Obama and the tax cut issue

[The cute widdle wesbian]

Uh ... keep in mind that I'm not terribly involved with politics. I know what's going on and I have my strong-minded opinions, but I'm not a die-heart politician or anything. I'm in the field of law.

That being said, I might as well put my neck out there and express what I think about our political situation in general. I could never be president because I think the liberals as well as the republicans are wrong as long as they're jadedly stuck to one side. I was sitting back one day listening in on a conversation between my father and sister in the other room. My father is a total rigid conservative and my sister is liberal. As the minutes ticked by, I realized that the more heated and intense the argument became, the more they both were running into a wall. I think that my sister was a little bit more on the win though just because she was willing to admit the faults of the democrats, while my dad was totally unwilling to give way in the least.

This is how I see it, based solely on the past decade: when Bush was elected for his first term in 2000, we were already 5 trillion dollars in debt. At the end of Bush's 8 years in office, we were twice that: 10 trillion in debt. Now Obama's been in office for 2 and a half years. He's managed to do exactly what Bush did in a 4th of the time. Now we're about 15 trillion dollars in debt. This country is broke, and Obama's truly not helping us, but Bush didn't do much for us either. Now our paper money is losing value fast because there's nothing to back it up. Here's my thought on that: Bush screwed us over, Obama screwed us over worse, now we're officially screwed. The republicans absolutely refuse to admit any fault, neither do the democrats. So once again, we're running into a wall.

Here's something else little to think about. I'm a well-earning person, I have a pretty big paycheck, so to speak. But I'm working class, just like the whole of my family. Our hard-earned money is being taken away from us in order to pay (in a lot of cases) people who simply don't want to work. I understand that there are people on wellfare who honestly can't work and need help. I'm all about helping the poor and people in need, but don't deny that there are plenty of people out there who gladly take mine and your tax dollars to sit on the couch and smoke weed all day. I'm in tough times to, why the hell do I want to pay for them? The way my mind works, I have to think of myself and my family first. But here's the other side of that: There are rich people who, like someone else said, barely pay a fraction of us working class people's taxes because they can. So the government wants to take a bit of money from the people earning 1 million bucks a year to help the starved. I could easily live off of 75 hundred bucks a year, trust me. We're in a tough spot. My only question is, why in hell are we arguing? Why are we making such a big deal out of the right and the left? Right now no one has jobs, no one has money, many don't even have food to put in their children's mouths. Why are we worried about the rich or the poor in particular, why aren't we worried about the honorary citizens of this country. We need to balance each other out.

How about dumping all that money into all those countries who've never done a damn thing to help us? Again, I may sound terribly unamerican when I say this, but we need to think of ourselves and ours first. Feed your people, not theirs. When we can aford to dump billions of bucks into the sea, let's do it. But we need to quit the spending as well as quit the rich people money hogging. So the democrats want to dump all the money at the poor, and the republicans want to dump it at the rich (basically speaking). So what goes to us?

This is why I'm a centrist. Unable to ever become president, but always the one who wins those political discussions with my family whenever I have half a mind to engage in them. That day I walked into the room with my father and sister, sat down, thoroughly humiliated their rigid arguments, and shut them both up once and for all. Keep in mind again, I'm not all educated in politics; my views are purely my own that I picked up by watching a little bit of news and junk. What I've said up above is a tiny taste on the tip of the tongue compared to all my political views, so don't think that that's all I got. I hate this topic so I'd rather not unfold completely. lol, not a very serious person and not much into huge political debates. We're all wrong in a way, and we're all right. I agree with liberals about gay rights (obviously), I agree with conservatives about guns in the home. I agree with liberals about birth control, I agree with conservatives about the healthcare bill (ugh). I'm independent. Thank you.

Let the backlash begin!

[Soon]

Kobi,

I understand that the other countries, including mine (Canada), provide universal health care and equitable education and a host of other services that the USA -- all of which is possible through our higher tax rates.

However, the frustration I feel with your country is that these services/rights will NEVER come to fruition b/c citizens already complain about the relatively low taxes that you do pay. Also, the wealthy/and corporations are certainly not paying their fair share (as the article points out) and the burden, therefore, is felt largely by those making under 200 000.

Our tax rates DO afford us a lifestyle that most of us would not give up for a lower tax base. Largely, we understand that taxes are needed to afford to NEVEr care about a hospital bill/surgery, have equal funding for education, and our regulations helped us avoid a collapsed economy. However, the way that Canada and other countries operate is decried as (dirty!) socialism and, therefore, somehow antithetical to certain American *values*.

