Obama may delay high-income tax-cut repeal: aide

[Robbien]

Source: Reuters

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President-elect Barack Obama may consider delaying an election promise - to roll back tax cuts on high-income Americans - as part of his economic recovery strategy, a senior aide and an adviser said on Sunday.

David Axelrod, one of Obama's closest confidants chosen to be a senior White House adviser, was asked if the tax cut could be ended later than Obama called for during the campaign. "Considerations will be made," he said on "Fox News Sunday."

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE4AM1F120081123

[Demit]

1. Ah, the slipping into passive voice. That's an ominous note.

[Phred42]

43. HERE it comes.... More Excuses, and BS

to protect the Olgarchy

Apparently BO is coming to Jesus.

Well, we tried.

[cliffordu]

80. Yep we did. Might as well commit suicide.

[roguevalley]

94. so Paris Hilton keeps getting her tax cut and I keep getting the shaft

great. just great. Oh, sorry. I appear to be 'hating'.

[cliffordu]

107. What? You want to give Paris hilton the shaft??

My remark was a response to the hopeless TONE of that post.

I might have to take a break here from DU, the panic that sets in every time the pony is delayed is really annoying - this does NOT include what you just posted-

Could be Obama is responding to new information. Could be he's just another lying sack of shit Republican operative conning the little guy out of his smaller piece of the pie.


Time will tell. (Which would be MY point if I had one, that time will tell.)

[TBF]

214. Time has already told - Rahm Emanuel as Chief of Staff tells us all we need to know.

The empire continues to thrive.

[cliffordu]

323. LOL. Bitter, much?

[TBF]

351. Not bitter, after all I am still participating. I campaigned for Obama,

voted for him, and continue to send him emails. Of course when Rahm reads them he may pack me off to Guantanemo, because I am certainly no fan of Rahm Emanuel, but there you are. I am deeply disappointed in the picks so far. It points to business as usual, which is no picnic for the working people of this country.

Obama said we need to push him left, and I believe that was a very true and honest statement from him. He was elected to govern, and the delusional right-wingers think the man is a socialist. If only. So certainly Obama is going to start from center. It is our job to speak up, send him correspondence, peacefully gather to protest actions we believe unfair and encourage him to consider people-friendly policies. We know the lobbies on the other side of the aisle will be making their efforts as well. Their strength is in their finances, our strength is in our numbers. We need to speak out.

I don't think that is bitterness, that is reality in this country. But I can understand your laughing at my initial terse response. I hope in writing this out that you see my position more clearly.

[roguevalley]

326. I know. I don't even know what to think anymore. I am just tired.

[SOS]

100. Suicide?

Following the example set by the US financial sector is always inadvisable.

[Phred42]

172. Obama and many Dems won. Still no reason to become a lemming

[...of J.Temperance]

106. I believe that President Obama will just let the W tax cuts expire in 2010, which is the best thing

For him to do, rather than repeal the things during a recession.

The W tax cuts do need to go the way of the Dodo, the best way to do that, politically and economically speaking is to just let them expire in 2010.

[mcg]

157. That would not surprise me, I think the max tax rate should then ...

be gradually increased. The rich can afford to pay more taxes.

I think the perhaps where a person lives should be factored in to tax rates.
It costs more to live in certain parts of the country.

[TBF]

219. It would be very complicated, but not a bad thought to index in some of those geographical issues

Overall the 250K cutoff made a lot of sense to me, along with repealing the changes to capital gains (which was the biggest earmark to the rich). But even at 250K, which is roughly top 5%, you have a take-home of about 10K a month depending upon deductions. Maybe it's harder in NY or San Fran, but in most parts of the country you can live nicely on that amount and afford a little heftier rate as well. If we start with modestly repealing the Bush tax cuts and then start cutting the military budget we could have a much better standard of living for folks across many income strata.

I'd put that money towards housing for homeless (tent cities are an embarrassment in such a wealthy country not to mention unsafe/unhealthy), universal healthcare, infrastructure such as bridge repair and subsidizing more mass transit, and educational efforts (including head start and low-rate student loans).

[wordpix]

327. but then you get into all kinds of economic issues within a locality, such as:

I live in DC where housing costs depend on which part of the city you live in. If you live in a nice neighborhood inside the Beltway like in nw DC or Capitol Hill, you pay dearly. I lived in CT where it's the same. Generally, it's expensive living where the neighborhood is great and there are jobs available but cheap 20 min. away where the environment is a burned out ruin and there are no jobs and the schools suck.

It would be a political and financial nightmare to figure out.

[IsItJustMe]

243. I have come to believe in your position. This whole market thing, in my mind, is largely

psychological. I think it would probably cause far greater harm to raise taxes right now. With Wall Street and financial markets going up and down every time someone farts, it is probably best to let the tax cuts for the rich die a natural death.

[...of J.Temperance]

274. Yes, the markets are so sensitive now

That it seems the smallest thing causes a freak-out....an announcement of repealing the tax cuts would probably cause more instability, at a time when people are desperate for stability.

The tax cuts are due to expire in 2010, let them expire naturally....after they expire the tax level returns to it's pre-2001 level.

[tavalon]

311. That's a very good point

[Truth Teller]

316. Ever notice the tax cuts got us here?

It's kind of silly to suggest the tax cuts should continue to stimulate the economy when they were in effect on the road here.

[...of J.Temperance]

358. When the W tax cuts expire in 2010, the tax levels are restored to pre-2001 tax levels

n/t

[Subtropical]

367. Yes, letting the expiration take care of that issue is a pragmatic strategy.

Obama has given every indication that he will pick his battles, and the timing of such battles, with an eye on long-term goals. Change will not come immediately or be to everybody's liking, but his approach could very well be our best hope of getting it. Fewer confrontational short-term political battles, less public alienation of potential rivals, buying time for real, well-thought out restructuring of our government's infrastructure.

Keep the Hope. It's early yet!

[Popol Vuh]

198. And I am not surprised one bit

Like I said earlier before the election. Obama was going to be too much the status quo. Just look at his record on continuing the funding for Iraq and his statements on how long he intends to keep troops there, his actions on FISA, his actions on the bankster rob from the poor give to the super rich bill, as well as other actions. In other words I told you so that he was gonna be too much of a talk the talk but not walk the walk on important issues to the working and poor classes.

How much money did Wall Street give Obama? There's your answer.

[wordpix]

333. "as part of his economic recovery strategy"---WTF? Continuing Bushco's tax cuts for the richies

would help US? :wtf:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President-elect Barack Obama may consider delaying a campaign promise - to roll back tax cuts on high-income Americans - as part of his economic recovery strategy, two aides said on Sunday. snip

[leftchick]

2. what a great idea!

not!

:(

[saigon68]

156. Meanwhile the Drunken Revelry goes on

[leftchick]

159. and the exploding defense budget will be increased yet again

wtf?


:(

[...of J.Temperance]

167. I don't think President Obama has said he's going to increase the defense budget n/t

[leftchick]

174. well not in so many words

but here is the reality...

Obama surrenders on military spending

By Glen Ford, January 15, 2008

Sen. Barack Obama is forsaking the position of most African-Americans on the issue of ever-escalating U.S. military spending. And progressive black leaders are letting him get away with it.

For decades, Black America has maintained a general consensus in favor of “butter” in the national “butter or bullets” debate. The call for a “Marshall Plan” to rebuild America’s cities has been a constant in African-American public discourse, inevitably coupled with demands for lower military spending.

The collapse of President Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty under a tsunami of Vietnam expenditures proved that war spells the death of urban domestic dreams.

Now, however, for the first time since World War II, we witness a self-imposed silence on war spending among a number of black opinion-molders who would be shouting their heads off at the prospect of an even larger U.S. military establishment. The reason for this voluntary stand-down: Barack Obama supports the addition of nearly 100,000 soldiers and Marines in coming years, and he doesn’t want to be embarrassed by loud black voices of protest during his dash for the brass ring.

“I strongly support the expansion of our ground forces by adding 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 Marines,” Obama told the Chicago Council on Global Affairs last April.

That’s precisely the number favored by President Bush’s Defense Secretary Robert Gates over a five-year period at a cost of $108 billion, as estimated by the Congressional Budget Office. Sen. Hillary Clinton would add at least 80,000 troops, Rudy Giuliani wants 70,000 additional pairs of boots on the ground, somewhere on the planet, and Mitt Romney would add 100,000.

http://www.progressive.org/mp_ford011508

[...of J.Temperance]

178. Yeah but look at the date of that article, January 15th, 2008

That was during the Primary season....we are nearly a year on and we are now in the post-Election period and he won.

[leftchick]

193. update 2008

I only hope he does not succumb to the pressure.....

Pentagon Wants $581 Billion From Obama – War Costs Not Included

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/11/pentagon-wants.html

By Noah Shachtman EmailNovember 18, 2008 | 10:21:00 AMCategories: Money Money Money, Politricks

Give the boys in the Pentagon credit; they've got chutzpah. While the federal government hemorrhages money -- and everyone from Goldman Sachs to General Motors to the city of Philadelphia is looking for more Washington cash -- the Defense Department is getting ready to ask for its biggest budget yet. The Pentagon is telling the Obama transition team that it wants $581 billion for the next fiscal year, an increase of $67 billion. And that doesn't even count cash needed to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The cash request "includes $524 billion in spending authority approved by the White House Office of Management and Budget this spring... as well as $57 billion in additional needs the Office of the Secretary of Defense identified over the summer," reports Inside Defense.

The final figure does includes some money -- $12 billion -- to pay for a few "predictable war costs," Inside Defense adds. But that's less than what operations in Afghanistan and Iraq cost every month.

In contrast, President Bush inherited a Pentagon budget that was a mere $302 billion.

[Mari333]

211. He had BETTER not give in to the damned Pentagon!!

If he does I swear I will never vote again. I will know the fix is in.

[...of J.Temperance]

215. President Obama hasn't responded to them though has he?

I say people should wait until he says something, instead of getting in a panic beforehand :)

[leftchick]

355. Obama's Foreign Policy Team

posted by Robert Dreyfuss on 11/23/2008 @ 9:22pm

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/dreyfuss/385746/print

I hate to say I told you so, but here it goes.

In late September, in this column, I criticized Barack Obama for what I called a "pathetic" debate with John McCain, in which Obama got nearly everything about foreign policy wrong:

"He checked all the boxes. Barack ("Senator McCain is right") Obama couldn't find anything to disagree with the militarist Arizonan about. Support for NATO expansion? Check. Absurd anti-Russian diatribes? Check. Dramatic escalation of the war in Afghanistan? Check. I'm ready to attack Pakistan? Check. (Actually, on this one, McCain was the moderate!) Painful sanctions against Iran, backed up by the threat of force? Check. Blathering about the great threat from Al Qaeda? Check. It went on and on."

I pointed out that Obama went out of his way to say things like: "I believe the Republican Guard of Iran is a terrorist organization." And: "A resurgent and very aggressive Russia is a threat to the peace and stability of the region."

Last July, in a major feature piece for The Nation on Obama's foreign policy, I wrote:

"But in many respects, Obama seems likely to preside over a restoration of the bipartisan consensus that governed foreign policy during the cold war and the 1990s, updated for a post-9/11 world. ... Even as he pledges to end the war in Iraq, Obama promises to increase Pentagon spending, boost the size of the Army and Marines, bolster the Special Forces, expand intelligence agencies and maintain the hundreds of US military bases that dot the globe. He supports a muscular multilateralism that includes NATO expansion, and according to the Times of London, his advisers are pushing him to ask Defense Secretary Robert Gates to stay on in an Obama administration. Though he is against the idea of the United States imposing democracy abroad, Obama does propose a sweeping nation-building and democracy-promotion program, including strengthening the controversial National Endowment for Democracy and constructing a civil-military apparatus that would deploy to rescue and rebuild failed and failing states in Africa, Asia and the Middle East."

So are we surprised that now, as president-elect, Obama is selecting people whose views are coherent with Obama's frequently stated views? Are we surprised that the views of Obama's conservative and centrist advisers are, in fact, coherent with Obama's own? And are we surprised that his choices for his foreign policy and national security appointments are drawn exclusively from conservative, centrist, and pro-military circles without even a single -- yes, not one! -- chosen to represent the antiwar wing of the Democratic party? No, we are not.

<snip>

Not once, but twice he was asked by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to be her deputy secretary of state. Adds the London Times, in an analytical story on Jones:

"Last year he conducted an investigation on behalf of Congress on the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"'Make no mistake, Nato is not winning in Afghanistan,' he said. He also said that the war in Iraq had caused the US to 'take its eye off the ball' in Afghanistan, and gave warning that the consequences of failure there were just as serious as defeat in Iraq – views publicly expressed by Mr Obama.

"Before Mr Obama travelled to Afghanistan during the presidential campaign he was briefed by General Jones, who in 2007 was appointed by Dr Rice as a special envoy for Middle East Security."

National Review Online calls the idea of Jones at the NSC "a pretty good sign for hawks, a pretty bad sign for doves," which just about sums it up.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/dreyfuss/385746/print

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/Sanswire-Encouraged-Obama-Administrations-Support/story.aspx?guid={AA95208A-5E70-457A-9440-7D402DA323CF}


Sanswire Encouraged by Obama Administration's Support of UAV Industry

Last update: 9:09 a.m. EST Nov. 24, 2008
FORT LAUDERDALE, FL, Nov 24, 2008 (MARKET WIRE via COMTEX) -- Sanswire Corp. (PINKSHEETS: SNSR) today confirmed to shareholders and technology partners that it is encouraged by President-Elect Barack Obama's plan to utilize Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) as part of the Obama/Biden defense initiative, as outlined in the "Build Defense Capabilities for the 21st Century" subheading of the Defense section on the official Barack Obama website, www.barackobama.com/issues/defense.

"The new administration's plan, as described on the official website, indicates that UAVs, such as those Sanswire makes, can be instrumental in not only helping to equip our troops more thoroughly, but also in preserving our global reach in the air. We find this extremely encouraging as the focus of our business plan is to build UAV products integrated with the customized payloads that help achieve our customers' missions, most of which are expected to relate to global peacekeeping initiatives," stated Jonathan Leinwand, Chief Executive Officer of Sanswire.

