GOP Have Been Throwing Tax Cuts at Billionaires for Decades, While Squeezing the Working Class
http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-and-right/pattern-clear-gop-will-bend-over-backwards-make-life-better-1-percent-notGOPers Have Been Throwing Tax Cuts at Billionaires for Decades, While Squeezing the Working Class for Every Penny
***SNIP
When George Bush came to office the federal government taxed the value of estates over $675,000. Congress immediately raised the exemption to $1 million and in 2009 to $3.5 million. In 2010 Congress boosted it again to $5 million and in 2012 indexed the exemption to inflation. This year an individual will pay taxes only for the value of an estate over $5.25 million. A couple will receive an exemption of $10.5 million.
In sum, over 13 years Congress increased the estate tax exemption almost 800 percent and then indexed it to inflation. During that time the cost of living rose by 32 percent.
From 1997 to 2007 Congress refused to raise the minimum wage a penny. Then in 2007 it reluctantly raised it by $2.10 over three years. Since 2009 Congress has again refused to revisit the issue. Today and for the foreseeable future any proposal to index the federal minimum wage is dead on arrival.
In sum, over 16 years full time workers earning the federal minimum wage have seen their income rise by 40 percent, to $15,000. During that time the cost of living rose by 45 percent.
= new reply since forum marked as read
because it benefits them personally. Seems like. 
That voluntary extension of the Bush tax cuts in 2009 remains the single thing that most angers me about the President.
The big focus of his campaign was to do away with the Bush tax cuts. He must have said it hundreds of times. Instead we chose to widen the income gap exacerbating the deficit, igniting all this horrible austerity advocacy.
And incredible as it seems, some of the austerity measures were offered up by that very Obama Administration that voluntarily extended the Bush tax cuts.
Can you say betrayal?
The "Catfood Commission was after the 2010 losses.
Democrats lost big in 2010. So Obama shifted right.
Yes, simple statements of fact contain ideological justification.
The big losses for Democrats were because left-leaning marginally-attached voters didn't show up. Partisans on the left still voted, but we didn't do nearly as good a job bringing other people to the polls with us.
Meanwhile, the batshit-crazy wing of the Republicans dragged right-leaning marginally-attached voters to the polls as if it was a presidential election year.
No, the people who believed that still showed up. They're the partisans. What changed is they had decided Obama was an exact mirror of their own political beliefs, and were disappointed when Obama did not do exactly what they wanted.
If you want an example, Afghanistan. Lots of those folks were sure Obama would pull out of Afghanistan despite candidate Obama saying he would send a "surge" to Afghanistan. They were disappointed when Obama did what he said instead of what they wanted him to do. If you'd like another, single-payer. Candidate Obama didn't promise it, yet those folks acted as if he did.
(Btw, this does not mean Obama was perfect or always did exactly what candidate Obama said he'd do. For example, the mandate in the ACA.)
Disappointed partisans did not work as hard to get voters to the polls as in 2008. Those marginally-attached voters were the ones who did not show up.
due to the constant influx of misinformation. I thank you for shining a light on the actual events as they transpired in 2010. 
Last edited Thu Mar 13, 2014, 10:47 PM - Edit history (3)
...and has not been restored since.
After adjusting for inflation, before the Kennedy-era tax cuts typically over half the brackets (sometimes well over half) affected incomes over $250,000, with about 40% affecting incomes above $500,000. Inflation eroded those levels (the brackets were not indexed for inflation) until the late 70s, when the top bracket dipped those into the single digits. Reagan's tax cuts cut even those further, eliminating brackets starting at over 500K entirely. And by the end of his term, the top bracket kicked in at roughly the median income, not anything that could be considered high (BushI went back on his "read my lips" line because these were unsustainably low).
To paraphrase Leona Helmsley, it seems progressivity is for little people.
In case you're wondering why I picked 1942 as a start date, it's purely for readability, thanks to my graphics skills or lack thereof. I need to figure out how to pull off skipping some intervals, because some of those inflation-adjusted brackets reach higher. Much higher:
