The House, with leader Nancy Pelosi, showed some backbone today and pushed through a measure to extend the middle class tax cuts. The measure passed 234-188. This symbolic vote was for show, we all can agree to that because it'll go nowhere in the Senate. But what an oh so sweet vote it was! The republicans came out seething and slobbering all over themselves. Boehner called the vote chicken crap, nonsense and political games playing! HA!! YES BONEHEAD, but it was so much fun for us liberals to watch! House Democrats wanted the American people to see the GOP vote NO for the middle class, but this vote was also to send a message to President Obama. That is a good thing...
“House Democrats are taking a very different negotiating strategy
than President Obama,” says Julian Zelizer, a congressional historian at
Princeton University in New Jersey. “They are starting with what they
want before negotiating with Republicans. President Obama tends to give
things away before he negotiates.”
“It’s not just political theater," he adds. Democrats are "trying
something different than we’ve seen over the last two years, which is to
stand firm before the negotiations."
All revenue bills start in the House, so the whining by the GOP is just pathetic. It's what comes next that will have the liberals in the country whining and complaining. I don't see this ending anywhere near where we want. In the end Democrats and Obama will cave.....ANY vote short of letting the tax cuts to the rich expire is caving. It makes me sick to my stomach....
UPDATE: Harry Reid says there will be 2 separate votes tomorrow, Saturday. One for the middle class tax cuts and one for the richest bastards tax cuts... Can't wait! ;-)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
36 comments:
the house and senate dems don't only have to stand up to the rethugs, but to obama as well. when he gives away the farm before the negotiating has even begun, then they need to tell him that kowtowing to the rethugs may be okay with him, but not with them. he can act the statesman, but the other dems should act like they're in a street fight.
I'm not anti-rich. And under normal circumstances, I wouldn't at all object to them keeping more of their own money (provided, of course, that the earned it legally). But, clearly, these AREN'T normal circumstances. We have a 14 trillion dollar debt and an increasing realization that tax cuts to the very wealthy are NOT stimulative (Alan Greenspan has basically admitted as much). While I'm not exactly a humongous admirer of Ms. Pelosi, I do have to say that, yes, on this one, she probably did the right thing. Get the Republicans on record, send the partisan measure to the Senate, and, yes, let the American public decide on it.
I particularly love the notion that the rich will spur on the economy if their taxes are kept low enough. It's sure worked well so far.
Good for Pelosi and I hope this is a signal that the Dems are growing some spine.
We can only wish nonnie. Democrats do admit they wish their leaders were as brazen as the thugs...
Yay Will! When and if there should ever come a time when Boehner or McConnell, or any GOPPER did something smart I will say something nice about them. (I can't fathom that happening anytime soon)
Welcome Murr!
Oh yea it's worked out just as they planned! LOL.
BTW, Check out Murrs blog, it's a good one!
She's a good woman Leslie, but somehow I'm just not that encouraged at this point. I'll give them this month to see how strong the dems can be. After that it's rough sailing for the next 2 years. I believe sad times are ahead for us all.
I wouldn't at all object to them keeping more of their own money
This is a tired, utter bullshit talking point. They don't play with "their" money; the tax code is designed for them to rake it in for doing absolutely nothing, and that's exactly what most of them do.
The millions of dispossessed Americans who have seen all of THEIR wealth transferred to the rich puts the lie to this tired talking point once and for all.
Boehnhead's "chicken crap" remark is proving to be the enduring quote of the week -- the shit heard 'round the world. Let's hope it comes back to haunt, or at least peck, him.
The Democrats have finally framed the issue correctly, presenting the tax cuts for the wealthy and the tax cuts for middle- and lower-income people as two cleanly-separated issues.
Interesting that the much-maligned Democrats of Congress are actually showing more spine than Obama is on this.
A right-wing troll will show up with a "why do you hate the rich" comment in 5... 4... 3... 2...
To say, JR, that most people who earn over $250,000 a year do "absolutely nothing" is one of the most idiotically stereotypical and vacuous statements that I've ever heard from a leftist. You have no idea at all what it takes to run a business and apparently think that the East German model of the 1970s is superior to a free market economy with SOME regulations. You're to the left of Bernie Sanders, for Christ.
I say let the taxes increase on the top 2%. In fact, I would increase them more than just letting the Bush tax cuts expire. Then, use the money to pay unemployment benefits which are a much, much greater stimulus to the economy than the tax cuts would have been.
It is a win-win for 98% of the American people. That's good enough for me.
Will said... To say, JR, that most people who earn over $250,000 a year do "absolutely nothing"...
The wealthy don't do "absolutely nothing", but they are grossly OVERpaid. And the money the wealthy overpay themselves comes from the workers who are UNDERpaid. This is why wages have been flat for the last 30 years while productivity has been rising.
