MoveOn Opposes Fiscal Cliff Deal

[ProSense]

MoveOn Opposes Fiscal Cliff Deal

The progressive activist group MoveOn issued a statement late Monday night opposing the fiscal cliff agreement between the White House and Republicans. "MoveOn cannot support the deal that was announced tonight," MoveOn executive director Justin Ruben said in the statement.

The full statement from Ruben:

MoveOn cannot support the deal that was announced tonight.

We just finished an election in which the American people made clear that they want the wealthiest 2% to finally pay their fair share of taxes, but this agreement fails to meet that test. Voters gave President Obama a mandate to end the Bush tax cuts for those making more than $250,000. He has not delivered.

We are also deeply concerned about the short-term nature of the sequester extension, which means that in just two months, the country will yet again face a situation in which the GOP tries to hold our economy hostage as it seeks policies that benefit the rich.

It is important to note that there are no Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid cuts in this agreement – and that’s a good thing. MoveOn members and allies have fought hard to prevent social insurance benefit cuts, which would harm the poor and middle class and which the public strongly opposes. This weekend, when Republicans tried to inject Social Security benefit cuts into these eleventh-hour negotiations, Democrats forced those cuts off the table.

The agreement includes some good provisions, including an extension of unemployment insurance as well as tax credits that benefit poor and middle class Americans. But at the end of the day, poor and middle class families deserve a better deal than more tax cuts for the rich and the potential for another hostage situation in two months.

As budget debates continue, MoveOn members will continue to fight for a more equitable tax code in which the wealthy finally pay their fair share, and to protect Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid from any benefit cuts.

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/moveon-opposes-fiscal-cliff-deal

[Skittles]

1. Voters gave President Obama a mandate....

........to end the Bush tax cuts for those making more than $250,000.

CORRECT

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

4. And $400k is nearly 2x $250.

Give the GOP nothing. That's what they have been giving us for years: lots o crappy nothing.

[Skittles]

8. yup

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

2. I'm not sure that I can put a finger on it, but at times

There seems to be a duality about you. We all have our struggles now and then, I guess.

So what is your take on the article? You posted it. Do you agree with it?

[bama_blue_dot]

14. So, are you saying that OP should either march in lockstep

with the President, or vehemently disagree with every move he makes?

[RomneyLies]

3. I guess they're in good company.

Both the Club for Growth and the Heritage Foundation also oppose the deal.

Oddly enough, Grover Norquist has blessed it.

I don't think Boehner will be able to bring it up for a vote. His caucus would crucify him if he did and it passed.

[In Truth We Trust]

5. Thank you MoveOn!

[roguevalley]

35. anything that doesn't tax the rich and end the cuts for them and others is a failure to me.

I am scraping dirt. So are the rest of us. Yet they want more from us. I hate them deeply for the hurt they have left in place on the most vulnerable.

[alcibiades_mystery]

6. The move from $250,000 t0 $450,000 seems a trite point

The main issue, as in all these articles, is speculation and fear of the next fight. Why? Why are progressives so afraid of the next fight? We knew there was no comprehensive deal this year when Boehner collapsed last week. So we fight on the sequester in February. Why is this so scary to people? We've "given away ou leverage?" I don't see it.

[ProSense]

9. How desperate were Democrats to avoid the cliff?

How desperate will they be to avoid a debt ceiling disaster?

Why the hell give Republicans that leverage?

Seriously, why is it impossible to see this?

Unlike in previous negotiations, President Obama had significant leverage here, and we end up with this deal.

There isn't a single person saying that the next negotiations aren't going to be brutal, and here we are setting them up to reek havoc...unnecessarily.

[alcibiades_mystery]

12. Don't agree

I'm happy we will get tax rate increases on the top 2%, but on nobody else. That was a good outcome. So was unemployment. I get that people opposing the deal suddenly get all confident that the GOP HOuse would pass all that in the coming year based on "pressure," or some other speculation, but I'd rather bag that bird now. As far as leverage on the sequester, we'll see what happens, but this notion that we've given away the store strikes me as premature.

A lot of speculation. Get the step-wise victories and move on to the next fight.

[ProSense]

15. The increase is not

"I'm happy we will get tax rate increases on the top 2%, but on nobody else."

...on the top 2 percent. The tax cuts were made permanent for everyone including some members of the top one percent, which is at income levels above $380,000.

[alcibiades_mystery]

19. Fine, top 1%

Tax rates still don't go up for middle class families, and we get revenue from the top 1%.

[Cali_Democrat]

20. What's the revenue differential?

Let's say taxes are raised on all people with incomes above $400,000 instead of $250,000, how much revenue will have been lost if instead taxes were raised on all people with incomes above $250,000?

I haven't done the math, but it can't be a whole heck of a lot.

[bama_blue_dot]

16. The Republicans were never going to give up

the debt ceiling fight in this deal.. They know that is all they have.. I wish the President would just invoke the 14th Ammendment.. The country will back him if he does.. So will Wall Street..

[coti]

26. I agree in a way. I see it as numerically significant, going down the bell curve, but not

economically so, if that makes any sense. It's a matter of degrees, and in this situation those making less than $400K are often in roughly the same "spending" boat as those making $250K. Obama did give some, but I don't see that level of "give" being so significant as to make the thing good or bad.

[Drunken Irishman]

27. Isn't there going to be a fight anyway in the coming weeks?

Even if we went over the cliff, it's not like the fight just automatically ends...unless DUers are perfectly fine with taxes going up on all tax brackets and unemployment insurance running out for millions of Americans. We were going to have to face a fight either way - why do people assume Republicans would just roll over and give the Democrats EVERYTHING they wanted in the new year?

[Cali_Democrat]

7. This is silly

It seems their only real beef is that the Clinton era tax rates are restored for families with income above $450,000 and individuals above $400,000....instead of $250,000 and above.

[alcibiades_mystery]

10. They're "deeply concerned" that it's a partial deal

And that we have to fight out sequester in two months.

Why they are thus concerned is a mystery to me: they're an advocacy organization - they should relish in the fights we have to have, rather than shrinking from them and being so "concerned."

It seems that the line from those opposing the deal on the left (with the exception of the "Let taxes go up for everybody!" fanatics) is that it makes the next negotiation more difficult, which strikes me as a rather lame response when the actual provisions are actually OK.

[Cali_Democrat]

18. As long as Obama holds the line on the debt ceiling...

and he demands 1 dollar in revenue for 1 dollar in spending cuts, this is a huge victory. The GOP will not go for big cuts to SS, Medicare and Medicaid if 1 dollar in revenue has to be raised for every dollar cut.

Also, they will look unreasonable if they demand all spending cuts and they will piss off seniors to boot.

[alcibiades_mystery]

21. We'll see what happens

Those who oppose the deal insist that the next round will be a loss, and they count that against this deal in advance. I find that to be silly reasoning. The next negotiation is the next negotiation.

[coti]

28. I will certainly give Obama that the results of this particular negotiation showed a strength that

he had not shown in the past. I hope his boldness continues.

[mythology]

11. It's really silly to talk about Obama getting a mandate

Yes he won handily as did Democrats over all in the Senate. But House districts are so badly gerrymandered that Republicans have a large structural advantage, thus mitigating any potential mandate. A mandate is a theoretical thing. The pivot point in the House being at the 218th vote is not. Any deal will be centered around what that person is willing to settle for or is able to be coerced to vote for.

Moveon can talk about a mandate, but they can't explain how to get from that to a better bill given the current configuration of the House.

[Skittles]

23. yup; mandates don't mean anything

except when a repuke is in the White House

[Drunken Irishman]

29. Did it? What did Bush accomplish in his second term?

Honest question - what did Bush accomplish when he was reelected. He tried to privatize social security and failed. He tried to get his tax cuts permanent and failed. What - Medicare Part D? That wasn't even in his second term! And for two years, had a Republican House & Senate.

[Skittles]

32. he was able to destroy the country

[Drunken Irishman]

33. That was cooked before his reelection, sadly.

[TheProgressive]

13. Are we not a Democratic Republic?

The will of the (majority) people *must* be obeyed....

It works in Nature and after all, aren't we nature?

[Skip Intro]

17. To Hell with MoveOn.

Really.

They lost me a few years ago.

don't like 'em

[Skittles]

22. I'd say BIG SURPRISE

but - will I be tagged as a BIG SURPRISE troll?

[Skip Intro]

24. You gotta make your own fun here, man.

What the hell.

We're doing the same thing.

Iron Maiden Kicks Ass!

[coti]

25. ProSense, this is one of the very few times I'll agree with you.

SO FAR- and that's a very big qualifier- the deal Obama has made with the Republicans does an excellent job of protecting the middle class and better forcing the rich to pay their fair share. A lot of important points- if it passes- were hit in this deal.

Honestly, as not the strongest Obama supporter over his first term (where he DID sell out the poor and middle class, over and over), what he has done here has been some of his boldest, strongest work, and I appreciate it.

[bama_blue_dot]

30. Please list some examples of how he sold out

the poor and middle class?

[coti]

31. LOL- I gave him all that, and you're asking for an example of selling out the poor and middle class.

Examples of which there is a river of.

The most obvious is the public option in the ACA. Also, I'm not discussing this. I didn't post again for one night to deal with head-in-the-sand bullshit like yours. I gave Obama credit when he did well, considering, you need to own your side.

[oxymoron]

34. My bigger beef is the gutting of the estate tax.

That move was unconscionable.