvation" that I was speaking about.
Now to the republican talking points that you mention ... Why would you wish to claim that the deficit/national debt SOOOOO important now, at this moment in history; despite what Doctoral Lettered and Nobel Prize winning economists, such as Krugman and Reich, and even republican, like Frum, insist.
Maybe you know something they don't? If so, please share!
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)Our government should be spending like there was a global economic meltdown in progress, but this administration is too wedded to republican ideology to fight for what is needed.
And the UI benefits are expiring, just as we told them, in time for the election. Ironically, had the administration pursued the kind of dramatic domestic spending they should have there would be far less need for the federal UI funds. Framed correctly, doing what is right but unpopular is a great quality in a leader.
But, this thread is about the tax cuts.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)with your expanded argument, i.e., agressive spending, I am trying to decide whether you are being disingenuous, i.e., adding to the argument on the fly, or merely making a fallacious argument, i.e., there is nothing that indicates an ending of the tax cuts for the wealthy would have moved the gop-controlled House to fund any Presidential initiative for such spending.
I suspect your next response will help me decide.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)That is President Obama's greatest mistake. Just as he was warned and has transpired, we are living exactly what he was told would be the result of his insistence on pissing away two years, and our futures, trying to make people that hate him, like him.
Has he learned the lesson? Who knows. The job is much harder today and he has no capital, no allies, and precious little credibility. Add to this that he's in campaign mode, and I wouldn't bet on his ability to accomplish much of anything good in his second term. Hope I'm wrong, we'll see.
There are several reports, they were all over DailyKos and I'm sure they're here as well, that show what the differences would be today had the cuts been allowed to expire. We would still be in big trouble, but significantly better off in several areas especially in the credibility department. Hell one guy alone escaped several hundred million in taxes by dying after the extension. It's not the debt or even the deficit, it's the lack of funding for existing programs, it's the lack of help for overburdened state budgets and the current lack of capacity to do much of anything because the money simply isn't there while demand continues to outstrip supply.
Every time somebody that can pay taxes doesn't, it hurts all of us. In the 40's, the U.S. starting with almost nothing, financed conquering the world through corporate taxes and selling war bonds, now we expect the poorest to pay more and the richest to pay nothing. What could possibly go wrong with that?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)You mistake his GOVERNING IN A DEMOCRACY with "trying to make someone like him."
I suspect, you and I both know that President Obama couldn't give 2 sh!ts whether the gop "Liked" him, or not; but what he attempted (as all democracy loving American should/should have applaud(ed)) was to govern through compromise ... and in the alternative, to build the case where a majority of the American electorate could plainly see who was working and whom was obstructing.
AND IT WORKED!
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)He accomplished passing a republican insurance plan with no republican support.
He worsened the nation's insolvency by pouring inconceivable sums of our wealth into propping up a thoroughly corrupt system that has not only failed to perform its function, but has actively worked against it for generations. And he did so with no obligation from them.
One of the nearly infinite (and obvious) number of consequences of this was to both arm his opponents and cripple his own ability to do anything substantial to help the victims of the criminals he saved. He has, with a lot of help from Democratic Party leadership, accomplished what the GOP has failed to do time and again.
The only questions that remain are how much of our SS will he give to the banksters and his motivation.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)1) 30 million people will be covered; pre-existing conditions are no longer grounds for exclusion, seniors are paying significantly less for their medicines; the 80/20 rule is in effect, and paying rebates.
The fact that it was/is a republican plan ... so what? It is better than what we had AND most importantly, it was doable.
2) (It worked because) for the first time, a majority of the electorate (likely voter) see the gop as the obstruction that they are. This would not have been possible; but for, President Obama's constant reaching out.
This advances our ability to get MORE done, if these voters vote their knowledge; rather than their party.
As an African-American, who was alive during the de jure jim crow, I recognize that progress is often frustratingly slow; but, progress is progress. And that progress is ONLY accomplished through doing whatever doable things that are out there.