There are more workers than jobs available... it's why they can get away with paying workers the lowest amount possible. This is one of the largest shortcomings of capitalism.
And it is why we have a PROGRESSIVE INCOME TAX! Our government has an OBLIGATION to use the tax code to "redistribute" the money unfairly acquired (I would use the word "stole") by the wealthy.
You've got things totally backward Will. "Under normal circumstances" I would NOT let the wealthy keep more of "their own money" because that is PRECISELY why we're in the mess we're in. Jolly Roger is correct in asserting that the "their own money" talking point is bullshit.
I'm not anti-rich either. We just need measures to keep capitalism from getting out of control. It's a system that favors the wealthy. The government CAN and SHOULD do what it can to make the system as fair as possible.
IMO It's just common sense. Do you want to live in a country where a small percentage of the population controls most of the wealth?
There are a lot of reasons, wd, why we got into this mess; 2 idiotically thought out wars/occupations (both put on the frigging credit card), the American people as a whole living well beyond their means, an expensive drug prescription program (also put on a credit card), overspending by both parties, lack of effective regulation starting in the Clinton administration and continuing throughout the Bush regime, a PC notion that EVERYBODY should own their own home, the allowing Fannie and Freddie to run amok, a shitty education system that has allowed other countries to surpass us in innovation, etc.. I would certainly put allowing hard working doctors, lawyers, restaurant owners, etc. the capacity to keep a little of THEIR OWN MONEY way, WAY down the list.
Will said... I would certainly put allowing hard working doctors, lawyers, restaurant owners, etc. the capacity to keep a little of THEIR OWN MONEY way, WAY down the list.
Will, I could not disagree with you more.
And I find your final comment absurd in the extreme. You speak as if Liberals wish to tax the moderately well off at levels approacing 100 percent. I never suggested any such thing.
What I object to is 20% of the population holding 85% of the nation's wealth.
They were able to accomplish this because the system is rigged. NOT for the reasons you mention. Those are all symptoms, not the cause.
We went to war because a usefull idiot was convinced it would be help the US economy (and his rich cronies). People are living "beyond their means" because when you don't pay people a fair wage the only way the economy can continue to grow is to encourage people to take on more debt.
Fannie and Freddie didn't "run amok", they were privatized and fell prey to the greedy execs who ran them the same as the other investement houses that had to be bailed out.
What you fail to realize is that this was all a scam designed by the wealthy to transfer more of our wealth to them. I believe we can lay some of the blame for this mess at the feet of people like you who believe taxing the wealthy isn't necessary.
I never said that liberals wanted to tax the moderately well off at 100%. Total straw dog - right off the bat. I was strictly pointing out that some people who make over $250,000 DO work hard for their money and DIDN'T benefit from a "rigged system". And that I DON'T particularly take a boat-load of pleasure in penalizing them because the idiots in Washington don't know how to manage money......You give me stats. How 'bout I give you some? The top 1% makes 20% of the adjusted gross income. But they pay 38% of the income tax. The top 5% makes 34.7% of the AGI. But they pay 58.7% of the income tax. The top 10% makes 45.8% of the income. But they pay 69.9% of the income tax. Sure, maybe they could (and should because of the deficit - I admitted that early on) pay a little bit more. But to say that the rich are getting some sort of free ride is ridiculous.
And WHERE did I say that taxing the wealthy isn't necessary. I've never said that (straw man #2). In fact, I said in my first comment HERE how I felt that we needed to have the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy expire because of the deficit and their lack of stimulating effect on the economy. I just don't have as much pleasure as you apparently do at taking other people's money......I mean, I don't how much you pay in taxes, dude. But me - I write 2 big fat juicy checks to my town every year. And what do I get in return for this - shitty schools, shitty cops, and roads that are rarely, if ever, plowed properly. Excuse me if I'm not entirely trusting of the government.
Time Magazine (which I tend to believe more than I do far-left and far-right web sites), in their "25 People to Blame for the Economic Crisis", put "the American consumer" on that list. Throughout the 90s and 00s, we, the public a) put way too much on our credit card (no, not food, electronics, clothing, etc.), consistently bought houses that we couldn't afford, and c) invested in way too much speculation. And, no, the frigging boogie-man didn't make us do this (some mysterious corporate boogie-man). We did it!!
Will ~ You are using logic in your comments, and that just won't fly on this blog. The class envy and progressive (socialist) ideology will not let them see any truth in your argument. You may as well talk to your walls at home.
They want the rich to pay for their mortgages, their student loans, their credit card balances, and their health care, and that is final!
That's a really dumb comment Linda, and if I may speak for Will on this one, he is not a fanatic wingnut like you so go home to your blog please.
