About Me and the Prez

[Tom Rinaldo]

Very glad to have him as my President, in light of the alternative scenarios that could have played out in 2008 and/or 2012. There are plenty of things that I like about Obama personally, and there are plenty of things that he has done in the way of policy that I also like a lot. I fully supported his election campaigns in 2008 and 2012, and unless the Democratic Party goes ape shit batty and nominates a Lyndon LaRouche or David Duke type candidate in 2016 I fully expect to support the Democratic nominee in 2016 also. None of that means that I think today's Democratic Party, on the whole, does a particularly good job of representing me or my interests in general. It does means they come much closer to doing so than today's Republican Party however.

My interests are important to me even if no one else shared them though I know millions of others do. So of course I will continue to work to prevent Republicans from screwing me over even when I am not all that happy with this or that Democrat in specific or Democrats in general. What I won't do however is suspend by beliefs when they differ with our President or any other Democrat. If something is important it should be advocated for by those who deem it as important. If that means taking a position different than Obama's or any other elected Democrat, so be it. That is how democracy functions and I am an advocate for democracy - it's how we get from here to there when justice is the goal and the status quo is unacceptable. Fundamentally, it' really is that simple.

If that means I'm not a good Democrat I can live with that. It is not by goal in life to be a good Democrat, though sometimes in practice I act like one. But the Democratic Party is a potential means toward an end, not the end itself. I try to stay clear on that concept.

[elleng]

1. Hi, Tom.

Glad to see pic on your post.

[upaloopa]

2. Well said and reflects how I feel also.

I am 68 and noticed over the last year or so the difference in views reflected in the differences in our ages.
I thought some issues were settled but I see the same debates to day that we had in the sixties as if they never took place back then. It wows me when someone posts a picture from the civil rights days of the brutality if the South toward African Americans and a poster says " it is hard to imagine that really took place."
We are talking across generational lines all the while living in different paradigms.
Obama is not a Dem in the style of Roosevelt or Johnson or Carter. Many of us expect him to be like those leaders and others don't even know what those leaders stood for.

[Tom Rinaldo]

5. Sometimes I think advanced marketing techniques re-opened the door for class warfare

It created a political environment where it is easier to get voters to work against their own self interests, enabling the glutton class to fatten itself with much less opposition. Once upon a time people understood the concept of workers and bosses on a clear gut level. It's not that everyone had to hate all bosses, most people didn't, but folks understood that there were differing vested interests that went along with where one stood on the socio-economic ladder. The black art of propaganda has advanced so much in the last half century, and the techniques were perfected by Madison Avenue. The influence of money on politics used to be more crude, monied interests sometimes literally bought politicians and used them as political employees , but that was flagrant corruption and there was little subtle about it. Now messaging is extremely nuanced, honing in on whatever emotional weakness a target constituency might have to be exploited. Yes there is more money in politics nowadays but in some ways I think what makes that so lethal to democracy is that how money can be used so much more effectively to disorient voters today than once was the case.

[hfojvt]

3. I cannot be happy about it

I mean, it was nice that Hillary, McCain and Romney were defeated (altough I remember you being against that first defeat) but from the hopes I had in 2007 and 2008 to the bitterness of the actual results.

I am pissed off instead.

And it seems to me that Obama deserves much of the blame.

I think Krugman, who also pissed me off here (once again) explains it fairly well, in a backwards fashion.

"To see what I’m talking about, start with actual policies and policy proposals. It’s generally understood that George W. Bush did all he could to cut taxes on the very affluent, that the middle-class cuts he included were essentially political loss leaders. It’s less well understood that the biggest breaks went not to people paid high salaries but to coupon-clippers and heirs to large estates. True, the top tax bracket on earned income fell from 39.6 to 35 percent. But the top rate on dividends fell from 39.6 percent (because they were taxed as ordinary income) to 15 percent — and the estate tax was completely eliminated.

Some of these cuts were reversed under President Obama, but the point is that the great tax-cut push of the Bush years was mainly about reducing taxes on unearned income."
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/24/opinion/krugman-wealth-over-work.html?hp&rref=opinion

Because Krugman is once again in the tank for Obama, and says it wrong. The example that he gives right here

"But the top rate on dividends fell from 39.6 percent (because they were taxed as ordinary income) to 15 percent — and the estate tax was completely eliminated."

The fact of the matter is, the sad sad truth, the dirty low down, is that those cuts were NOT reversed under Obama. Instead, MOST of them were made PERMANENT under Obama. And that after not one, but TWO electoral victories where the American people supposedly demanded something different.

Dividends are still, permanently, taxed at a lower rate than wage income and the estate tax was permanently lowered with a permanently higher (and inflation adjusted) exemption.

Strangely enough, I almost feel like if McCain was elected that Congressional Democrats would not have allowed that to happen.

Even if that is not the case, and I concede that is just speculation, to me it is very aggravating that electing Democrats led to such sh*tty results.

It's like you said. We "work to prevent Republicans from screwing us over".

Only to have Democrats screw us over.

So I mean, just fuck, fuck and triple goddamn fuck. What is the POINT?

Is THIS the best we can do?

Because, dammit, it is NOT good enough. Not by a long shot.

[okaawhatever]

4. You're not accurate in your assessent. First there are two types of dividends, ordinary and

qualified. Ordinary dividends are currently taxed as regular (earned) income. Qualified dividends are taxed at the same rate as long term capital gains. Obama never campaigned on increasing the dividend rate to ordinary income rate. What he did campaign on was raising the rate for capital gains and dividends to 20%. He fulfilled that promise in 2012. In fact, the NYT specifically states in this article that dividend income was Obama's one exception to his promise to end all Bush era tax cuts.

In past years, Mr. Obama had proposed to raise the tax rate on dividends only slightly, to 20 percent from 15 percent. Retaining a tax preference for dividends income was the one exception to his 2008 campaign proposal, which have been blocked by Congress, to end all Bush-era tax cuts for those with more than $250,000 income.


The 2012 budget blueprint included raising rates of qualified dividends to the rate of ordinary income, but that was AGAINST his campaign promises. All he promised was that the qualified dividends and cap gains would be taxed at the higher 20% instead of 15%, and he did. He tried to implement that in his first term, but in a compromise deal that allowed a one year extension on unemployment benefits, extension of the 2% SS tax credit and passage of the jobs bill.

You also forget to mention the significant increased to earned income in the form of medicare taxes of 3.9% on the higher income taxpayers. You also don't mention the return of the top rate of 39%. You forget to mention a lot of things and then act as if other Democrats agree with you. You claim that Democrats have screwed "us" over is highly offensive. Just to make clear, you don't speak for those Democrats who voted based on the Obama platform. He made clear what he wanted to do regarding tax rates on cap gains and did it. I haven't been screwed over by Democrats, please speak for yourself and try to be accurate when you do.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/1/increase-the-capital-gains-and-dividends-taxes-for/http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/13/obama-proposes-taxing-wealthiest-dividends/
http://www.irs.gov/publications/p17/ch08.html#en_US_2013_publink1000171583

[hfojvt]

9. Yeah, and I also don't speak for Democrats

who don't know jack-squat about tax rates

and who believe the bullsh*t spewed by the Obama administration.

WE are screwed whether you believe it or not.

Here's Obama speaking as he signs the piece of crap ATRA into law. http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/02/politics/fiscal-cliff/ He begins

"An essential premise of my campaign was to change the tax code, which was too skewed to the wealthy, at the expense of working and middle class Americans. Tonight, we have done that."

He says that as he signs a law that PERMANENTLY favors dividends over wage income. Something that gives huge benefits to the wealthy.

Did he campaign in 2008 on keeping this huge tax break for the wealthy? Maybe so, I would not put it past him, but this is the first time I have ever heard THAT claim, so I doubt if it was very clear to most of the people who voted for him.

Yet there is the public being told that permanent tax cuts for the rich, are going to make the tax code LESS skewed to the wealthy.

I am supposed to be happy about that kind of BS?

And once again, yes, I did not mention the tax increases from Obamacare. Maybe because Obamacare was a SEPARATE fucking bill from ATRA. And it is ATRA which I see as a huge betrayal. So he increased their taxes by 3.9% with Obamacare and then CUT their taxes by 19.6% with ATRA. Looks like a net CUT to me.

And so what if there are two types of dividends? Almost all of the dividend income of Romney types is gonna be the lower-taxed "qualified" type.

Obama just said HIMSELF that he promised to make the tax code LESS skewed towards the wealthy.

Instead he took tax cuts for the rich, which were scheduled to expire - TWICE, and made most of them permanent, with most of the benefits going to the rich.

But it's all good, because I forgot to include Poland in the coalition of the willing. That makes me a liar and Obama a hero.

[okaawhatever]

14. Saying ATRA cut taxes on cap gains by 19.6%% is disingenuous. First, for most years

through the 80's there was an exclusion on cap gains usually about 50 or 60% of total cap gains. Also, there was a max tax rate of 25% until the 60's. During times of 90% max income tax rate, cap gains were only taxed at 25% and still had an exclusion for cap gains after being held 6 months. There was a brief two year period 88-90 when cap gains were taxed at the same rate as income, but the max income tax was 33% until you hit 273k and then it DROPPED to 28%.