Language specific to UAVs contained within that section states: "We cannot repeat such failures as the delays in deployment of armored vehicles, body armor and Unmanned Aerial Vehicles that save lives on the frontlines," and "We need greater investment in advanced technology ranging from the revolutionary, like Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and electronic warfare capabilities, to essential systems like the C-17 cargo and KC-X air refueling aircraft, which provide the backbone of our ability to extend global power."
According to the Government Accountability Office in its November 2008 report on Unmanned Aircraft Systems, the US Department of Defense plans to spend more than $17 billion from 2008 to 2013 for UAV systems with expanded and new capabilities, and it reprogrammed about $1.3 billion in 2008 funds with congressional approval to increase ISR capabilities, including unmanned aerial

[...of J.Temperance]

360. I like President Obama's foreign policy team, 100% BETTER than the Neo-Con lunatics n/t

[Dogmudgeon]

3. INCOMING!

:popcorn:

--p!

[madrchsod]

11. 300 replies by late this afternoon...

[madrchsod]

4. the end of 2010

that`s two years from now.

[Phred42]

45. Just kicking the can down the road - in 2010 there will be another excuse

and we will have forgotten this little "disappointment".

:nuke: :grr:

[cliffordu]

115. Yep the president elect is a rat-fucking traitor to Progressives everywhere...

:sarcasm:

[Just-plain-Kathy]

140. I wouldn't put it quite the way you did, but if Obama starts breaking his promises.....

...I would call him a traitor. I'm not happy with politicians who promise one thing to get elected and then start breaking their promises before they even get sworn in.

Our dems promised during the '06 elections to end the war in Iraq. What happened to that?

Sure you could give all kinds of excuses, but if our dems made more of an issue about stopping the war, it would been over by now. They could have started shaming repukes over a year ago into coming over to our side. With just promising to revel the name of any repuke who got in our way of ending the war, we could have won every state this year without breaking a sweat.

We're getting screwed by our guys too.

[...of J.Temperance]

168. "Traitor" is a HEAVY word, it shouldn't be abused in this manner n/t

[cliffordu]

180. He was not elected in the kind of basically static economy most presidents are:

If he doesn't respond in real time to new information, he is violating a basic premise of why we voted for him.....

The obstinate grip on one stance is what Bush used to drive the country into the ground.

I'll wait to see what obama has to say before I toss him under he bus.

[...of J.Temperance]

183. President Obama hasn't been Inaugurated yet, I think some people should cut him some slack

Instead of falling in a fit on a daily basis.

[cliffordu]

186. Yep. Let's wait till AFTER the inauguration to really condemn him......

[...of J.Temperance]

188. One shouldn't put the cart before the horse

;)

I'm confident that the Obama Administration are going to do the right things, I have complete faith in their abilities.

On Edit: Dammit typing error

[IsItJustMe]

247. Exactly. Only a damn fool disregards the facts on the ground to stubbornly go after a policy. He

made his plan before the meltdown. The sad fact is that these campaigners lend themselves to static promises that, when it comes time to implement, are no longer practical.

With Wall Street the way it is right now, hell, who knows, Obama raising taxes might be the death kneel that brings the whole thing down.

Obama is smart and I believe he will do the right thing. We just have to have a little trust and some patience.

[cliffordu]

250. Right. There are some here who would rather be indignant and right than patient

and eventually satisfied.

[...of J.Temperance]

361. Hey let's just IMPEACH President Obama BEFORE he's Inaugurated!

Yeah that's the ticket huh?

:sarcasm:

[acmavm]

5. Hell, he can THINK about it all he wants. Where it becomes not so funny

is if he goes ahead and breaks this promise.

We will just have to wait and see.

[roseBudd]

Yes because the current parameters should have no bearing on a decision...

because a promise made months ago should take precedence over an economic crisis.

[Ken Burch]

143. You would accept though, that if he ended up NEVER getting rid of the tax cut for the rich

It would then be impossible for him to do much of anything different from Bush, right?

Without having the wherewithal to increase spending, that would pretty much make the next four years a dead loss.

Tiny little meaningless increments that no one would notice and that's it.

This is why some people worry.

[roseBudd]

205. If Obama could push through a massive decrease in the Pentagon budget I don't care how he finds the

funds.

This is about paygo and there is more than one way to get there.

I want Obama to lead, not worry about someone parsing everything he projected he would do over the last 2 years.

Two years ago our economic prospects were much different.

[Zhade]

236. So you wouldn't care that the rich were once again not paying even close to their fair share?

NT!

[...of J.Temperance]

305. All you seem to be bothered about is

That wealthier people get some massive tax increase....doesn't matter if President Obama can generate enough funds via other means....EVEN if he does, you demand that he puts forward a massive tax hike on wealthier people.

Why? Because you seem to have some bizarre disliking and/or vindictive jealousy towards successful people?

[acmavm]

222. The money has to come from somewhere. Where else would it come

from? This is a promise that needs to be kept. Trickle down economics don't work, in case you missed that little fact.

[FreeStateDemocrat]

6. Top ten items on any politicians agenda is getting re-elected, just another sell-out politician

that is farting through silk.

[awoke_in_2003]

48. hate to say it

but you are probably right. The people who really run this country must have had a talk with him

[WriteDown]

7. "Considerations will be made,"

Hold onto your hats people.

[pjt7]

8. I don't get where he is gong to get any $$

From?

How can you not get this revenue? & give more bail-out's & stimulus from?

The guy is working on a trillion dollar deficit from the get-go.

[...of J.Temperance]

93. By cutting wasteful government spending

That's where he will get the revenue from, President Obama already said that during the campaign.

There also needs to be a cap on these bail outs, you can't bail everybody out.

[SOS]

103. 90% of the federal budget consists of only four things...

Social Security, Medicare, Pentagon and interest on the national debt.

You could eliminate the entire federal government, except the four items, and only save 10 cents on the tax dollar.

[...of J.Temperance]

125. The Pentagon

Budget really needs dramatically reducing, it needs looking at with a fine toothcomb and there needs to be targeted cuts, not slash and burn cuts.

[humbled_opinion]

138. Amazing...

and the Political ramifications of reducing the DOD budget when China and Russia start greatly expanding their military will be suicidal. Not to mention the way the Repukes are going to attack everything Obama tries to Change...

The dicotomy of decisions that must be made to keep the country solvent and the decisions that must be made to keep the country safe is the scariest part of any administration.

i.e., if Al-Qaida is successful in conducting an attack on our soil during an Obama administration the collective howl from the GOP will be that Obama by his reversal of Bush actions caused it creating conditions to prove malfeasance.

What possibly can Obama say to Americans that are faced with this choice?

[...of J.Temperance]

142. I said targeted cuts....I didn't say slash and burn cuts n/t

[Ken Burch]

149. Al-Qaida made its last attack here by sneaking box cutters through airport security

and flying commercial jetliners into skyscrapers and the Pentagon.

No amount of spending on the war machine could prevent something like that.

The real answer is a balanced Middle East policy involving the acceptance of a Palestinian state and, also, probably overthrowing the fascist Saudi royal family.

We can't go back to "bear any burden, fight any foe". Doing that again means giving up our humanity and abandoning the poor forever.
And, not to put too fine a point on it, it means a draft.

[humbled_opinion]

158. I agree

I said it is leaves a quandary for Joe Public. Which can be manipulated by Republicans at the first opportunity.

Remember the meme (Failed to imagine the threat before it materialized)....


If you honestly believe that there will never be another grand attack on American Soil by a terrorist group then you are being a pollyanna.

The simple fact that the Political opposition in America can point to Bush and say that after 911 every liberty robbing, humanity killing act that was put in place by Bush post 911 has protected this country....

[...of J.Temperance]

181. There needs to be more funds given for port security

If there is to be another attack, they won't hijack planes again, it'll come through a container via a port.

Port security needs to be better funded, in fact it's imperative that it is better funded.

[tomp]

343. yeah but 75% of the military spending is wasteful. nt

[JDPriestly]

110. Schwarzenegger ran on the promise he would cut the waste,

and when he got into office, he couldn't find enough waste to cut to make much of a difference.

The deal about waste is just campaign rhetoric. The waste in this country is in the private sector -- namely in the CEO salaries. And that nonsense about private companies needing to pay those salaries to keep the CEOs on board is nonsense. Those same CEOs love to run for public office where the pay isn't a thousandth of what they earn in the private sector.

[...of J.Temperance]

122. I agree that the CEO's need to have their salaries capped

But also the private sector is the private sector, so the government cannot get too much involved.

[JDPriestly]

175. The private sector is now begging the government to get involved.

So the government is going to be very much involved, like it or not. And big business CEOs are going to have to realize that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Their pay scales are also going to become very much public business.

Businesses need to cut the waste. And most of the waste is in the paychecks of the CEOs.

[...of J.Temperance]

179. The government needs to limit all of these bail outs

You can't be bailing out EVERYBODY, it's reaching absurd levels already....and this is taxpayers money that's being used to fund these bail outs....there needs to be a limit to all of this.

[atimetocome]

190. yup, many Republicans would also say that. And in this case

I agree--I think.

[...of J.Temperance]

206. Many of these companies are in a mess because

They have been run in a free-for-all and reckless fashion, I think considering it's the companies fault why they are in a mess, it's greatly unfair to keep expecting taxpayers to bail these companies out.

Effectively they are being REWARDED for fucking their own companies up.

[JDPriestly]

204. Look, most of the rest of the world is socialist or Communist.

When we accepted this whole free trade chimera, we bought into the idea that the products produced by our industry in the private sector of our capitalist economy could compete with products from countries in which industry is very heavily subsidized or government controlled. We have lost our bet. It won't be our choice. Other nations will force us to take responsibility for the losses of our companies. That is what has happened here.

Bush is an idiot. He does not understand that he can scream all he wants about free markets. The rest of the world is laughing at him.

[...of J.Temperance]

209. Most of the rest of the world is Socialist or Communist? TOTAL nonsense

Provide PROOF that MOST of the rest of the world is Socialist or Communist....I bet you can't, what are you seriously saying that the majority of Europe is Socialist or Communist for example?

What are Australia, New Zealand, India, Scandinavia Socialist or Communist?

Not EVEN China is Socialist or Communist anymore.

The majority of the world is Capitalist, often using a combination of moderately liberal and Centrist social policies and the majority of the world operates on a Free Trade basis.

On Edit: Added comment

[JDPriestly]

216. Scandinavia, Europe, India are Socialist.

China allows people to run their own businesses, but it is very much a Communist state and many of the businesses are run by the government. I don't know that much about Australia and New Zealand, but we are about the only large country that does not have a heavy interest in at least certain sectors of business.

I lived in Europe many years. They privatized a lot of things that were previously socialized, but they are still heavily invested and have a great deal of leverage over many sectors. Most important, as we have seen in England, they have no compunction about jumping in and taking over portions of companies.

We do not have that tradition. I'm not saying our tradition is wrong. I'm saying it is not competitive in the context of the free trade agreements that we have entered into. We are being very foolish. If we want to maintain the integrity of our system, then we have to change our trade policy.

[...of J.Temperance]

218. What sectors are they still "heavily invested in and have great leverage over"?

Most of Europe isn't Socialist, it's Centrist, name ONE OPENLY Socialist government in Europe, out and out Socialist?

Sweden's government is also Centrist ditto for Denmark and Norway.

The Congress Party in India aren't Socialist anymore, they have had to move on and adapt to changing times also.

[JDPriestly]

220. The economies are socialist. Even the Christian Democratic

Parties (the conservatives) are socialist compared to the U.S. Have you ever lived in Europe? Do you read German and French newspapers? If you had or did, you would understand that European governments play a much, much stronger role in managing the economies and even companies in their nations.

Also, European countries have much stronger laws protecting employees, working conditions and unions. European banks take it for granted that they are invested in their banks and other major sectors. They do not run the local grocery store. They have mixed economies. They subsidize their industry in many ways.

And in addition to subsidies and investments in industrial sectors, they provide excellent education through the university to deserving students at little or no cost and, as we all know, provide universal healthcare. The government takes your healthcare insurance payments right out of your paycheck and also pays for the healthcare of people who have no or very little income. That is socialist. You can call it centrist also, but it is not free market capitalism. It is very different.

[...of J.Temperance]

224. Have I ever lived in Europe?

I live in Glasgow, Scotland, my husband is Scottish.

The governments might subsidize some industry, but they don't CONTROL industry.

"they provide excellent education through the university to deserving students at little or no cost and,"

Pure fantasyland, in England and Wales ALL students now have to PAY to go to University, it's called Tuition Fees and the majority of students are now facing bills of up to £30,000 to be paid AFTER they leave university.

"provide universal healthcare"

The NHS in Britain is a mess, a shambles, with waiting lists and inadequate facilities and not enough doctors, which is why in total desperation the Health Department is shipping in foreign doctors to try and boost doctor number levels.

People with cancer have to wait up to 12 weeks to get scans and whatnot.....there are long waiting lists for even the most simple of operations.

My husband is a doctor, a consultant btw.


Socialism DOESN'T work, which is why the majority of the planet rejected Socialism years ago.


On Edit: Added comment

[JDPriestly]

332. Socialism doesn't work. Well neither does pure capitalism.

You enjoy a mix of socialism and capitalism and that is good.

Capitalism encourages creativity and diversity. Socialism encourages stability and economic fairness plus protection for the weak and poor.

A good mix is the best policy. Bush wanted to go much to far to the right here in the U.S. We don't have socialists here. We have Democrats. In Europe you have Social Democrats. The trend in Europe moved to the right. It is moving to the left. I do not expect the trends to move extremely left in either the U.S. or in Europe. But much more regulation is needed and much more respect for the rule of law is needed than was provided under the Bush administration.

Above all, we need universal access to healthcare. I believe Obama plans to continue to have private healthcare but regulated to require insurers to provide reasonably priced healthcare for all.

I do not like to be insulting but, as an American, when I lived in England (London) (I also lived in several other countries), I found the British to be a bit lazy. I think it is the legacy of the class system. An extreme class system such as ruled in England for centuries kills initiative and hope. We have never had that here. But the Bush extremism was bringing it to us. Because so much money was being concentrated in the hands of the rich. And businesses consolidated to the point that small businesses cannot survive.

In addition, most of our industry has been shipped to the third world. If you don't live here, you do not know that. Basically, our country has been raped and pillaged of its industry and of its good jobs by the free trade agreements.

[...of J.Temperance]

359. For answer, see my post # 357 just below n/t

[JDPriestly]

328. Have you ever lived in Europe? If you had, you would know that

the supposed conservatives, i.e., Christian Democratic Parties still regulate strongly, subsidize heavily and keep a close watch and control on the economy.

Over three years, "175 billion euro of direct investment" will be injected by the government into economic activity, declared Nicolas Sarkozy in Argonay (Haute-Savoie) on 23 October. In particular, the French President announced the creation of a public intervention fund, which could intervene to support strategic companies in difficulty, as well as a complete exemption from corporation tax for investments made between now and the beginning of 2010.

"The ideology of the market being in control and the public being powerless died with the financial crisis," Mr Sarkozy told businessmen, talking about France’s international action in response to a "global" crisis. In particular, he criticised the US authorities for "allowing" the failure of the Lehman Brothers merchant bank, which precipitated the financial crisis when it filed for bankruptcy on 15 September.

In France, "The government will put 175 billion euro of direct investment into economic activity over three years," the President declared. "Alongside investment in universities, research and the environment, we are going to invest heavily in the digital economy, which will be the driver of future growth, along with clean technologies", he said regarding the development of the digital economy.

http://www.premier-ministre.gouv.fr/en/information/latest_news_97/nicolas_sarkozy_presents_measures_61515.html

In his speech on 25 September in Toulon on economic policy, Nicolas Sarkozy highlighted the need to tell the truth to the French people in order to restore confidence, and explained the decisive role that the State must play in rebuilding the capitalist system. The President gave the French people a guarantee that their savings would be safe. In response to the economic crisis, he rejected any austerity policies and any new taxes.

“Self-regulation as the solution to all problems has come to an end. Laissez-faire has come to an end. The market always being right has come to an end,” said Mr Sarkozy in the introduction to his speech.

http://www.premier-ministre.gouv.fr/en/information/latest_news_97/the_president_wants_to_61263.html

DIHK and BDI criticize plans of the German Government to restrict foreign investment (August 2008)
Per the new regulations, the German government wants to reserve the right to review and to potentially block foreign acquisitions or investments that exceed 25% in German companies. Acquisition or participation may be denied if German national security or public order is at risk. Control is not limited to certain industrial sectors, but applies to all industries. However, the changes in the law would not apply to investors from EU-countries as well as from the EFTA-states Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Iceland. Germany already has laws in place to control and block takeovers and participation in the military and crypto-technology industries. According to the BDI and the DIHK, these limited investment controls are sufficient. The DIHK criticized further the fact that the proposed law is to include private investors. Germany needs foreign capital to secure jobs and prosperity.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601100&sid=aIjXubcA9Xqw&refer=germany

[JDPriestly]

339. Here is an article dated 9/9/2008 stating that Niedersachsen in Germany

has a 20% veto right in Volkswagen.

http://www.focus.de/finanzen/boerse/aktien/vw-gesetz-eu-gericht-knoepft-sich-bundesregierung-vor_aid_332081.html

Here is an article describing an oil deal between Venezuela and India's government owned oil company ONGC Videsh Limited.

http://www.cgifrankfurt.de/cgiweb/newsletter/2008/pdf/Wirtschaftsnachrichten%20April%2008.pdf

Here is another example of a company owned by the Indian government: Shipping Corporation of India. (The key German word is Staatsbesitz.)

Abgesehen von traditionellen Akteuren, wie ABG Shipyard Limited, haben auch andere, wie Bharati Shipyard, Larsen & Toubro, Sea King Infrastructure, Mundra Mercator Lines, Apeejay Shipping Pawan Kumar Ruia Group, Dolphin Offshore, ebenso wie die sich in Staatsbesitz befindlichen Shipping Corporation of India, Pläne für den Eintritt sowohl in den Schifffahrt- als auch in Schiffbaumarkt.

Oh, and Saudi Arabia's Aramco is owned by the Saudi government:

http://www.stern.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/unternehmen/:Unternehmen-Saudis-Konzern/578653.html

The French government does not have a majority stock holding in Renault any more, but it still is a big shareholder in that company:

The government of France owns 15.7 per cent of the company. Louis Schweitzer has been the Chairman of Renault since 1992 and was CEO from 1992 to 2005. In 2005, Carlos Ghosn (also CEO of Nissan) became Renault's CEO, with Louis Schweitzer staying on as Chairman.

Renault owns Samsung Motors (Renault Samsung Motors) and Dacia, as well as retaining a minority (but controlling) stake (20%) in the Volvo Group. (Volvo passenger cars are now a subsidiary of the Ford Motor Company). Renault bought 99% of the Romanian company Dacia, thus returning after 30 years, in which time the Romanians built over 2 million cars, which primarily consisted of the Renault 8, 12 and 20.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renault#Possible_Industry_Realignment_.282008.29

The French government also holds shares in EADS, the European Aeronautic, Defence and Space Company.

http://www.eads.com/1024/en/investor/Stock_information/Shareholding_structure.html

EADS helps to make the Airbus

http://www.airbus.com/en/

Many of the French energy companies are state-owned (as are some of ours). Here in Los Angeles, the Department of Water & Power (DWP) is a publicly owned utility that provides our water and electricity. It's great. We love it. Some other areas have privately owned utilities, and frankly, I prefer the DWP.

So, a mixture of privately owned and government owned (or government supported) businesses still works very well. But, generally, Americans prefer to have as little government involvement in business as possible. That's our tradition. Whereas European countries, especially Austria, Germany and France have a different tradition. Even in Imperial Austria, many businesses although in one sense privately run, enjoyed special recognition from the Kaiser and that allowed them to do business in certain areas. It wasn't the equivalent of incorporation which is pretty automatic in the U.S. provided certain laws are obsered.

[...of J.Temperance]

357. Thanks for links in this post and in post #328

I have bookmarked them and will read them, I appreciate you taking the time to post the links :)

I'm opposed to out and out Socialism and of course 100% opposed to Communism COMPLETELY.

I support a mixture of some Socialistic policies combined with Capitalism, for instance I support the Welfare State....I do support a mixture of government and the private sector working hand in hand.

So going on that, yes Europe especially does have a combination of these things.

I apologize for my earlier comments to you, I misunderstood your comments, I thought you were meaning that the majority of the worlds governments were FULL-ON Socialist, when of course they're not.

We can agree totally, that a majority of the worlds governments do employ a mixture of some Socialistic policies combined with Capitalistic policies....this is in fact, called The Third Way, it's Centrism as supported by the DLC.

[JDPriestly]

364. Right. And a flexible mixture is probably what is best.

Neither too far in one or the other direction. Bush and his friends took us too far toward even deregulation.

Actually, I don't think that the government has to own companies. But I do think that the government must regulate commerce so that everyone is playing by the same rules. Just what the rules are is up to the players, but we have gone through a period in which people entrusting their savings to banks and investment companies thought they were playing by one set of rules and the banks and investment companies were in fact playing by their own secret set of rules. That should not be allowed.

And yes, those who can should help those who cannot -- in any area including providing for ourselves. It's just common sense.

[...of J.Temperance]

365. Yes

Agreed, a flexible mixture, neither too far in one direction or the other....it's called Centrism.

I'm sure that a great number of people actually DON'T know what Centrism aka The Third Way is, because it's a combination of Social Democratic policies and Capitalist policies.

As much as I'm opposed to out and out Socialism, I'm also opposed to out and out Capitalism....but I will refer to myself as both a Centrist and a Capitalist.

I think a total or even a partial total Deregulation of big business is a bad idea, it's one reason why there's this messy situation now, because it created a free-for-all and an anything goes attitude, which led to the whole thing spinning totally out of control....there does need to be some checks and balances.

What I am against though, is a stranglehold by the government on big business, I think some people want a stranglehold, that would be bad, it would destroy big business and thus then create an entire new set of gigantic problems.

I'm not anti-taxation, although as a Centrist, by nature I support keeping as many taxes as low as possible for everybody.

I am anti-taxation when one is in a recession though, you don't raise taxes during a recession....and a repeal of the W tax cuts like NOW, would be construed as a tax rise, it's far better to allow the W tax cuts to expire naturally in 2010.

In a thread that has seen rather a few freak-out's and "The Sky Is Falling" type posts, it's nice that after a bit of a misunderstanding up thread, after communicating with each other like rational adults, you and I have been able to find some common ground on some issues.

I often think that if people did communicate more and explain things to one another without shouting and whatnot, then they might find that we do agree on more things than we disagree on.

On Edit: Added comment

[JDPriestly]

368. Agreed!

[...of J.Temperance]

369. Cool :) n/t

[IsItJustMe]

259. Not to butt in but a huge chunk of the world is socialist . You have Russia and China right off the

bat. Then you have most of the European countries, unlike the USA, that actually do have a variety of laws and price support systems that actually do support their workers. And most other countries around the world do the same.

The USA is one of the few countries in the world that allows it's workers to die on the vine, so to speak.

[humbled_opinion]

130. LOL If thats what America wanted

It would have voted for McCain... That was his selling point...

[...of J.Temperance]

131. President Obama advocated it, specifically in the second debate I remember

He said he would take a fine toothcomb to each government department to see where waste could be eliminated.

McCain's selling point was jackshit, the fool had NO selling point, it changed daily and was erratic and often totally in fantasyland....which is why he got his ass kicked in a landslide.

[humbled_opinion]

155. Oh come now...

I am not debating the poltics of the campaign with you. I guess its how you read them both.. but typically the Republican is the Fiscal Conservative, McCain got the higher marks on spending restraint, cutting programs and cutting earmarks.

Obama did say exactly what you said, starting in the second debate, but Americans did not vote for Obama because he said he will examine government programs and cut wasteful spending....

I think we want all politicians to do that. I think Obama needs to stick with the plan.

[...of J.Temperance]

162. The modern Republican Party aren't fiscally conservative though

Look at the period from 2001 up until now, how many massive and reckless spending binges did the Republicans go on, effectively spending like drunken sailors all over the place.

Of course they were spending the money in the wrong areas, but they were still spending, and to allow them to keep on spending, how many times did the debt ceiling have to be raised? Every year it had to be raised.

The National Debt is pushing $10 trillion, the Republicans were deficit-spending half a trillion a year EVERY year.

None of that is being fiscally conservative....they MIGHT talk the talk, but there's PROOF they don't walk the walk.

Centrist Democrats are the fiscal conservatives, we believe it's a bad idea to go on these reckless spending binges.

That President Obama isn't going to repeal the W tax cuts is a very good idea, it's smarter to just let the W tax cuts expire in 2010, it's smarter economically and especially politically, with an eye on the mid-terms.


On Edit: Dammit spelling error

[Zhade]

239. Define wasteful.

Do you mean social programs, or the obscene "defense" budget?

[IsItJustMe]

249. No way I can see that unless you are talking about programs for the Aging, Social Security, Programs

for children, head start, Medicare, etc...

Money don't grow on trees.

[Zhade]

268. Well, it is the dlc way to call for cuts in those vital areas...

NT!

[...of J.Temperance]

304. Nonsense....I mean what next? That we eat babies for breakfast and hate kittens? n/t

[...of J.Temperance]

300. I don't agree with touching Social Security or Medicare programs, I think that

Targeted cuts could be made in the Pentagon, the defense budget is far too bloated for a start, to the point of it being grotesque.

Also many targeted cuts could be made in the Department of Homeland Security, the GAO has issued another report recently blasting them for wasting more than $2 billion, so heck knows what the real figure will be found out to be about how much in hidden costs they're wasting.

Certain cuts could be made in the Department of Energy and also certain cuts could be made in the Department of Education.

So those are some areas where a fine toothcomb needs to be employed and cuts need to be made.

Social Security and Medicare are OFF the table....PERIOD....despite what the hardcore DLC hater Zhade likes to fantasize about.

[liberalpragmatist]

223. Borrowing

Economists are unanimous that right now is not the time to worry about the deficit -- it will likely sharply increase.

There is going to be a massive stimulus package -- $600 bil - $700 bil. It's classic Keynesian economics.

It's also a bad idea to raise taxes at the beginning of a recession, why is why he may simply wait for the cuts to expire. (Clinton raised taxes, but by that point we were already in a recovery.)

[liberalmuse]

9. I'm sure that will go over well.

I'm really interested in hearing the justification.

[davsand]

10. If economic stimulus is the main focus right now, I can see how any increase would be a problem.

I am not defending or being critical in any way, but from what I have been able to understand about the plan to fix this economy, they feel there has got to be something done to stimulate it before much else can be done to correct most of the problems.

Maybe I'm being too simplistic here, but it seems to me that this may literally be a matter of keeping the patient alive long enough to do the required surgery...

:shrug:


Laura

[Lasher]

21. We're only talking about letting the Bush income tax cuts expire for people making $250K & up.

And the only meaningful result will be a badly needed federal revenue increase. It didn't stimulate the economy when Junior cut top marginal rates in 2001 & 2003 and there won't be an adverse effect when they die a natural death.

[humbled_opinion]

141. The claim is..

that Bush's cuts allowed the impact of the 01 recession, the collapse of Worldcoman and Enron and the subsequent 9-11 attacks to be far less impactful on our economy and then set the conditions for its recovery in 02.

[Ken Burch]

150. DId you actually say "far less IMPACTFUL"?

:eyes:

Well, our outgoing leader was a man who knew how hard it was to put food on your family.

[humbled_opinion]

160. LOL....

Well being from Philly, I say Youze too.... but you got me...

[Lasher]

303. That must have been the same guy I was talking to the other day about the wreck of Titanic.

He said Captain Edward J. Smith was the best sailor who ever lived. As proof he said there were 705 people who survived only due to his sefaring brilliance.

[moggie]

65. But it's not like Obama suddenly realised the problem AFTER the election

So why not be honest BEFORE the election and let voters know that the state of the economy meant that the rollback might take a couple of years?

[pnwmom]

78. Actually, the problem with the economy has worsened even since the election.

And it could get much worse between now and the inauguration.

So it seems reasonable to me that Obama is taking a "wait and see" attitude.

[lapfog_1]

124. I hate it that so many here

have bought into the whole "supply side" theory (not picking on your post, there are many examples).

Increasing taxes on those that can well afford it will NOT further slow the economy PLUS it's about the only place where Obama can go if he wants to keep the deficit spending about where it is now (which is HUGE) AND give his middle class tax cut. A tax cut that WILL stimulate the economy. Middle class people will BUY stuff (or pay bills) with any extra money they get to keep. The rich... not so much.

Plus, he really needs to show an effort at cutting something off the deficit (not a balanced budget, that would be way too much AND it would be the wrong thing to do in a recession/depression - ask Herbert Hoover how that worked out). Anyway, keeping the deficit where it is (somewhere between $500B a year to $1 T a year) while using MORE money to hire people into government work programs building city and state infrastructure projects... well it's going to take extra money coming in. It's kinda like asking Willie Sutton why he robs banks... we need to ask "why increase taxes on the rich?"