Now ... we can argue about what is/was doable; but if we do, I must insist that you explain HOW your alternative was doable.
Example: I do not want to hear anything about Presidential leadership because the president does not control the law-makers. He can ask, argue, cajol and even threaten; but at the end of the day, he does not write the legislation, nor does he get a vote.
Likewise, I do not what to hear anything about scraping the current corrupt system and install a single-payer/national healthcare system, as that is but a distant, and with the current legislation, undoable thing.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)But pretending that it does more for the little people than it does for the corporations is just fantasy.
I don't know where you are getting that anything like a majority see and care about the GOP obstructionism. What we have here in "blue" Las Vegas is approval of their obstructionism, and we're supposed to be a swing state.
I'll be happy to talk about the rest on another thread, but since we've gone far afield from the topic here I'll wait for another post on that topic. Please PM me if you post one.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)the words of the other.
I never said, and do not maintain that it does/did more for the little people than it does for the corporations. In fact, so long as I (me, mine and those in my boat) get something more than I had, I really don't care what others (including corporations) get ... especially when what I get is the only thing that could be got.
Here:
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/12/22/rel17e.pdf
and, here:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/14/poll-blame-still-goes-to-bush-for-bad-economy/
And several other places, if one choses to look.
But yes ... we are far afield.
Peace
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)You are happy to sacrifice your's and your family's rightful due in order to get just a tiny fraction of it. And since you didn't mention it at all, I can only assume that you are also willing to screw everybody else in order to get that small portion of what's yours.
We're both voting for the President. All I want is for more people like you to look at the trade we are forced to make, and for how insignificant that portion of the rights you are trading your allegiance for.
Evil is evil. Proportion and implementation may make it more bearable, but it is still evil.
bornskeptic
(1,330 posts)My wife and I make about $50,000 between us, and we got about $1800 from it in 2011. The average minimum wage worker got about $600 - $300 from the Bush tax cuts and $300 from the payroll tax holiday.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)If the middle class tax cuts stay, most likely so will the tax cuts for the rich and wealthy.
It's an election year. People say shit that will get them elected.
Actions speak louder then words.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Tax cuts for the wealthy, along with tax cuts for the middle-class do not hurt the middle-class.
Johonny
(20,928 posts)Cutting taxes on wealthy starve government programs. The conservatives in government then cut wealth form programs and government jobs. Government jobs are a gateway to the middle class and all those programs that help he poor, well the poor use 100 $ of their money given to them. Money spent in our economy that does actually stimulate the economy that keeps middle class employed.
Cutting taxes on the wealthy also keeps the wealthy from reinvesting their money back into their business to avoid being taxed on it. It also gives them a strong incentive to give themselves huge bonuses now while the tax rate is good. Both things help to prevent middle class job growth and keeps wages flat.
Just about any "gain" the middle class has received from these small tax cuts has been lost due to unemployment, lack of salary increases, cuts in benefits etc... meanwhile the wealthy are getting more and more wealthy as the economy stagnates as a large percentage of the GDP goes to a small few that can't possibly spend it all. That hurts the middle class.
Stinky The Clown
(67,834 posts)quinnox
(20,600 posts)will be worked out. Somehow, the rich folks will get their tax cuts once again. I guess I have just gotten that cynical.
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)the wealthy in order to help the middle class once again, or whatever the excuse was last time.
SoutherDem
(2,307 posts)If the Republicans won't agree to allow the tax cuts expire on the rich isn't Obama's only choice to either deal,give in or allow all to expire?
If so, which is more important, keeping the cuts for those making under $250K, or getting rid of the cuts for those making over $250K?
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)bornskeptic
(1,330 posts)Raising additional revenue and giving it to bondholders will take us in exactly the wrong direction - the same direction that Europe has been taking. In a weak economy, austerity sucks whether it's the Republican version (cutting spending) or the Democratic version (raising taxes).
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)counter-productive. My answer was to SoutherDem's reply. Increasing revenues through reversing the current flow of wealth to the top is vital to anything we hope to accomplish.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)and that's what I was trying (rather inartfully) to express, up thread.
It seems that many here want to tax the wealthy, even if that means taxing themselves.
And make no mistake, without big Democratic majorities (and that makes Democrats willing to vote Democratic) in both the House and Senate, there can be no extension for the middle-class AND none for those $250K and over.
At best, there may be a compromise of extending for those under $1 million ... a number that everyone, even most rank and file gopers can agree is wealthy.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)OTOH, there is no alternative, so what does it matter?
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)because he helped the middle class last time, especially the upper middle class.
What he failed to do, what he refused to do, was tax the rich.
So the only proper answer to "Will Obama help the middle class this time?"
Is "Duh, of course, just like he did last time."
Whereas the question "Will Obama tax the rich this time?"
My feeling is - probably not.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)My feeling is - probably not.
The President does not have the power to tax anyone ... He does, however, have the power to sign, or veto, whatever the House and Senate pass on to him.
So the proper questions are:
"Will President Obama sign legislation, if any, that helps the middle-class?" and "Will President Obama sign legislation, if any, that increases taxes on the wealthy?"
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)Obama was the one who worked out the surrendomise that got passed last time, which was 98% surrender and 2% compromise.
So he has considerable power to affect legislation.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)that the "surrendomise" that President Obama worked out came only after 2+ years of nothing from Congress, despite his request that Democrats introduce legislation.
Was your forgetting that little matter an oversight?
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)set of tax cuts that will be retroactive to 1/1/2013.
The (R)s can't vote against a tax cut. We just need to have the balls to let these expire first.
savalez
(3,517 posts)Right? Otherwise John Boner's just going to do more stupid stuff. I doubt he will bring up a bill that only cut's middle class taxes.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)We can run on this again in 2014 if that is what they want. And in 2016 too for that matter. As long as they hold the lower 98% hostage for the top 2% we can run on it.
sad sally
(2,627 posts)cuts bill would take to make it thru the house & senate? The last major tax reform bill took two years and ended up with box-wine drunk Sen Bob Packwood's pockets filled with little notes that HAD to be included in the tax legislation.
Maybe others have great faith in the current or maybe even some newly elected members of congress to work with the re-elected President, but call me one of little faith - I don't see anything but more of the same only worse happening. Forced and drastic austerity for the majority of Americans will be the new way of life.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)Let the (D)s vote to cut taxes for the middle and lower income brackets while the (R)s vote against those cuts.
If they want rope then we should give them some rope.
Autumn
(45,120 posts)Because they sure as fucking hell weren't helped when he extended his tax cuts for the wealthy and middle class last time.
Bettie
(16,139 posts)I really, really do.
handmade34
(22,759 posts)President Obama will do what he can... the obstruction from the Republicans is the only reason he may not be as helpful
vi5
(13,305 posts)...cutting taxes being the way to help the middle class.
We've already lost when the debate is over who loves tax cuts more (just for which people). That discussion starts from a framework of saying that tax cuts, rather than infrastructure spending, rather than spending on schools and roads and teachers and workers are what is going to stimulate the economy and help the middle class and the working poor. That tax cuts rather than expanding medicare and medicaid and social security are what is going to help the middle class. Those tax cuts come at the expense of a lot of other very important things that also help the middle class.
When we agree to the terms of the debate being that tax cuts are best and tax cuts are what most help the middle class then we've already lost and so has the middle class.
boston bean
(36,224 posts)springs eternal. I hope they do what they say.
Spoonman
(1,761 posts)That's how it's been for years, and that's how it's always going to be.
Politicians do not give two shits about the middle class, they only care about themselves and the big money donors!
progressivebydesign
(19,458 posts)Where am I? Am I on DU???