At ZERO point in this country's history has anyone paid 39% taxes on cap gains. Don't lie about it just because you don't like it.
http://www.ctj.org/pdf/regcg.pdf

From Politifact:

Obama also vowed to increase capital gains and dividends taxes from 15 percent to 20 percent for those making more than $250,000 (for couples) or $200,000 (for individuals). The fiscal cliff bill raised those taxes to 20 percent, but only for taxpayers earning $400,000 (for individuals) or $450,000 (for couples) and up. So the deal executed most of what Obama promised on capital gains and dividends, but it did so only above a higher income threshold. We rate this a Compromise.

In 2008, Obama promised to limit personal exemptions and itemized deductions for high-income tax filers. These provisions were in force in the 1990s, but were minimized under Bush and eliminated by 2010. The fiscal cliff bill did something very close to what Obama pledged in 2008, bringing back the Personal Exemption Phaseout, commonly known as PEP, as well as the "Pease limitation." We rate this a Promise Kept.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/jan/02/fiscal-cliff-deal-gets-heart-obamas-tax-promises/
__________
As to the estate tax, Again from PolitiFact:

In revising the estate tax law -- another long-running battle -- Obama and congressional Republicans met in the middle.

Obama wanted to exempt the first $3.5 million in value of estates and impose a top rate of 45 percent. When the fiscal cliff deal was negotiated, Obama had to yield on those numbers. The fiscal cliff bill set the top tax rate at 40 percent -- halfway between Obama’s pledge and the reported 35-percent rate favored by some Republicans -- and estates smaller than $5 million will be exempted. Going forward, that $5 million limit will be indexed for inflation.

Given that both sides had to give ground here, we classify this as a Compromise.
_______________

Please stop lying and twisting words to make your case. Your claim that dividends were ever taxed at 39% is a flat out lie, and Obama did increase taxes on the wealthy. He specifically campaigned on an increase to 20% of cap gains and fulfilled that promise. As to the ordinary dividends and qualified dividends, no the Romney types have greater ordinary dividends because they buy and sell stock frequently. Often relying on quasi-insider info. That is why the Republicans put the carried interest exemption into the tax code. It is one of the most unfair tax laws ever created. It was done to offset the tax liability for Romney types and keep them from paying the rates of ordinary dividends.
You can hate Obama all you want, but don't tell lies about the tax code to make your case.

[Tom Rinaldo]

7. Yes, the 2008 election...

In a nutshell the Democratic candidates I preferred did not run: those being Clark, Feingold, Gore, and Dean. I half heatedly flirted with Biden who I preferred to Clinton and Obama on issues, but saw he was going nowhere. I never fully trusted Edwards and in hindsight feel I had that right.

At the time I believed that Clinton and Obama were similar just slightly left of center Democrats by instinct and on issues. I backed Hillary over Obama because I thought she had honed her political chops more through experience in the trenches against that vast right wing conspiracy, and was better prepared to deal with fierce Republican resistance which I saw as inevitable regardless of what Democrat occupied the White House.

Because national electoral politics is so heavily choreographed by the dance with special interests I have always hedged my bets and put much of my energy into movement politics. I often feel doing so mobilizes more pressure toward advancing progressive stands taken by whatever Democrats we manage elect than whatever influence we gain through our participation in the electoral process trying to get the best Democrats elected. So I do both.

[berni_mccoy]

6. Does it mean we should call the Prez a piece of shit used car salesman when we don't like something

he does? (even though some here like nothing he does it means we see shit like that every day, and I'm not shitting you about that).

[Tom Rinaldo]

8. Nah, I see little potential upside in that and greater downside

But I think it appropriate to air our differences with Obama when they arise if they are important enough - I can still "support him" in very practical and pragmatic ways as still called for when I do.

[BainsBane]

10. I have lots of disagreements with the President and the party

and I never suspend my beliefs. But like you I also plan to work to get more Democrats elected because the alternative is just too frightening. I don't think anyone expects Duers to accept the party uncritically, but IMO when people spend most of their time bashing the President and the Democrats for what seems like the sake of it, they are paving the say for Republican electoral gains. No progressive should want that.

[calimary]

11. THIS. ^^^^^^

[eridani]

12. ^^this^^

But sometimes I feel like our slogan should be "Vote for the cowards, not the sociopaths!"

[Tom Rinaldo]

13. Now that is uncomfortably funny. n/t