[roseBudd]

139. Deficit spending ios going to increase, I am but a layperson & I trust Obama & his admin...

to react daily as the crisis and recession unfold.

[lapfog_1]

146. How is deficit spending going to increase?

You think he can wave a magic wand and make it so?

Congress can raise the debt ceiling to $100 T and that doesn't fix the basic problem.

No one is buying our T-bills and other securities. No one. Not the Chinese, not the Russians, not the Saudis, and not the Europeans.

Bush and his supply side de-regulators didn't simply wreck OUR economy, they wrecked the WORLD economy.

Another year of deficit spending may mean simply printing the money (well, computer transfers of new dollars). That's inflation. Weimar Republic style inflation. And yet we need to increase government spending to create jobs. Lots of jobs.

How to do it without a huge increase in debt (which we can't do anyway)... either hyper inflation or increase taxes.

I vote we increase taxes on the rich.

[goclark]

187. I'm trusting Obama ~ why in the world would he want to

keep America in this hole we are in -- why would he want to do that when he has the best minds working on making this a better place?

I'll let him work on it,at least I know that he gives a damn about us.

We have been such abused children that we stike out at those that are trying to help us.

[pnwmom]

207. I do, too. And he has said he is getting the SAME advice from

economists on the left that he is getting from the right.

Now is the time to stimulate the economy, not to worry about the deficit.

[Divine Discontent]

254. pnwmom - a voice of reason

LOL... it's true - people are blind apparently to the fact things are WORSE since 19 days ago when O got elected - and we are teetering on a global depression. This is SICKENING... we may not have food on our tables in 6 weeks - I know it's probable we will, but it's possible we WON'T - how terrifying is that?

Obama has to do what he has to do as long as it doesn't happen during B*sh's lame duck session.

I think O will make a huge stimulus move to put people to work who've lost their jobs, building things. He'll also raise taxes on things he can or corporations, or tariffs or whatever and cut 20-30% of the Pentagon bloated budget, work on fixing the medical crisis so that not so much is going to Medicare, but instead a massive overhaul that works for everyone. These are just generalities - HE and his people and the Congress will make the exact decisions and I hope they make them right.


Many different Yes We Did items in the Obama/Biden section www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable

[Beacool]

320. Why?

He wanted to get elected, that's why. Maybe it's because I'm surrounded by politicians and diplomats in my own family, but it never ceases to amaze me how naive people are when they blindly believe all the bull candidates spew to get elected. Obama is no exception, if nothing else, he's a superb politician.

Personally, I'm withholding judgment until he actually gets into office. Since I have always viewed him as a masterful B.S. artist, I'll be pleasantly surprised if he performs differently than I think he will.

:eyes:

[Zhade]

241. That's buying into the lie that the rich stimulate growth. They don't.

It's the poor and middle class having more money that actually stimulates and grows any economy, not the rich who hoard their often-unearned wealth.

[hay rick]

12. Deal breaker for me.

[tekisui]

132. What exactly does that mean?

Election is over. Are you now going to proclaim you are forever against Obama?

[hay rick]

176. He hasn't done anything yet.

I think significant change will require a much more progressive tax structure. Absent such tax reform we're probably talking about change I don't really believe in. I'm not panicking about a couple of trial balloons. I am pretty panicked about where I think the economy is headed.

The "liberal" argument for not raising taxes on the rich will be the need for stimulus. I think it will be more effective to take additional taxes from the rich and recycle the money to those who need it AND WILL SPEND IT. I don't believe in tax cuts all the time for all the people- I guess I'm just a redistributionist socialist.

I also think it is important to send the right message from the start. The Bush years have been marked by declining median incomes and skyrocketing incomes for the very rich. At the same time that their incomes have increased, the very rich have seen a reduction in their marginal tax rates. All of these trends need to be reversed. The first hurdle: almost everyone is going to get poorer in the near future.

[wundermaus]

258. The honeymoon is over...

It's called date rape.

[Dr.Phool]

13. Change we can make believe in.

Same assholes. Different toilet.

[tomp]

345. beautifully put. nt

still waiting for change.

[underpants]

14. Eh, they are just throwing the Repubs a bone

let them come in and feel a part of the discussion

this means nothing.

[defendandprotect]

53. This bankrupting our Treasury -- our states, cities, towns ---

Perhaps to someone in a coma ....?

this means nothing.

[underpants]

66. I meant that it means nothing in terms of the end result

how this is finally decided how to deal with it

[defendandprotect]

74. Do you understand it's bankrupting Treasury, states, cities, towns ....????

[JDPriestly]

112. Pretty big bone. I haven't seen anything thrown my way yet.

I'm on Social Security for part of my income. It's a pittance. The number of people who have to rely on it for most of their income is growing, and they will not survive.

The L.A. Times reports today that they announced free food and free mortgage counseling in Montebello to just a few schools and churches and nearly 5,000 hungry people showed up. Around 2,000 wanted the free mortgage counseling and they didn't have enough counselors to help them all. The people who sponsored the food donations were astounded. And it seems the crowds who waited in line to get the food included a lot of middle class people who had just lost their jobs.

Giving tax cuts to the wealthy or extending the tax cuts they already have is not a good idea. The tax cuts combined with the war and the overly generous trade policy are what caused the misery. And the misery is growing every day.

[Beacool]

325. I live in well to do Hoboken, NJ.

Home to Gov. Corzine and Sen. Menendez. The homeless shelter is run by the churches and temple in town. The shelter has seen a dramatic increase in people seeking help, at the same time that their contributions have dropped by 60%. 60%!!!!! I was shocked to see the figure in our church bulletin. It appears that many of the people who worked in the financial sector in NY lost their jobs and they are not contributing like they used to do.

My church provides lunch to the homeless (the shelter provides breakfast and dinner). The number of people showing up for lunch have more than doubled, putting a strain on my church because we don't get any aid other than what the parishioners contribute in money or food items.

I don't know what's going to happen to the shelter and our lunch program if many more people seek our services and our resources are depleted.

:(

[Cleita]

15. That's not going to stimulate the economy.

Rich people will not be spending any more than they spend now. That money will be put into investments making them richer. We need that money in circulation stimulating the economy. That is done putting people to work FDR style and he needs that tax money to do this. Who the hell are his advisors, more Chicago School Friedman economists? Shit I thought he was smarter than that. This school of economics is a proven failure. I hope this article got it all wrong.

[WriteDown]

17. Only one problem with your logic.....

investmengts would be a good thing if that's what was purchased. Savings or offshore accounts would be the worst.

[Cleita]

19. Well hello, that's where it will be going.

Investing in our collapsing infrastructure isn't so attractive today and trading stocks doesn't create jobs.

[WriteDown]

24. Not necessarily......

I have been holding myself back from buying GM stock. I think it would be a very risky, but possibly incredibly lucrative investment right now.

[Cleita]

29. And when you sell for profit somewhere in the future you might go

to the mall and spend it. However if you are already wealthy it isn't going to change your spending habits so it adds zero to the economy. What will stimulate the economy is GM putting people back to work and for that they need a government money assist that comes from tax money.

[Lasher]

36. Investing in the US economy is good.

But GM, like most large corporations today, is a multinational. That money might end up saving or creating jobs in some other country. That would not help US workers and can certainly hurt them.

As a matter of fact that is just what is happening right now. GM is using $1 billion of the US bailout money to invest in Brazil.

General Motors to Invest $1 Billion in Brazil Operations -- Money to Come from U.S. Rescue Program

By Russ Dallen
Latin American Herald Tribune staff

General Motors plans to invest $1 billion in Brazil to avoid the kind of problems the U.S. automaker is facing in its home market, said the beleaguered car maker.

According to the president of GM Brazil-Mercosur, Jaime Ardila, the funding will come from the package of financial aid that the manufacturer will receive from the U.S. government and will be used to "complete the renovation of the line of products up to 2012."

"It wouldn't be logical to withdraw the investment from where we're growing, and our goal is to protect investments in emerging markets," he said in a statement published by the business daily Gazeta Mercantil.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4511673

We need tight controls on bailout money to ensure that it is used to create US jobs. It makes no good sense for the US to give borrowed money to GM or any other employer who is going to use it to support offshore operations.

This was one of the problems with the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. We gave up US government revenue so the top marginal rates would invest more and create US jobs, according to the supply-side fairy tale. But when the extra money showed up it helped accelerate offshoring and loss of US jobs because it was used to build factories in other countries. Prior to these tax cuts there was more of an incentive to realize tax avoidance by reinvesting earnings in domestic operations.

And when we gear up work on our infrastructure staring next year we need to hire US companies only, who exclusively employ US citizens and legal residents.

[Zhade]

269. THANK you. It's a lie that the rich are the ones who stimulate the economy.

It's poor and middle class spending that does so!

[aquart]

16. NO. This has to be Day One legislation.

So that it isn't new news in the Congressional midterms two years from now.

[ihavenobias]

82. That is an AWESOME point.

That's exactly why this is stupid not only on policy, but on politics. We're on the same page here.

[wundermaus]

263. It's now or never...

or it never really was. http://www.amazon.com/Why-They-Call-Politics-Government/dp/0155072749">(Why they call it politics)

[tomp]

346. not only that....

...institution of these tax cuts was Day One business for bush. the dems spent eight years NOT opposing bush, making all kinds of excuses along the way. now they have no excuses and we still won't do it.

obama is not who people think he is. the dems are not on my side.

still waiting for change.

[AlexinVA]

18. Thank God!

You don't raise taxes on anyone in a recession... even the "rich" ... which ummm is not that "rich" in many parts of the USA. This was the one problem I had with Obama... but voted for him anyway. Many others like me did the same. If he holds off on raising taxes and just let's the Bush tax cuts expire on schedule, that's good with me.

[w4rma]

30. The main reason we're in a recession is because the rich have been hoarding money for 20 years. (nt)

[Cleita]

35. The rich are the only ones with notable income in a recession and depression.

They have to be targeted, but I don't consider anyone with assets less than five million dollars in assets to be rich. However, 5% of Americans own 95% of the wealth in America according to Congressman Bernie Sanders, so it's time to make them pay for some infrastructure and jobs for the other 95% of Americans, many who are out of work, unemployed, under paid and without access to health care.

[defendandprotect]

56. You say, $5 million isn't rich ...???!!!

Want to explain that--???

[Cleita]

61. Sure.

A person's total wealth is determined by his assets. So when you factor in a house, cars, savings and retirement funds, it pretty much includes most middle class professional people, especially here in California where an ordinary family home can be worth a million or more dollars. Most people with those assets still need a job or that five million would disappear in a matter of a very short time.

When you don't need a job and can sit around the pool or country club waiting for the dividend checks to come in, then you are rich.

[Luminous Animal]

67. Obama was not talking about taxing assets...

He was talking about raising the tax rate on income.

[Cleita]

71. Of course. It would be better if he taxed assets than

instead of income, but taxing income is what it will be. I was only stating how ones personal worth is determined by estate planners. He actually would tax anyone making over $250,000 a year in income and that is targeting the wealthy because it will be targeting a lot of that income from interest and dividends. Has he made it clear weather it will be any income over $250,000 a year?

[defendandprotect]

251. Neither are we ...

[defendandprotect]

121. And what were the "assets" of the native American ....

before the "right" to personal ownership of the earth ...???

What were the "assets" of the African brought to America enslaved ...

Those "assets" were simply transferred thru extreme violence/torture --

Behind every great wealth is great crime --


If those in charge have their way, those million dollar homes may soon

be "transferred" to them at bargain rates -- as well as the "retirement funds" --

and most middle-class homeowners are smart enough to be figuring that out --

especially as medical benefits are cut and one very sick member of a family can

bring bankruptcy.

"Professional people" play the capitalistic game, but they know every day it's harder --

50% of GP's want out.

This sounds like another Reagan truism ....

When you don't need a job and can sit around the pool or country club waiting for the dividend checks to come in, then you are rich.

We are at a time when many Americans have no homes, no health care --

and often insufficient food for their children and no health care --

and a few jobs paying little --

And many homeowners are being "foreclosed" --

Others have no idea if the price they paid for their homes may soon be twice

the rate they can sell it for now --

The destroyers are actively back with us and $5 million of smugness won't protect you --

only a move to true economic democracy will --

[WriteDown]

171. In response to your first question. Depends on the tribe. nt.

[defendandprotect]

252. Most of us understand in the end, we are ALL the native American,

All the enslaved African --

You will fare no better unless you join them --

and seems you have --

[WriteDown]

256. Uh...

no you are not unless you are an actual member of a tribe.

[defendandprotect]

276. uh, no ..... the planet has been destroyed ...

by the violence of patriarchy/patriarchal religions and their system of

capitalism --

As I said, there's a spiritual element lacking in concepts of wealth --

Either you want to ignore that -- or more sadly you may not understand that ...

[WriteDown]

277. As an ACTUAL Native American....

I do not appreciate your wanting to lump everyone into our plight over the centuries. Maybe you should try living on a reservation for a few generations and then we can talk about your membership.

Once again, we are not ALL Native Americans.

[Zhade]

280. Let me guess, you had a "Cherokee princess" in your family line.

:rofl:

[WriteDown]

282. Akwesasne and far from royalty....

but the current chief does have my last name.

[Zhade]

285. Busted. There's no such thing as a Cherokee princess.

My great-grandfather, an *actual* full-blooded Cherokee, could have told you that.

I think it's hilarious how many people claim NA ancestry yet actually have none.

[WriteDown]

290. Hey Mr./Mrs. Oblivious...

Read my post. I'm not Cherokee. Not even close. How would I know if they had princesses?

Apparently, you have no clue who the Akwesasne are. Keepers of the Eastern Gate ring any bells? Probably not.

[Zhade]

294. Yeah, I've actually heard of that before.

Don't take it personally - I've known lots of people who prided themselves on nonexistent NA ancestry. It's nothing new.

[WriteDown]

313. No worries....

Didn't think it was personal. I have encountered the same situations.

[illuminaughty]

335. Choctaw ancestry here with roll numbers

Father born in Keota, Oklahoma which means "fire went out", since the tribes came close to extinction due to "trail of tears"

I've just been researching again and I found out very disturbing things (besides the entire treatment of Native Americans in general). Many full blooded Choctaw are not getting the medical benefits they need and are in line behind those of mixed blood to get them. Bureau of Indian Affairs
encouraged people of any Choctaw heritage to become members of the tribe. It ups the numbers and dilutes the benefits the full blooded Choctaw receives and of course somehow benefits the Bureau of Indian Affairs financially. I don't fully understand it, but, it's just more of the criminal behavior of our gov't.