There is NO class envy in the lefts argument. It is about tax code fairness. People like Linda have no clue, they just point fingers and name call because they can't seriously defend the GOPs need to take care of billionaires. I think the billionaires are doing fine without needing governments help. HEY... isn't that funny, the right wants small government but they want government giving millions to billionaires!!! LOLOL
Linda, Sue - we make an interesting triumvirate, don't we. LOL I just get frustrated sometimes. I made what I thought was fair, thoughtful, conciliatory, and bipartisan comment. And I get jumped on by 2 partisans because I didn't say it exactly the way that they would have wanted me to. Again, I am FOR letting the tax-cuts on the wealthy to sunset. Yes, I would prefer a compromise that raises the threshold to $300-400,000 - this to include ALL small businesses and to take away the Republican talking point (possibly indexed to geography as CDM suggests) but I do think that we have to do something to lower the debt/deficit. Spending cuts alone just won't do it......P.S. I'd like to have you both over at my place for a discussion ANY TIME.
Chuck Schumer wanted to raise the limit to 1 million, I guess the thugs voted no on that too?? I missed the votes!!
That, Sue, is a MORE THAN FAIR compromise (Governor Rendell having made a similar suggestion). The Republicans have already/seemingly over-read their "mandate".
of course they over read their "mandate"! There never was a mandate, all this talk about the people have spoken and the dems went too far left for the country is a lie. The dems caving and not going far enough with their agenda is what infuriated the voters.
Time Magazine, in blaming the American people for taking out home loans they couldn't afford, is only technically correct. Time magazine identifies who took out the loans, but not who pushed them to do so. You are correct when you say it wasn't a "mysterious corporate boogie-man". It was the bush administration and Alan Greenspan.
The housing bubble wasn't an accident. It was created by design. Why? Because there wasn't enough demand to keep the economy growing. Which is why the administration encouraged people to use their homes as ATMs and borrow money to buy stuff and keep demand on par with supply. Instead of taking action to ensure people's wages increased -- which would have been the sensible way to balance the supply and demand equation.
You can read all about it here if you wish. I think Economist Ravi Batra does an excellent job in explaining exactly what happened.
Also, most "hard working doctors, lawyers, restaurant owners, etc.", at least the ones that I know, are incorporated. They only pay income tax on the salary they draw from their corporation, the rest of the money stays in the corporation and corporate taxes are low. We are talking about personal income tax. Nothing is being said about corporate taxes.
So, "hard working doctors, lawyers, restaurant owners, etc." have it sweet...and I don't hear many of them bitching about taxes.
Excerpts from the Ravi Batra article I linke to above...
"...Greenspan focused on company profits and labor productivity as the main engines of economic growth and prosperity. He believed that high profits generate high employment and high wages lead to joblessness. ...this view is the sole cause of most of the economic travails afflicting the world.
A healthy economy requires that there is a balance between supply and demand. Here supply means the production of goods and services offered to entire society, and demand means society’s demand for such things. Thus, economic balance requires that [supply equals demand]. Without this balance, there is either high unemployment or high inflation. The main source of supply is labor productivity, whereas the main source of demand is the real wage...
If the real wage fails to grow as fast as productivity, then over time, a wage-productivity gap develops and [Supply is less than Demand]. [Instead of instituting economic policies that would lead to a rise in wages, Greenspan and the bush administration decided to go another route... they decided the way they would balance the supply and demand equation would be by creating new debt].
It is an artificial way, and cannot be used forever, but it can postpone the problem for a long time, while the potential economic imbalance builds and cumulates".
BTW, I didn't make any straw man arguments Will. You said "I would certainly put allowing hard working doctors, lawyers, restaurant owners, etc. the capacity to keep a little of THEIR OWN MONEY". I don't know how high the tax would be to leave these poor doctors and lawyers with only "a little" after taxes, but I'm certain the tax rate would have to be quite high -- which is why I said, "You speak as if Liberals wish to tax the moderately well off at levels approaching 100 percent". I stand by my statement. Maybe you should have clarified what you meant instead of making false straw man argument accusations?
The system is rigged, so I don't know why you placed that fact in between quote marks. BTW these individuals already are receiving the bush tax cut on their first $250,000 in income -- and will continue to receive it if the Democratic plan is adopted.
In regards to your stats regarding how much of the tax burden the wealthy already pay... I say "so what"?? If your econmic group has captured most of the income and holds most of the wealth -- it only makes sense that you pay most of the taxes. Also, asking those in the upper income bracket to pay their fair share in taxes isn't "penalizing" them. It's called a progressive income tax -- and it used to "penalize" the wealthy a LOT more until Reagan. I find your continued whining about "penalizing" the wealthy to be utterly ludicrous, considering the fact that we're ONLY talking about going back to Clinton era tax rates and NOT pre-Reagan rates (which is what we really ought be doing).
When I said that you believe that taxing the wealthy isn't necessary -- I meant at a higher rate (not that you believe they shouldn't be taxed at all). You said that under "normal circumstances" they should be "allowed" to keep more of "their own money". When did these "normal circunstances" you speak of occur? Are you referring to the time when we didn't have a huge national debt? FYI, that was when the top tax rate was 70 percent.
The huge national debt began to grow when the tax rates were cut to the bone. Coincidence? I don't think so. Thanks, Ronnie!
The loosened lending started under Clinton, was strongly advocated by Barnie Frank, and the leader of Fannie and Freddie was a fellow by the name of Franklin Raines (Mr. Obama's buddy). To say that this was strictly a partisan matter is, well, itself partisan......How do you "ensure" that people's wages increase? The government (not unless you're talking about the old East Germany) can't do that. Oh, wait a minute. You're talking about another government entitlement, huh? Never mind......"Those poor doctors and lawyers"? Gee, I can't tell if that's a crapload of sarcasm or jealousy.
Oh, and as for Mr. Reagan, I have a consistent record of criticizing many aspects of his record - deficits, especially. That dog, in other words, just don't hunt.
I'm also very amused by the almost schizophrenic tactics that the left engages in. Most of them make a big deal over corporate salaries. But then you have this Critter guy criticizing these doctors and lawyers for taking a salary that ISN'T BIG ENOUGH (that they instead plow it back into the "corporation"). Oy vay......And the corporate income tax isn't "low". It's 35% (not including what the individual state nails them on), and unless these small to medium law firms are hiding their money overseas, I think that, yeah, those profits are getting taxed pretty good......And, really, who are you guys to say that ANYBODY is "overpaid"? Those are YOUR value judgments and it's pretty ballsy to so casually foist them onto the rest of us......The top 1% makes 20% of the adjusted gross income and they pay 38% of the income tax. That's nearly a 2:1 ratio. THAT was my point. Yes, I've conceded that maybe they need to pay more now because of the deficits, etc. but, really, do we have to get all orgasmic about it.
Let's take a look at Medicare, for example. Did you know that Medicare fraud has recently surpassed drug dealing as the #1 criminal activity in South Florida? It's basically become a check writing exercise. This is what the government does with our money. Can you at least see how some people aren't quite as gun-ho as you guys are about feeding the beast? The post office, Amtrack, etc.......Yes, obviously, there were unscrupulous lending practices and unscrupulous lenders. But the American people absolutely deserve some of the blame. You don't buy something that you can't afford and you definitely get a lawyer to help you read the fine-print. Personal responsibility, for Christ sakes......But seriously, if you want to blame literally EVERYTHING on George Bush, go ahead, be my guests. It obviously makes you feel better.
Gee Will, I seem to hit a nerve. Touchy aren't we. LOL
In the words of John Belushi, "Sorry."
Will said... Did you know that Medicare fraud (yada yada yada) if you want to blame literally EVERYTHING on George Bush, go ahead...
I believe you are correct to suggest that GWB bears much responsibility for the rampant fraud present in the Medicare system. An article I found on the internets says that "during the Bush administration, Congress committed scant new funds to combat fraud".
Will said... But then you have this Critter guy criticizing these doctors and lawyers for taking a salary that ISN'T BIG ENOUGH...
That isn't how I took what he said at all. I believe Mr. Critter was referring to the fact that these wealthy individuals are taking advantage all the various loopholes in the tax code so that they end up paying as little as possible... and so they don't need you worrying about them, Will.
Will said... who are you guys to say that ANYBODY is "overpaid"? Those are YOUR value judgments and it's pretty ballsy to so casually foist them onto the rest of us.
A lot of these top execs are being overpaid. It is not a "value judgement" it is a fact. I also did not come to this conclusion "casually", it happens to be a subject I feel very strongly about. In fact I was so offended by reading your comment about how "ballsy" it was of me to try to "foist" my "value judgements" on you (and the majority of all Americans that agree with you, according to your response) that I composed a lengthy explaination of my position and posted it on my blog ("How The Wealthy Elites Stole Our Prosperity").
As for your accusations regarding Barney Frank -- they are false. Mr. Frank actually warned Congress the potential danger of a deregulated subprime lending market, but "House Republicans blocked any efforts to legislate against it" and "Alan Greenspan refused to use congressional authority he'd been given in 1994 to regulate it". I addressed this fallacy in a post on my blog titled Republican Lies About Fannie, Freddie, And Frank.
Finally, in regards to "Obama's buddy" Franklin Raines... Snopes says the claim that Mr. Raines served on the Obama campaign as an economic advisor is false. Unless you're alleging something else by saying that Raines and Obama were buddies. Sounds like the "palling around with terrorists" BS put forward by Palin and other Republicans during the campaign.
Post a Comment