DU: "Tax the rich."

[Robb]

Obama: "OK."

Obama budget plan to tax the rich

US President Barack Obama has proposed to raise taxes on the wealthy in his 2013 budget, prompting an election year spending showdown with Republicans.

The proposal includes $1.5 trillion (£950bn) in new taxes, much from allowing Bush-era tax cuts to expire.

He will also call for a Buffett Plan tax hike on millionaires, as well as infrastructure projects.

(snip)

The president would also put in place a rule named after billionaire Warren Buffett to tax households making more than $1m annually at a rate of at least 30%.

Read More: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17014744

[FSogol]

1. Make it so. K & R. n/t

[Cirque du So-What]

2. I'm just getting around to reading Paul Krugman's

Conscience of a Liberal, which makes one helluva case for progressive taxation of the rich, citing the rise in national prosperity between the New Deal and when St. Ronnie was elected. Conservative activism has returned our nation to a time eerily similar to the so-called 'Gilded Age' - AKA the heyday of the Robber Barons. Those conservatroids who insist that higher taxes on the rich will 'stifle the job-creators' need look no further than the era of prosperity following the New Deal that lasted until the greedy bastids succeeded in overturning regulations and enacting legislation that benefited only themselves.

[Cali_Democrat]

3. This is definitely a step in the right direction

But actions speak louder than words or proposals. In other words, stand firm and don't give an inch.

[eomer]

4. Also known as "close the barn door when the horses are already out".

They could have actually passed legislation to tax the rich in 2009 or 2010. Raising taxes is clearly one of the changes that is allowed in a budget reconciliation bill and therefore could have been done by Congressional Democrats without a single Republican vote back in the day when we had a majority in both houses.

Why did Obama not propose this when it was possible to get it done?

If by any chance in November we hold onto the Senate and Presidency and win a majority in the House then I sure hope there will be a groundswell in 2013 demanding that Congressional Democrats and the President do their jobs honestly, that they use all available procedures to get done the things their voters want and desperately need and not insult our intelligence again with claims that they need 60 votes for things that can actually be done with 50.

[Robb]

5. How long did the Democrats have a filibuster-proof majority again?

[dreamnightwind]

7. Wrong question!

The post you're replying to was talking about the period of time (2 years actually, 2009-2011) that we had a Dem POTUS and Dem majorities in the House and Senate, and saying they should have used the budget reconciliation process to raise taxes on the rich. The budget reconciliation process does not require a filibuster-proof majority (imposes a 20 hour limit on debate, and does not allow a Senate filibuster). You probably already knew that, but then I don't see why you would be asking how long we had a filibuster-proof super-majority. ????

[eomer]

9. Yes, exactly.

The 111th Congress, which ran from Jan 6, 2009 to Dec 29, 2010, during which Democrats had a simple majority in both the House and Senate and also held the Presidency. They could have passed anything that meets the rules of the budget reconciliation process as interpreted by the Congressional parliamentarian. Taxing the rich is one thing that definitely meets those rules. So they could have passed legislation to tax the rich during the 111th Congress with just 50 votes in the Senate. A filibuster-proof super majority of 60 votes was absolutely not needed.

[dreamnightwind]

10. Yeah, so why didn't they do it?

I dunno. Probably was a political calculation, which unfortunately seems to be the administrations' main strength. What makes their political calculations worse is they're so isolated in their D.C. bubble, they mostly factor in Republican and corporate positions when they're doing their calculating.

There's a new, loud force that is getting its voice heard, and really is making a difference. It's an infuriated citizenry, and it's not just the Tea Party anymore, it's the 99%. That makes a huge difference, it's a loud voice that does get considered in the political calculations. It's incredibly pathetic that they won't listen to us until we're literally occupying and screaming in the streets.

I think it's very unlikely that Dems will emerge from the November elections with POTUS, House and Senate, which makes it very unlikely these proposed taxation changes will become law. I'm glad Obama is talking this issue up, even if he is only posturing, because it helps reframe the debate in the proper direction. But for the most part, it's too little, too late, just more maneuvering to gain electoral advantage over the Republicans.

[malaise]

6. or face the poor and middle class in the streets

It's that simple

[Bandit]

8. As Willie Sutton, infamous bank robber once said when asked why he robbed banks

That's Where the Money is