Just did some googling on Akwesasne. Part of the Mohawk council? And Keepers of the Eastern Gate because they were the furthest most Eastern tribe. Thanks for posting that.

When will every America be ready to admit that "our" country was founded with genocide?

[WriteDown]

350. Check out the Lumbee if you ever....

want to be angry. How can you have a tribe with no established history or language? I'll post more later

[defendandprotect]

288. I think you missed ...

the spirit and inevitability of what I've said ...

i.e. --- we will suffer your fate --

[WriteDown]

292. On that, I sure hope you are wrong. nt.

[Cleita]

227. Get angry on your own thread.

I'm only pointing out what is considered rich today, not who screwed who out of their piece of the pie. The fact is that 95% of Americans have gotten screwed out of theirs since half a century ago. 5% of Americans own 95% of the wealth today according to Congressman Bernie Sanders. Getting back 50% from that greedy 5% will do much to fix our ills. Oh, when I said that when you don't need a job and can sit around the pool or country club waiting for the dividend checks to come in, then you are rich, I was quoting Thom Hartmann, a very liberal left wing radio host. I honestly don't know who you are mad at. I live hand to mouth myself and find myself very squeezed financially in today's economy because I tried to help a homeless person who was very hopeless and suicidal. It cost me $5,000 that I didn't have which I am now trying to pay off because our government won't take care of these people.

[defendandprotect]

257. It looks more like my response...

made you angry ---

There is a spiritual element involved here --

ignore it if you wish --

And Thom Hartmann doesn't get to define "rich" --

[Cleita]

260. Thom Hartmann has far more authority as a Journalist and writer on many

political and economic issues than you do. He actually does research and consults with experts.

[...of J.Temperance]

95. "The rich are the only ones with notable income in a recession and depression"

Which is why the economy hasn't gone into a COMPLETE meltdown aka Economic Armageddon, because wealthy people are the ones keeping the ship afloat during a time of recession and depression.

If NOBODY had any income to spend what would happen then? Economic Armageddon.

[DireStrike]

161. No worries, the money will still be spent.

By the government. It will be put where it is needed instead of used to make the rich richer, which may (or may not!) incidentally help the economy much at all.

[Duende azul]

173. Would you please detail on how "wealthy people are the ones keeping the ship afloat" ?

Thank you in advance

[...of J.Temperance]

182. Simple

By going out and spending money on a variety of goods and whatnot, spend spend spend in a recession is what keeps the ship afloat.

[w4rma]

197. They are sinking the boat with their bloated hoards of cash that they've removed from the economy.nt

[Duende azul]

201. I see. So in the end the repubs got it right?

Now I need an explanation why you voted them out.

[...of J.Temperance]

212. You have what? 20 posts and joined in September this year?

I don't have to explain anything to you.

I voted for Barack Obama and Joseph Biden....and I'm very happy with the choices that President Obama has made thus far and I trust him.

[Duende azul]

221. Excuse me. You are defending republican/neocon talking points. I think my postcount doesn´t matter

in that regard.

I have to admit asking for an explanation was a bit sarcastic.

Of course you don´t have nothing to explain.
But I still would like to know why you feel the need to defend not touching the tax cuts for the rich.

[...of J.Temperance]

226. I am not defending Republican/Neo-Con talking points

President Obama is being smart by allowing the W tax cuts to expire naturally in 2010.

[Cleita]

232. So according to you, they are buying all the cars and all the houses

and all the clothing and vacations that would have been bought by employed Americans making a decent wage in better economic years. You know that would be so much in goods that they and their families could never use up no matter how wasteful they were in throwing their money away. But those altruistic rich according to you are making that sacrifice to keep the ship afloat. Darn you business types, you believe any shit as long as it doesn't involve common sense.

[defendandprotect]

281. We've lost nature and the planet ... and you say shopping malls will enrich us ---

it's the same level of knowledge which got us where we are now --

It's called "really smart about really stupid things--"

[Zhade]

275. What a load of fucking horseshit. Typical dlc nonsense.

The rich aren't doing a thing to boost consumer spending - the actual motivator of economic growth.

[Zhade]

271. He was never going to raise taxes on the rich. Letting the tax cuts expire was his plan.

What's more, it's a myth that taxing the rich hurts the economy. It doesn't, because their spending habits don't change - unlike the poor and middle class, whose increased spending is the real motivator of economic growth.

[defendandprotect]

284. Right ...remember when Obama supported Single Payer Health Care --???

Develop Plan B ---

Think mmore in terms of small "d" democracy than big "D" Democratic Party --

Dean should move on and take most of us weith him --

[tomp]

347. You don't raise taxes on anyone in a recession..."

says you. for the super rich in america i would do it retroactively. i want back the money that went into their pockets from the last eight years of tax cuts railroaded through by an illegal president.

[Demeter]

20. The Rich MUST Be Taxed

The rich are great black holes into which the money disappears, never to be seen again. Appropriate taxation of the rich prevents the buildup of hoards of idle cash which can cause calamities like the one we are in now. If those people earning $250,000 and up had paid their share of the taxes, we would have infrastructure and health care, no deficit, and most likely no Depression looming. And they would have real profits, not paper ones that vanish in a panic.

Going back and reneging on this fundamental necessity of our economy and our nation is the worst possible idea, worse even than letting the auto industry go backrupt.

Furthermore, it must be done first thing, as far away from the next election as possible, so that people can get accustomed to the strange idea and see that it does in fact improve life for the rich as well as the rest of the country.

[Cleita]

23. Ding! Ding! Ding!

:thumbsup:

No more Milton Friedman Chicago School of Economics.

[AlexinVA]

25. I pay my share...

I'm taxed at a marginal rate of 33%.

Why isn't that enough?

That's not very RICH in the DC area.

[Cleita]

31. If you're paying that much in taxes you really need to change your tax

accountant.

[JDPriestly]

114. He is talking about his marginal rate. Read what he says.

[Dr.Phool]

33. What's your effective rate?

And that marginal rate is only above and beyond the income earned in the lower brackets. Not to mention payroll cut-offs.

I love whiney rich people.

[AlexinVA]

38. Not rich...

if I were I'd quit my job tomorrow.

My effective rate is much lower b/c of mortgage interest deduction, property tax deduction, state income tax deduction, etc., but I'd still prefer not to have MORE of my income taxed.

My goal is to save enough of what I do earn so that I can leave my job, profession, etc.

[notadmblnd]

44. So you say you're rich? But not very? Well I've got a question for you

I've always wanted to ask a rich person this and it might as well be you since you're fessing up to it.

Just how much is rich enough, and what is it about? Yeah, I know it's about wealth and power, but what exactly drives it? Once you have more than you'll ever need to obtain anything your heart desires... why do you keep needing more? Is it a substitute for something else lacking in your life? Is it a contest? Are you gonna be able to take it with you when you die? Just what is the final grand prize?

[AlexinVA]

49. I think you missed my reply above...

I'm not rich.

I have to go to work every day in order to pay my mortgage, utilities, food, etc.

[Luminous Animal]

62. If you are not rich,

then your tax rate will not increase.

[amitten]

136. Every rich person I know still has to work. Doesn't mean they

aren't rich.

By American standards, if you're making above $250,000, you are so far above the norm that you are indeed "rich".

The people with so much money they don't even need to work are "stinking fucking rich". And they should also certainly be paying more taxes.

[Dr.Phool]

27. Everything he campaigned on depends on it.

Otherwise, there's no money to do anything.

We wondered how long it would take before someone said we don't have the money to fund universal healthcare. I think we have a winner, and we didn't even start a pool yet.

[all.of.me]

40. I'm with you 100%. nt

[defendandprotect]

58. More importantly, money converts to corrupt power ...

which is the source of our problems ---

Start thinking about strengthening third parties and IRV voting --

The Democratic Party is totally corrupted now --

abandon ship --

[...of J.Temperance]

92. "The rich are great black holes into which the money disappears, never to be seen again."

Wealthy people create jobs, wealthy people use money to start businesses and employ the less wealthy....I would hardly call that being "great black holes into which money disappears"

Also there's a recession on, it's not sensible economics to raise taxes during a recession, nor is it sensible economics to do a massive tax cut during a recession.

The people who need help are the Middle Class, you help them by giving them a targeted tax cut, you pay for this by cutting wasteful spending....President Obama has already said during the campaign, that he's going to look at every government department to see where waste can be cut and where programs that don't work can be eliminated.

[SOS]

119. The wealthy create jobs?

Job creation during the "malaise" of the Carter years:

Beginning number of jobs: 76,649,000

Ending number of jobs: 90,800,000

Total Jobs Created: 14,151,000

Compound rate of establishment job growth: 3.56%

And the wealth-friendly Bush 43 years:

Beginning number of jobs: 130,883,000
Ending number of jobs: 135,884,000
Total Jobs Created: 4,526,000
Compound rate of establishment job growth: 0.71%

In four years, Carter created 10,000,000 more jobs than Bush has created in eight.

Those kindly wealthy folks should get their ass in gear and actually create some jobs.

[w4rma]

196. Wealthy people do not create jobs. Demand for products and services create jobs.

Anyone can start up a business with a loan and proper government support.

[HughBeaumont]

230. Steaming hunka crap then, steaming hunka crap NOW.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/HughBeaumont/64

Repeal the Bewsh tax cuts NOW. You need revenue to make plans go forth. The government has none and your precious wealthy are hoarding, not hiring.

[Zhade]

279. Wealthy people create jobs IN OTHER COUNTRIES. Ones with virtually no worker protections.

The people who actually create the booming economy that the rich leech off of are the poor and middle class, whose increased consumer spending motivates economic growth.

You sound like a reagan-loving trickle-down-economics True Believer. History has shown your way to be morally and literally bankrupt.

[wordpix]

331. and no environmental protection, either

[bruceban5]

324. What is your definition of Rich?

My wife and I with bonuses earn just over $250k. We have been married 10 years and have gone from making $58k combined at the beginning of our marriage to where we are today. We have both had several promotions and have worked very hard to get where we are today. We have two kids. We are certainly not rich. Last year we paid over $50k in taxes and donated over $20k to charity. I defy anyone to say that I am not paying my fair share, or tell me that I am rich.

[wordpix]

329. yes PERIOD

[tomp]

348. i don't know where this $250,000 figure comes from?

it's more than i make but it's not what i consider "rich". i think it's purposely used to alienate the upper middle class. i'm talking about the super rich. THAT'S where the money is.

[LatteLibertine]

22. Here we go...

*sigh*

This is the same philosophy that brought us the bailout. Let the wealthy do as they please and be careful not to upset them, or else!

[w4rma]

26. Obama filled his cabinet full of DLCers. No progressives have his ear. This was bound to happen.(nt)

[defendandprotect]

60. AND...what do we do about it ---??????

[Luminous Animal]

We go on a spending strike.

We boycott EVERYTHING except necessities.

[defendandprotect]

75. Well... start posting -- !!!

[all.of.me]

101. I've been on necessities only for months!

Sometimes I can't even afford them and go without.

[kevinds13]

28. Tax cuts + Deficit Spending = How to break out of a ressession.

n/t

[w4rma]

32. No. That's the formula the Republicans used to get us into the Depression. (nt)

[...of J.Temperance]

102. Deficit spending is the WORST possible idea, that only adds on to the National Debt

Which then down the road that creates even more problems.

What's needed is a moderate tax cut for the Middle Class, a moderate stimulus package for the Middle Class.

Nobody else needs either a tax cut nor a tax rise during a recession.

[Are_grits_groceries]

116. Deficit spending during a recession IS what should be done.

October 21, 2008 · Nobel laureate Paul Krugman believes that increased public spending — akin to the efforts of the New Deal during the Great Depression — is the best way to escape the financial crisis and regain American global leadership.

In his Oct. 16 column in The New York Times, Krugman writes, "It's politically fashionable to rant against government spending and demand fiscal responsibility. But right now, increased government spending is just what the doctor ordered, and concerns about the budget deficit should be put on hold."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95929699

This not only his opinion.

[...of J.Temperance]

117. Well it's not the first time I've disagreed with Paul Krugman

Part of the reason why things are such a mess, is that the Republicans have gone on spending binges since W got in, reckless spending binges.

What's needed is the opposite, fiscal restraint.

[w4rma]

126. And, how prey tell, is the government going to get back into the black while only reducing taxes on

the middle and not raising them on the uppers? The money has to come from somewhere, and the middle and lower classes will be hit with fee taxes if the capital gains tax and the upper income taxes aren't raised to make up the difference.

[Are_grits_groceries]

It isn't only Paul Krugman.

There has to be pointed spending that actually does something like work on the infrastructure as Obama proposes.
The economy is closing in a lot of areas - credit, consumer spending, etc. This is spiraling into more and more job
losses. Tightening the economy now even further would be the worst thing to do. The deficit is important, but working
on it now is like treating an injury while an artery has been cut. It doesn't matter what the other injury is.
If you don't stop the bleeding, it's over.:hi:

[Zhade]

283. Wrong. What's needed is public spending on job creation that then boosts consumer spending.

It's Econ 101, son.

[provis99]

152. well, supply side Reaganomics is the opposite of deficit spending

are you sure you wouldn't be happier on the Republican side?

[...of J.Temperance]

185. The Republicans tend to support deficit spending

And no I wouldn't be happier on the Republican side, considering I'm a Democrat.

I should add that for the past 8 years W and the Republicans have operated the show based on MASSIVE and reckless deficit spending....surely you aren't going to deny that the Republicans SUPPORT deficit spending....because it's what they've done for the past 8 years, one of the reasons why things are now in a mess.

Out of control deficit spending creates a mess.

On Edit: Added comment

[Zhade]

289. Um, you can't be this dense. You see the difference between their massive deficit spending on WAR...

...and deficit spending on a public works program that employs out-of-work citizens, boosting consumer spending - don't you?

I mean, you're comparing apples and alligators here.

[...of J.Temperance]

302. I am not dense, and I've noticed it's a habit of yours to throw insults about

I mean is it even possible for you to make a comment without hurling some sort of insult as well?

[ingac70]

147. Isn't that what we've done the last 8 years?

What crap.

[wordpix]

330. your formula looks like BushCo's 8-yr. plan and it's RUINED US.

[bkkyosemite]

34. The rich have so many loopholes to not pay taxes now. Close those loop holes and bring back the

taxes they paid in the 90's. Many of the rich do not pay taxes now or much less then they should.

The average joe/jill keep getting hammered with higher prices and less in their pockets while the rich always find a way to keep most of their money and to allow it to grow. Enough!

Give the average citizen a bailout of say $15,000 a piece. Tax the rich at earlier levels which will not do any harm to them and let's get this show on the road. We need a bailout. If we had the bailout we would use some of that money to purchase and some to pay bills for services rendered.

I will really be disappointed if Obama does not try to keep his promises...really disappointed as I struggle to make ends meet.

[davefromqueens]

59. Exactly, Close the loopholes

Every loophole out there must be closed and closed immediately.

And during the 40s and 50s, the top 1% paid 90% in taxes and things were working quite well.

I'm not advocating 90% but during the 60s we had 71% and things worked well too.

39% on the top 1% is still way too low. 71% on wealth over 10 million may also be low but it is where it should be.

[WriteDown]

91. This is why I'm a fan of a flat or fair tax.....

10-13% for everyone.

[Dawgs]

99. "fair tax" would be much higher than 10-13%.

Right?

[WriteDown]

105. No.....

You get a paycheck, you're taxed at 13%. No loopholes, no income tax returns, barely even an IRS.

[Dawgs]

118. That's not how the fair tax works.

There is 0% federal tax on your paycheck. The government gets it's federal tax from an increased sales tax; which is proposed to be 23%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax

I think you are talking about a "flat tax"; which I'm not talking about at all.

[WriteDown]

123. Ha....

I was talking about fair as an adjective and not as a plan. Thanks for the link. I'll need to read up.

[Zhade]

293. A flat tax is hardly fair - it's regressive. The poorer you are, the MORE you pay!

It's rightwing horseshit disguised as fairness, when it's anything BUT fair.

[WriteDown]

314. How's that...

You make $10,000 a year, you pay 1300$. You make $100,000 a year and you pay $13,000 a year. No deductions, no write-offs. Can't get much more fairer. At least it limits the hiding of money.

[IsItJustMe]

253. Straight up.

There are so many damn tax loop holes for wealthy people that it is not even funny. Medical savings accounts, prepaid college tuition plans, IRA's, and tax right offs out the ass.

Middle class people don't have the extra money to take advantage of many of these things.

I have heard it said that America is the land of the free. The cynic in me always says, "You are as free as the money and wealth that you have."

[WriteDown]

317. You nailed it. nt

[Blasphemer]

37. I cannot support this at all

I have been wary of the makeup of his incoming administration but it seemed premature to cast any judgments before any important decisions were made. However, IF (and I hope this a big if) this is true, I would be extremely disappointed and not as hopeful as I had been about this Presidency. The top tax rate is RIDICULOUSLY low. Rolling it back to 39% should just be the tip of the iceberg. That needs to happen ASAP. Before the midterm elections, it should then be raised AGAIN. We don't know what is going to happen in the elections of '10... we have to tackle this one immediately. The Republicans may negotiate on things like healthcare but when it comes to taxes, we HAVE to strike decisively while we have Congressional majorities.

[Scooter24]

42. As someone who would be affected by this change,

please by all means, tell me exactly what percentage of my money should I be paying in taxes? Obviously you agree that 40% should, so what should it be now, 50%? 60%? Hell, why not 70%?

I'm satisfied with a 33-35% rate, but why higher? I didn't work my ass off for 12+ years just to subsidize the poor.

It's bad enough that 70% of my property taxes get taken away by the state to pay for poorer, under-performing school districts in the state. Sheesh.

[defendandprotect]

46. It used to be 90% -- Why not tell us why you demand wealth --??

What's enough for you --???

[...of J.Temperance]

87. It used to be 90%, and guess what, there were still poor people

Raising taxes on the wealthy doesn't combat poverty, IF it did, then when the rate was 90% surely at that point poverty would have been eliminated, but it wasn't....it was still there, it's still here.

[w4rma]

120. The middle class was the largest it has ever been, at that point in America's history. (nt)

[defendandprotect]

133. Yes .. and there were welfare guarantees which have been largely removed ...

There was not poverty nor hunger, nor homelessness at the rate it has been created over the

past decades --

There was entrenched OPPRESSION of African Americans in southern states and even in jobs,

barring them from SS and other benefits -- and from education --

Raising taxes on the wealthy provides progressive government with greater means to

abolish poverty and causes of it --

unless you're trying to suggest the poor are just lazy..???

Many of our largest corporations are paying no taxes -- sometimes rates as low as 8% --

We also have to look at the opportunity wealth brings to gain greater privileges and

to corrupt government --

THAT we can see quite clearly right now --

Our infrastructure is falling apart...

Capitalism is killing the planet and humanity --

This kind of privileged thinking has brought only destruction --

[Scooter24]

111. I don't demand it...

I earn it. What's enough for me is what I deem it to be to pay for things of my choosing. I don't believe in this logic that I should just settle for 10% because the government needs the other 90%.

[Zhade]

296. If any of that wealth is inherited or comes from investments, no, you don't earn it.

NT!

[...of J.Temperance]

306. I don't think that's any of your business to be making such a comment

If some peoples' parents were wise enough to provide a nest egg for their children, then thats nobody elses business.

Or what do you want to do now? Raid everybody's trust fund in your bloodlust against people who might have a bit of money?

[Blasphemer]

50. I see nothing wrong with a 50% top tax rate

In the last 10 years, I have run the gamut - from not making enough money to pay any taxes to making enough to pay the top tax rate and I have absolutely no problem with the idea of a 50% (or even higher) top tax rate. During the 60's it went down 20% from 91% to 70%. Between Reagan and Bush II, it was cut in half. That is absurd. How much better off would this country be if this were not the case? By the end of next year, I am hoping to be back in the top tax bracket and I would have no problem living well even if taxes took 70% of my income and I live in New York City. I understand your concerns about tax money not being appropriately spent but I do think a substantial amount is needed to guarantee the welfare of as many of our citizens as possible. I have no problem "subsidizing" the poor and middle class - I was raised middle class and I know very well that it is the poor and the middle class that have been screwed over more than anyone else.

[defendandprotect]

70. When you pay your taxes you are not "subsidizing" the poor ....

and middle class" --

You are simply making some RESTORATION for the special privileges you've been given ---

among many other privileges --

In fact, if we had never had these few hundreds of years of capitalism/corporatism

we'd probably still have citizens with options other than working for corporations

and/or as near-slaves all over the world for capitalists.

Perhaps we might even have prevented this capitalistic desecration of nature --

of the planet which has been so completely polluted and sickened.

Additionally, a privileged status often provides a way to gain special favors from

legislators/government and others, adding up to total corruption of the system.

[Blasphemer]

83. Oh I agree...

I put "subsidized" in quotes because it was the term the OP used. I am in perfect agreement and restoration is the appropriate word.

[Zhade]

297. Unlike many well-off people, you don't subscribe to the "I got mine, fuck everyone else" philosophy.

And I must thank you for that!

[SpookyCat]

68. I'm sorry, I've been trying to stay away from these arguments,

but this one I have to comment.

I'm seeing this attitude a lot in several of the threads, and I'm frankly stunned and sickened by it.

If you don't believe in fair taxation providing a safety net for the less fortunate, if you have an "I got mine, screw the little people" attitude why, pray tell, are you a Democrat? You sound, and maybe I'm reading you wrong, but you sound very much a social Darwinist...the poor are poor because they are lazy and shouldn't be enabled. That is utter nonsense and as someone who has been poor more of my life than I haven't, I can tell you it is very hard work being poor.

But I digress. I'm just sad with the level of selfish right wing talking points I'm reading in the last few days, between this post, the Big 3 discussions about UAW, and poverty in general, this I guess Libertarian strain on this board confuses me. This is not a Democratic attitude, period.

Or maybe I don't all these years what a Democrat is.

[Scooter24]

127. You're reading more into my post

I never said nor meant "screw the little people." The use of "fair taxation" is simply another term for an arbitrary amount that the state deems is a fair living allowance. Under the Obama plan, my taxes will go up about $100k a year, which I think is fair. However, many here are advocating a much larger increase.

[SpookyCat]

151. "I didn't work my ass off for 12+ years just to subsidize the poor."

Then you might consider toning down this rhetoric. We are in a society where some people, for reasons not always of their own failings, are not going to be able to make a living wage. How we respond to the least among us is a testament of our health as a society.

Your sentence quoted in the subject is polarizing and hateful. Perhaps you are responding in the heat of the moment, but it speaks to selfishness and greed to me.

Let me turn the discussion around; what do YOU suggest we do about poverty? About inequality? About children who are hungry in the wealthiest nation on earth, when they have parents working full time "working their asses off", and still cannot provide basic essentials?

I work hard for my money too, and scratched and clawed to get to the level of comfort that I enjoy. I am hardly wealthy, but I can afford occasional luxuries and a higher standard of living. But I would happily pay a higher tax so that we could have health care for everyone, and a viable safety net for those who need help.

[Zhade]

299. It IS selfish greed. Nothing less.

The epitome of "fuck you, I got mine" so prevalent in rightwing circles.

[tomp]

349. i chose to work in a field in which one does not usually get rich....

...nursing, an absolutely essential occupation, in which there has been a prolonged shortage of workers. now, my salary went up over the years, but nowhere near what it should have gone to based on "the market". in fact many nurses may be doing worse, relative to cost-of-living.

i don't ask for much, i just don't want people who get insanely wealthy manipulating "the market" making all the decisons to suit their interests. and i don't want to hear about unfulfilled promises from the landslide messiah. the tax cuts in 2001 were an obscene middle finger to a nation that could not prevent the theft of the presidency by bush/cheney and that entire *residency was enabled by the dems.

not that I'M expecting otherwise, but you would think that people who believed change was coming form obama would be pretty pissed at this announcement.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

213. Then you are making $3.3M a year.

:nopity:

[DireStrike]

169. Thank you.

And thank the DLC for bringing these types into the party. The types who believe in the reagan economics that have worked so hard to destroy America for the past few decades.

[leftstreet]

98. BWAHAHAHA "subsidize the poor" Gonna be one of THOSE days on DU

:puke:

[fascisthunter]

39. This is a Deal Breaker for me As Well

I've read enough to know the rich greedy bastards in our own party are just as bad as those on the other side. We now are a fascist country...

centrist=bitches of the upper corporate class

[illuminaughty]

337. yep, a corporatocracy

Love your def. of centrist. Nails it.

BTW, Fascisthunter. I lived in Italy, a place well informed on said subject. The most common graffiti you see isn't gang signs, but "FASCISTI ASSASSINI!" Fascist assassins. It is one of the worst insults you can hurl at someone. And now it has come to us.

[TacticalPeek]

41. .

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jefferson_dem]

166. We?

Welcome to DU. :hi:

[SlowDownFast]

51. Why am I not surprised? n/t

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[xxqqqzme]

54. That 'hope' for

health care.....kiss it goodbye!

[PSPS]

55. Go back to the tax rates in effect before Reagan

If someone is making over $2 million a year, let them pay a 70% income tax on the amount over $2 million. A graduated income tax is the way to go.

Here's the federal tax table from 1980 (using 1980 dollars):



(Note about the meaning of "Marginal Tax Rate" -- This refers to the tax levied on the last dollar of income, not the first. In the above example from 1980 using 1980 dollars, a married person filing jointly who made $225,000 per year would pay 70% income tax on only the amount over $215,400, not anything below that. A common misconception is that the entire income would be taxed at 70%, which is not true.)

Another item seldom covered in these discussions is the payroll tax (FICA.) This tax applies to only the first $97,500 of annual wage income and amounts to an additional 12.4% in taxes (employers pay half, but self-employed pay it all.) This means someone who makes under $97,500 pays a 12.4% surtax on their income as a "reward" for making less money. If someone earns, say, $2 million, they end up paying 0.6% into FICA while a person earning $97,500 pays 12.4%. And since this applies to wages only, the stock options, golden parachutes and other obscene compensation that the wealthy get isn't taxed at all.

[Auggie]

64. I'm with you. $2 million is a lot to earn in a single year. The rich can afford it.

[davefromqueens]

57. Middle class taxcut AND tax increases on top 1%

You can not fix this economic mess without substantially raising taxes on the top one percent and doing away with much of the corporate welfare and tax ponzi schemes that allow big corporations to evade taxes.

This MUST MUST MUST MUST be done.

[gblady]

63. in the many....

stump speeches I listened to....
I always got the impression he was simply going to let
the cuts expire in 2010...
I do not believe this is anything new...

[4lbs]

73. Looks like you were the only one here that was paying attention.

n/t

[1776Forever]

69. OK - Then give us poor workers out here help on our Foreclosure "income" difference!

We had to file bankruptcy because we couldn't find full time work in Florida and helped out our 38 year-old son who developed Progressive MS and had no insurance and couldn't get any help for 2 years, that took all our savings! Now we are going to have to pay the difference in the sale of our home next year if they get it sold by then in taxes! This is rediculous in my book! ANYONE listening!

:wtf:

[Zhade]

301. That's insane. Yet some here don't care.

Fortunately, they are very few.

Unfortunately, the richer they are, the more of a voice in government they have.

[1776Forever]

342. I am going to start a thread on this soon. I am hoping we working poor who lost our homes can get

some help before the taxes put us into yet another round of despair and "paying" for a lost home that we didn't really have anything else to do but to give it up because of the economy. It wasn't because we didn't try and we wanted to work!

Thanks!

[efhmc]

72. Please don't let this be true. Makes me so sad.

[OhioChick]

76. No surprise here....

I'm beginning to hear of many things he campaigned on and have now seemed to have fallen off of the radar that are pissing me off.

Obama's choice for DHS could flame tech visa battle
Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano has a strong record of support for the H-1B program

November 20, 2008 (Computerworld) The person thought to be President-elect Barack Obama's leading choice to be secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano, has been a strong advocate of increasing H-1B visas -- a stance that could turn out to be a lightning-rod issue during her confirmation.
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9121059&intsrc=hm_list

Many pissed off people out there for different reasons.....

[Azlady]

84. I've emailed change.gov and several others about this issue

Obama MUST come out clearly, urgently to clarify what his intent is with this terrible issue. If they do not address it MORE jobs will be lost, the economy will only further tank... bring the jobs home, give the jobs back to USA workers that are currently being held under work visa programs.

With regard to the tax cut.... Obama did say there may need to be changes to his tax plan. I figured the first to be dropped would be the tax increase on the wealthy... sucks, but I just sadly knew it would happen.

Azlady

[yodoobo]

77. WHAT?

Thats an important piece of his platform as it pays for much of the rest of it.

I really don't like where this leads.

I still have alot of faith in this man.

But if he breaks all his promises, thats it I'm out. I'll never vote again. I didn't put my all into getting him elected just to be made a fool of.

But I'll wait and see, but my stomach is tightening.

[prostock69]

79. Everyone take a deep breath

before you throw the baby out with the bath water. Number 1: none of us are experts in economics. Number 2: there are many who ARE experts in the field of economics who are advising Obama who are working with him on developing his plan. WE DON'T KNOW the full extent on why Obama MAY make the decision of not raising the taxes on the rich at this time. All I care about is that the economy turns around and we get back on the right track. If that means not raising the taxes on the rich for right now, then that is o.k. by me. I think the reason behind most of the posts regarding this is most of us want to see the "Rich" punished with higher taxes for what has transpired on Wall Street. And yes, maybe Obama played on our emotions by saying he would raise their taxes during his campaign. However, IN REALITY, raising their taxes MAY NOT be the best thing to do at this time. Can we please pull back on the knee-jerk reaction of jumping ship before we see what Obama's economic plan entails?

[yodoobo]

89. Where were those experts on November 3rd?

Did they just suddenly find their cell phones this week?

The only thing that has intrinsically changed in the last weeks, is that the election is cinched and the next election is 2 years away.

[ooglymoogly]

97. Yes lets all take a deep breath and suspend our common

sense as we have been asked to do on FISA, the trillion dollar bailout of the wall street fat cats slopping the pigs debacle and place our faith on trust which has so far been supported with nothing but words which at some point will become meaningless. I hope to god this is not true.

[Ken Burch]

145. It's about wanting to make sure Obama never says "a rising tide lifts all boats".

We had to have the War on Poverty when it became clear that THAT didn't work.

[w4rma]

298. How the hell do you know who is and who is "not" an expert in economics here? (nt)

[brentspeak]

315. What qualifies someone to be an "expert" in economics in the first place?

[McCamy Taylor]

81. Notice the deafening silence from the Obama supporters who usually praise everything he does.

The ones who can find a silver lining in every move. That is because there is no silver lining here. David Axelrod needs to stfu and be sent back to Chicago be Fed Ex. He almost blew the primary campaign, I am convinced that he had big guns help in the general election campaign----all that unity just was not his style, it was much more (dare I say it) Clintonesque. And now he is flapping his mouth about how Obama is going to be just like Bush, only taller and more eloquent.

:nuke:

We did not need Karl Rove in the WH and we do not need Axelrod in the WH. Surely there is some Democratic campaign that he can start managing for 2010.

[Dawgs]

104. I don't have a problem with this article. Why would I?

Obama didn't do anything yet. You know he's not the president yet, right?

[Shiver]

113. There have been more than a few threads on this...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x7916341

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x7915864

To point out two. I know I saw more as well.

Are any of you knee-jerks economists?

[jefferson_dem]

165. Whoa!

Two months before the swearing in and you're already off the bandwagon and hurling insults.

Have fun with that...

[golddigger]

194. !

:nuke: :popcorn:

[Shakespeare]

286. !!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Good for a laugh, as always.

[mikehiggins]

85. Panicked (sic) by FOX yet AGAIN?

Did Axelrod say yes or no? Did the other guy say yes or no? Who will make the final decision?

Here's a hint, folks. His name is Obama.

FOX and AP and others are desperately trying to continue the game of being relevent with an administration that has little use for them EXCEPT the uses they want to use them for (sounds a little Rumsfeldian there, huh?).

The O-people are playing the media the way the media used to play us on behalf of the BFEE and it is quite likely the FOX-oids just aren't smart enough to realise it.

Sure we'll look at the tax cuts, etc. O has ALWAYS said he'd look at the tax cuts and usually (if I remember correctly) said that he would let the Bush cuts run out the way they were supposed to. He certainly is NOT going to announce that he would try to rescind them immediately BECAUSE he wants to fight the battles he wants to fight, not those the media would love to cut him up with.

Remember "No new taxes" with Poppi Bush? How did that one work out? Announcing that we are going to do away with the tax cuts on day one would do what besides drop the market through the basement, and with O's name attached to the drop.

Come on, folks. Wisen up. Obama is calling the shots and so far it seems to have worked quite well.

Chill

[wcepler]

86. liar, liar pants of fire, Barack Obama

Dear God, how many people have bought this man off? It's already clear the he was "got to" during the campaign by the right wing DLC dems and the Israeli right wing lunatic fringe (he hasn't even thrown a bone to the Palestinians or the Muslim world in general), and now he's not going to stop the tax breaks for the billionaire elites!

The only hope I had left was that since it was going to be samo, samo for our international Middle Eastern policies (e.g. , the Palestinians are doomed and war against Iran is TOTALLY back on the table), at least he wasn't speaking with a forked tongue when it came to his "national" policies. But, to already announce that the astronomical tax breaks for the elites are going to stay in place (probably for his entire administration), is a heads up that this is going to be an Israeli lunatic fringe right wing/DLC/Clinton/Obama Presidency -- in that order.

Never has a presidential candidate (when he was one) lied about so much in such a short period of time.
He is totally betraying EVERYTHING we busted our butts to get someone to do. And why? How pathetically simple: he was bought off about basically everything. He must be related to Joe Lieberman. Maybe he'll kiss him.

This announcement is the kiss of death since it signals he going to do the exactly the same thing with his national promises as he has already done with his international promises.

Liar, liar, pants on fire Obama

[Beacool]

334. Don't lump Hillary into this list.

She was speaking about rolling back the Bush tax cuts way before Obama. Remember FISA? Who kept her word and who didn't?

:eyes:

[ooglymoogly]

88. This is one of the most if not the most important

campaign promises he built his base on and was the foundation upon which he has been elected. I hope folks react accordingly if this should indeed come to pass. If he does renege on this after the theft of all the resources of the middle classes by the fat cats being protected, that will be a scary prospect indeed.

[wundermaus]

90. The back slide begins...

and he is not even in office yet. This does not bode well... the stench lingers.

[JDPriestly]

96. This would be a betrayal to all of us who worked so hard to

get Obama elected. It's up to us to make sure this does not happen.

The rich had their tax cuts and look where it got the country.

No, no, a thousand times no on this one.

[Mari333]

108. GRRRRRRRRRR. n/t

[bbgrunt]

109. FISA, bailout, Joemomentum, on it goes--but he does have style.

[RCinBrooklyn]

128. The Slick Willie of the new millennium.

[...of J.Temperance]

129. Slick Willie?

:eyes:

His name is President Clinton ACTUALLY....but, whatever floats your boat....

[crim son]

134. I hope he does not.

He really ought to make an effort to keep one of his most notorious campaign promises, otherwise he's just like...well, he's a disappointment.

[OwnedByFerrets]

135. The hits just keep on coming!!

[HPD]

137. 2010...big deal

I don't understand how allowing another year to go by is such a big deal. he never said he will do everything the first 6 months. His stimulus plan may take advantage of lower taxes for corporations. There are economic experts who questioned whether the repeal should be done anytime within the next year. To be safe, he may just allow it to expire.

And the news out there does not say whether he will delay a middle class tax cut.

[LongTomH]

144. OK, let's take a chill pill kids!

We've gone from one extreme to the other - sometimes in the same thread. President Obama is not the second coming (Sorry to have to tell you!); but neither should we give up on his presidency before it starts. We should listen again to Naomi Klein's call for progressive pressure on Obama. Make no mistake, there will be pressure from the other side: the DLC and the corporate interests.

There are great remarks from the Youtube member who posted the vid:

Klein lays out how the grass roots activists of the great depression figured out the cause, isolated the bad actors, and pressured government itself to be report as activists for the majority of Americans. That generation rejected the Laissez-faire capitalism that came back under Reagan.

Will we see that same cause for our crises today? Will we act as powerfully to demand a return to an egalitarian society? Can we take on Corporate America?

Obama's presidency is not enough... he must be pressured to reject the Wall Street Power that even now seeks to contain him.

I still support President Obama; but, it's going to take pressure and support from the Progressive wing of the party to realize the promise of his presidency. Note I didn't just say: "his campaign promises" but, "the promise of his presidency" - I'm referring to the hopes that so many of us have invested in what an Obama presidency can mean.

[HPD]

154. I agree about the pressure.

...but i always thought Obama knew all this. He is of the same kind of liberal progressive background most of us are from. He should know they will try to contain him. He should know. I think he may be unsure of himself. I know in the past he read blogs and forums. hopefully he reads this forum.

I think he is looking for 8 years to fix america. Rule from the center at first and then move more left/progressive. The only thing is he needs to reassure us sometime in the next four years if he wants another 4 years. But hell...what am i talking about, he's not even in power yet.

[HPD]

148. For those against it

Protest. Send email through change.gov or another venue to Obama and his staff. Complain about his Centrist approach and remind him of his campaign promises. I can't stand people who just complain on a website. i have sent a few emails already concerning his cabinet. Sure they probably went unnoticed. But if enough people complain, then they do get noticed.

Biden did warn near the end of the campaign Obama will do things early on that will be criticized by his supporters. He did say we will need patience since it will make sense in the end. Maybe this is what he meant.

Obama may be try to lead from the center his first couple year in order to transition to the left. That was my 'hope'. If you read any of his books, this all makes sense. He always believed in compromise and both parties working together. But he is a liberal and does support a liberal agenda. Maybe he believes in an easing in of left leaning politics.

But if he doesn't act more liberal then he won't get reelected.

[humbled_opinion]

153. I Listened Intently During The Debates.

My full understanding of Obama's plan for the economy is that he was going to use the catalyst of Energy, i.e., new and emerging sources, for all of our energy needs dovetail that into new forms of transportation and walla you solve our economic crisis and our energy dependence in one fell swoop.

Of course you can add stimulus to support infrastructure projects to get Americans working again...but Americans leading the way on the vital energy issues of our times was a main reason that I started to truly believe.

My fear is that the falling gasoline prices are quickly lulling Americans back to sleep......

[GreenPartyVoter]

163. Hmmm... Obama has an energy plan and the gas prices are falling.. Is this just

a coincidence?

[Javaman]

164. man, this post brought out the trolls. nt

[jefferson_dem]

170. Heaps of over-the-top concern being tossed around in posts above.

All...based on a FauxNews interview.

That's to be expected, I guess.

[madrchsod]

177. DU jumping to conclusions posts...

come on DU !--300 posts by 6!

[IsItJustMe]

270. I supported Obama and I vote Democratic, but I have to tell you, this makes you wonder.

We will see

[Lydia Leftcoast]

184. And what the hell reason is there to do that?

:grr:

[...of J.Temperance]

189. There's no need to worry actually, because

President Obama is just going to let the W tax cuts expire in 2010, which is both smart economically and politically.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

191. We're in a record deficit situation: Those tax cuts need to expire NOW

Paying a 50% marginal rate will still leave the fat cats plenty to live on.

There is NO reason to keep them. NONE--other than a bunch of whiny trust fund babies acting as if they're more important to the economy than they really are.

[...of J.Temperance]

200. All politicians are immediately thinking of re-election

The 2008 election has passed and we won, Democratic politicians, including President Obama are now looking at the mid-terms, in 2010, when the W tax cuts are due to expire, obviously we want to keep hold of the Senate and the House.

Letting the W tax cuts expire naturally in 2010 gives us cover for the mid-terms, because it deprives the Republicans the opportunity to screech that we've raised taxes.

It's smart politics what President Obama is doing.

[w4rma]

208. Its dumb politics. We're in record deficit spending and we need to raise them on the ultra-wealthy.

And we need to do this 20 years ago. If Democrats in Congress want the economy to show improvements before the next elections they need to increase taxes on the wealthy instead of gouging normal people with additional fee taxes to lessen the difference between the record deficit and government income.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

240. Sometimes people think so strategically that they lose sight of reality

:eyes:

If Obama DOESN'T raise taxes on the rich (who, after all, are a tiny minority of the population), then the Republicanites will blame him for the rising deficit.

The Republicanites will blame him for SOMETHING, that's for sure. Rather than try to second guess them, he should just do what he promised and talk directly to the public, the way Reagan did to build support for his policies. You know, go on TV, and say,

"Yes, taxes will go up, but not YOURS unless you make (whatever the number is--let's say "a zillion") dollars per year. The right-wing radio talkers will tell you that your taxes will rise, but they will be LYING--unless you make a zillion dollars a year, and if you DO make a zillion dollars a year, then you'll still have plenty to live on even with the tax hike, even though you may have to give up one of your polo ponies."

[w4rma]

192. The heck with that. The old tax rates on the ultra-wealthy were too low before Bush.

The old tax rates on the middle were too high before Bush. And allowing PARTS of the Bush tax cut to fade away won't close any loopholes for the wealthy.

Also, we're in a Depression and there isn't enough time to wait two years for PARTS of the Bush tax cut to automatically expire.

[...of J.Temperance]

203. Before Bush?

That would be President Clinton, President Clinton gave enormous tax relief to the Middle Class, and don't forget that President Clinton's time in office saw the creation of 18 million new jobs.

There was peace and prosperity.

On Edit: Added comment

[w4rma]

231. Yes. The foundation for the Bush "presidency" was created during the Clinton years.

We had a Democratic Congress when Clinton started his two terms and he blew it with "free trade" and other things that angered the Democratic base. Obama is setting himself up to do the same exact thing by listening to the same people who haven't learned from their "mistakes".

[...of J.Temperance]

308. Huh? So the W disaster was actually President Clinton's fault?

President Clinton, a man who left office with his policies having created 18 million new jobs, cut the National Debt and left a $3 trillion surplus for the first time in HISTORY....is responsible for the W economic disaster?

Of course there are "others" out there who blame W's messes on the Clintons, we know what those "others" are called don't we? Somehow I think that maybe you would want to be different from those "others", the crazed Clinton Haters who blame EVERYTHING on President Clinton.

[w4rma]

336. For one thing, he could have shut the Bushes down permanently if he had allowed the investigations

to run their full course instead of covering up for Bush I.

[...of J.Temperance]

363. Yeah....whatever n/t

[Zhade]

307. Peace - unless you were Iraqi. Or Rwandan.

NT!

[...of J.Temperance]

310. OMG! Not those old chestnuts

Questions:

How many American soldiers died in illegal wars when President Clinton was in office for 8 years?

How many nations did President Clinton invade illegally and then proceed to cause a total clusterfuck and a quagmire in?

Answers:

None.

None.

On Edit: D'oh hit send too quickly

[Luminous Animal]

273. Maybe that is what his plan is now...

But, without a doubt, simply allowing Bush's cut to expire is NOT the plan he ran on and is not the plan outlined on his change.gov site.

[antimatter98]

195. So, the climb down starts--edging toward a Pelosi/Reid world--again.

Here we go... I predict, we will see Obama assume a Pelosi/Reid stance, as if they were running the government, not a strong president, who made so many promises during the campaign.

Also, clearly, the bankers and Wall Street own Obama--he got more cash from them than did McCain during the campaign, and what do we in the hustings matter to Obama's White House? We're just the engine the powered him financially for 21 months, but now can be forgotten and screwed.

Punked is what we've been.

[liberalpragmatist]

199. Probably a good idea

There's a lot of knee-jerkism here. The tax cuts are set to expire in 2011 -- that will happen anyway.

Nearly all economists right now -- including people like Krugman and Delong -- are saying that in this type of situation (possibly depression) it does not make sense to raise taxes AT THIS MOMENT.

Instead, he plans to push heavily for a major stimulus package -- $600-$700 billion. Yes, this is going to create a big deficit, but in this type of situation that's appropriate.

[w4rma]

202. What he needs to do is lower taxes (including fees) on regular folks making $250K or less and raise

them for everyone making $250K or more (especially the capital gains tax) including eliminating the upper payroll tax cap of about $85K.

The stock market should not be taxed at a lower rate than product and service producing labor.

[Luminous Animal]

264. Please site Krugman....

I know that he advocates for increased deficit spending but I cannot find any source in which he comes out against raising taxes.

[ProfessorGAC]

210. Barrack, Don't Delay

NObody has a solid statistical model that supports that tax cits to the rich are a bad economic lever.

Challenge them! Make tjem prove it! They can't!!!!!

Raise their taxes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Change no plans!
The Pfofessor

[KillCapitalism]

217. Man, did we just elect a "W" lite?

I really hope he doesn't come out and say the wealthy and the oil companies need MORE tax breaks.

[BobRossi]

225. Clintonista DLC puppet.

The Clintons are in office after all!

[Zombie2]

228. THAT sucks! n/t

[McCamy Taylor]

229. "Considerations may be made" is bs talk from Axelrod. Should have said "We are open to negotiations

if this will help speed passage of crucial Congressional legislation like middle class tax relief, health care reform and relief for home owners caught up in the mortgage crisis. .

"Open to negotiation" sounds good.

Changing your mind after you get elected sounds like chickenshit.

Axelrod is Karl Rove=lite----not so bad, but in the same general category. He should not be in charge is polishing Obama's image while in office, because he will not make him look any better than Rove made W. look. Also, Axelrod has too many ties to lobbyists and companies like AT&T. He serves the Democrats much better by getting more Democrats elected.

[Pastiche423]

233. Can't get fooled again?

We just were.

[earth mom]

234. This is fucking bullshit!!! Obama LIED to the people!!! Gawd damn it!!!

People voted for him because of this promise!

Fuck this, I am livid! :grr: :grr: :grr:

[ohio2007]

242. guess its time to move out of the country

nowhere on his website do any pre election campaign promises remain.



maybe he never really interned to do what he said about change seeing as the Clintons are slipping back into power



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXvACE5Pe9Q

[Catchawave]

245. It will be okay, it's how he got elected right?

Wasn't that the most important thing EVAH!?

I'll be fine, hope the rest of you kids will be too :grouphug:

[earth mom]

366. Thank you.

:grouphug:

Just when you think that it can't get worse...it does.

[machI]

235. President Elect Obama needs to step up and do the hard things right away

He will not have the opportunity to push through the hard things that need to be done later in his Presidency.

He needs to get Congress on board and roll back these tax cuts right away.

He needs to get our troops out of Iraq right away.

He needs to put a stop to the Strategic Missile Defense and other wasteful Pentagon spending right away.

He needs to put an end to 'Don't ask, Don't tell' right away.

And the list goes on.

The year 2010 is an election year and Congress will not have the stomach for passing hard legislation. The year 2011 President Obama will be starting his campaign for reelection and will not have the time to push through controversial legislation.

Now is the time, and now is the place.

[Festivito]

237. If we had 60, it might have been different.

With the economy tanked, and still tanking, Obama will be blamed by the Purchased-pundit class. The "Obama Recession" will transform into O-Depression out of mouth-breathers.

With credit swaps looming in unknown amounts ready to discredit Obama at any time, the order in which he acts will be a tricky game of trading-pieces chess. Health insurance and balanced budgets are key to full recovery. But, for now his main concern is not long term, it is jump starting: jobs program. That's a trade with the dark side/Pubbies option he must take.

If we had 60, it might have been different.

[Blue Fire]

238. Ohfercryinoutloud, people!

Cut Obama a bit of slack here. Our economy is in tatters, and if delaying the roll back of the Bush tax cuts might, in some small measure, help encourage re-growth, so be it! I trust our President-elect is privy to more information than any of us here, and I stand behind my vote and my trust in his upcoming presidency. Once our economy is back on an upward trend, I expect he will re-evaluate his intention to require the "haves" and "have more's" to pitch in their fair share, and not just on paper.

[Zhade]

309. The rich don't encourage economic growth. THEY NEVER DO.

Only poor and middle class spending actually boosts the economy.

It is a MYTH and a LIE that taxing the rich hurts the economy.

[Flash-lighter]

244. Obama Has Been Saying This Since July 2007

Where have you people been? What's with all the "broken promise" outrage?

Here's David Minzer complaining about Obama's plan to let the tax cuts expire rather than proactively cancel them OVER A YEAR AGO!

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/6/104726/0056/332/354619

So what's with all the flaming red emoticons of rage, TheGoldenRule? Anyone who voted for him because of this "promise" wasn't paying attention.



The middle class is still going to get their tax cut 09...The top 5% will lose the Bush tax cuts at the end of 2010. Big whoop.

[Luminous Animal]

267. Obama's so-called plan

goes far beyond simply letting Bush's tax cuts expire.

http://change.gov/agenda/taxes_agenda/

[Flash-lighter]

272. This is consistent with everything on change.gov and barackobama.com

Where on that site does it say that he will raise taxes on those making over $250k before the end of 2010?

Here's what it says:

"Families making more than $250,000 will pay either the same or lower tax rates than they paid in the 1990s. Obama will ask the wealthiest two percent of families to give back a portion of the tax cuts they have received over the past eight years to ensure we are restoring fairness and returning to fiscal responsibility. But no family will pay higher tax rates than they would have paid in the 1990s."

Plus, in speeches going back to summer of 2007 he said he was going to let the Bush tax cuts "expire." (However, I also seem to vaguely remember him referring to a "rollback" of the Bush taxes for the top 5%... though despite some googling I can't seem to find the quote....)

Either way, he plans to have the rich paying at the same tax rate they paid under Clinton... Maybe he even left it a little ambiguous whether he was going to proactively roll them back or just let them expire. Why? Because he's smart and wanted to have the flexibility to do what made the most sense for the economy at the moment.

But no matter how you slice it, this is hardly a "broken promise."

[Luminous Animal]

278. A few here are making the false claim

that Obama's plan has always been simply to allow Bush's cuts expire. That is decidedly not true. His plan also outlined tax cuts and credits for the middle and lower classes.

I never claimed that this was a "broken promise" and quite frankly I am surprised at the uproar. Obama is, after all, a practical politician (not a progressive) and it is rare that any politician would speak declaratively.

[backscatter712]

246. I can understand this move, and even agree with it, as long as it is a delay.

Maybe it's just me, but I trust Obama a hell of a lot more than I trust Bush. I think he genuinely is trying to do the right thing for the economy with this move. Have some faith, dammit!

We are in probably the worst economic calamity since the Great Depression, and any economist will tell you that you do not raise taxes during a recession. That's basic Economics 101.

You raise the taxes (or in this case, repeal the Bush era tax cuts for the wealthy) once the economy's getting back on its feet.

Obama's just playing smart economics, that's all.

[dee_from_ott]

248. this is bulllllshitttttt

Taxes aren't going to save the financial sector. They only get taxed on Net Income, not on Net Losses.
Banks like Citigroup currently making Net loss (and not Net income) are not getting taxed. On top of that, the tax the banks would pay is so small relative to the subprime losses that it doesn't even matter. Automakers? What's he gonna do? he's gonna put competent people in GM's marketing team by holding off taxes?

This is stupid. If Obama lets us down it's going to be a hit on people's confidence to fight government.

[wundermaus]

255. Barack Obama on Tax Reform...

Barack Obama on Tax Reform -

• Yes, earmarks are abused, but small compared to tax cuts. (Sep 2008)
• No $300 billion on tax cuts for those who don't need them. (Sep 2008)
• Tax cut for 95% of all working families, not corporations. (Aug 2008)
• Tax cut for middle class and relief to struggling homeowners. (Jul 2008)
• Expand the Earned Income Tax Credit. (Jul 2008)
• I'm running against failed policy of profligate GOP spending. (May 2008)
• I will raise CEO taxes, no doubt about it. (May 2008)
• Under Bill Clinton, rich people didn't feel oppressed. (Apr 2008)
• No tax increase if earning under $250K; tax cuts under $75K. (Apr 2008)
• Raise capital gains tax for fairness, not for revenue. (Apr 2008)
• Tax cut for seniors and those making $75,000 a year or less. (Feb 2008)
• I'm not bashful about it: wealthy will pay more taxes. (Jan 2008)
• Stimulus package: $500 tax cut, & Social Security supplement. (Jan 2008)
• Restore progressive tax; close loopholes; relief to seniors. (Oct 2007)
• Trillion dollar giveaway: the Paris Hilton Tax Break. (Oct 2007)
• Reduce Bush tax cuts to pay for health care & other programs. (Jun 2007)
• Estate tax only affects the wealthiest 1/2 of 1%. (Oct 2006)
• Specific tax relief for families making $75,000 or less now. (Jan 2006)
• Bush tax cuts help corporations but not middle class. (Jun 2004)
• Tax incentives to create jobs at home instead of offshore. (Jun 2004)
• Last thing we need now is a permanent tax cut. (Jan 2008)

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1849138_1849551_1849935,00.html

reference -
http://www.ontheissues.org/Economic/Barack_Obama_Tax_Reform.htm

Ever get the feeling that we are the new Indians and the International Corporate Elites are the new settlers?

[Skittles]

261. did not surprise me at all

[natrat]

262. screw taxes, lets boil the rich first to tenderize then a nice saute'

[Alexander]

265. So what? The Bush tax cuts will expire halfway through Obama's first term.

That's fine with me.

Has anyone considered that the Republicans want to renew the Bush tax cuts?

[Luminous Animal]

287. The expiration of Bush's tax cuts

is not the end all of Obama's tax plan. To characterize it as such is dishonest.

[Alexander]

354. I didn't say that, did I? Reading is your friend.

All I said is that I have no problem with Obama letting the tax cuts expire, since the Republicans think we haven't cut taxes enough.

[Karl_Bonner_1982]

266. Perhaps Obama is just being iffy to throw conservatives off the scent.

If Obama said "No, taxes for the rich are going up in two years, no further comment" then it would be easier to attack him for being a tax-increaser. "Considerations will be made" is not a promise to delay the expiration. Remember that Congress would have to pass, and Obama sign, a new legislative bill if there were going to be any extensions on the Bush tax plan. And the chances of that happening are slim to none.

Right now I would not worry about the deficit. The economy needs stimulus, and repealing any tax cut at the bottom of a recession could weaken the stimulus effect. By 2011 we should have no trouble handling the tax increase - which will come at a perfect time to begin balancing the budget again.

The biggest trick in the book that Republicans will play is to cut taxes as a "stimulus" and then insist that they need to be made permanent to avoid plunging the economy back into a recession. Republicans seem to forget that the economy boomed under the Clinton tax rates, and, for that matter, under the tax rates of the 1950s and '60s as well! If McCain had been elected instead, he would probably have called for yet another round of upper-class tax cuts, and then insisted that THOSE cuts be made permanent as well, and on and on until the government is starved of revenue completely.

[roamer65]

291. Goddamn DLC bullshit is what it is...

Fucking neoliberals have gotten to him.

[yurbud]

295. protect the rich and throw the rest of us out of the lifeboat

[wordpix]

312. Don't Delay: TAX high income folks who got off easy during Dimson's reign

WHERE ELSE will OUR admin. get the money to do what needs to be done? :shrug:

[TBF]

322. Tax high incomes and cut defense. n/t

[corpseratemedia]

318. let the democrats in power follow their DLC neocon

dis-proven theories like "wealthy people create jobs" - not with "free slave trade" they haven't...not with the poor and former middle classes supplementing the taxes that the wealthy should be paying themselves and bailing out their once solvent (when well-regulated) industries.

The Dems will finally lose that huge base they've taken for granted and abused.

I NEVER want to hear about "entitlement" program cuts ever again.

[Truth Teller]

319. ***POLL***

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4523739&mesg_id=4523739

[Child_Of_Isis]

321. Barrack Obama!!! Do not lose your damn mind!!! eom.

[TBF]

352. Heh. That's the best post I've read on here today. n/t

[RCinBrooklyn]

338. He's depending on angry progressives to rationalize it away. Fucking snake.

[ohio2007]

340. The honeymoon is supposed to start in late january not end

maybe it was all just a nov 4 date rape.
I'm doubting the angry progressives will call it what it is

[dailykoff]

341. Oh brother.

This guy's going to out-Clinton the Clintons.

[tyne]

344. FFS People...

Obama's plan has ALWAYS been to let the tax cuts to the wealthy expire in 2010...ALWAYS. That was and has always been the plan. Google FFS.

Do your homework!

[lonestarnot]

353. What are you talking about? What is ffs?

[ohio2007]

356. for fuck sake and

btw

he's been hitting the kool aid ;)
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/11/22/17102/488/347/664781

[...of J.Temperance]

362. I'll be happy if President Obama out-Clintons the Clintons, considering

That the Clinton Administration is one of the most successful Democratic Administration EVER, they delivered eight years of peace and prosperity and 18 million new jobs.

On Edit: Typing error