What was striking to me is how do people think an increase in services (including military spending) can be managed without increasing taxes? Something Reagan even did (who is lauded by The Teabaggers) too offset the federal deficit (he also raised them in the state of Calif. when he was gov. (largest tax hike that state had seen since then).

The USA will never have the standard of living as other industrial countries b/c people seem unwilling to admit that services must be paid by the people of that country and that includes proper taxation.

The USA has the lowest tax rate now since pre-1965 and spending has increased dramatically. Yet, tax hikes (on corporations and the wealthy esp!) is denounced by the GOP. (when they spent more in the last eight years before Obama)

*off for a massage...need it now after reading the article again!

[Kobi]

Originally Posted by HowSoonIsNow

Kobi,

I understand that the other countries, including mine (Canada), provide universal health care and equitable education and a host of other services that the USA -- all of which is possible through our higher tax rates.

However, the frustration I feel with your country is that these services/rights will NEVER come to fruition b/c citizens already complain about the relatively low taxes that you do pay. Also, the wealthy/and corporations are certainly not paying their fair share (as the article points out) and the burden, therefore, is felt largely by those making under 200 000.

Our tax rates DO afford us a lifestyle that most of us would not give up for a lower tax base. Largely, we understand that taxes are needed to afford to NEVEr care about a hospital bill/surgery, have equal funding for education, and our regulations helped us avoid a collapsed economy. However, the way that Canada and other countries operate is decried as (dirty!) socialism and, therefore, somehow antithetical to certain American *values*.

What was striking to me is how do people think an increase in services (including military spending) can be managed without increasing taxes? Something Reagan even did (who is lauded by The Teabaggers) too offset the federal deficit (he also raised them in the state of Calif. when he was gov. (largest tax hike that state had seen since then).

The USA will never have the standard of living as other industrial countries b/c people seem unwilling to admit that services must be paid by the people of that country and that includes proper taxation.

The USA has the lowest tax rate now since pre-1965 and spending has increased dramatically. Yet, tax hikes (on corporations and the wealthy esp!) is denounced by the GOP. (when they spent more in the last eight years before Obama)

*off for a massage...need it now after reading the article again!

How Soon,

I actually agree with you.

From my perspective, we Americans have a very strange relationship with our values and our economics and our political system. And we have wonkie ideas about accounting too.

[AtLast]

At this point, I am much more unsettled with how the US Congress is behaving than what upsets me about Obama (although, most likely I will support his re-election- just have to see who the GOP candidate ends up being). I'm registered as "decline to state," which in California, is "Independent."

Frankly, I was amazed that the GOP didn't want to even consider the initial debt-ceiling proposal that Obama said he was willing to support ($3 of cuts to every $1 of revenue via reform of tax loopholes). Although, I support social programs and the health care reform bill, we do need to pay down our debt. At this point, who and how we ended up with it, doesn't matter to me. Both major parties contributed to the mess the US is in.

There are some things that I bet I would be called conservative about- others, liberal or even progressive. Sometimes I feel like as I age, I am just more of a political moderate. Don't know. It pissed me off that Obama did not support the Simpson-Bowles comission findings last year. The fact is, some cuts in entitlement programs do have to be made- and can be without direct hits to beneficiaries. I support "means-testing" for example. There are many, many very, very wealthy retirees that do not need the level of benefits they now receive.

I was angry when Obama allowed the Bush tax credits to be extended and I don't want this to happen again. Yet, reform of the tax code (big time reform) is needed.

My main frustration right now is how much power a fringe group (the Tea Party) weilded during the debt-ceiling debate and Obama caving in on revenue. My guess is that he realized that the House TP members really are ignorant about what the extent a default would have caused. Yet, I think he should have invoked the 14th Amendment although we all know that he would have faced a legal fiasco and calls for impeachment via the GOP. BUT- the numbers to actually pull impeachment off are not there and I think his doing so would have gone a long way in establishing his leadership qualities during a crisis. Hell, he already is vulnerable in terms of re-election.

Honestly, I believe the GOP (the whole party) just wants our economy to tank more- even to the point of an actual depression so that a Republican is elected in 2012. This is what bothers me the most. This is just plain sick and evil because this is not just about Obama failing- it is about millions of us losing everything.

The only way I see as a way for real change in the US political system that can bring what is good and fair in democracy is public funding (only) of elections- federal, state, local- every election held in the US. Now, the chances of this happening anytime soon is pretty damn slim! The "Citizens United" Supreme Court decision cemented the class divisions that decide who will hold office in the US.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by AtLastHome

Honestly, I believe the GOP (the whole party) just wants our economy to tank more- even to the point of an actual depression so that a Republican is elected in 2012. This is what bothers me the most. This is just plain sick and evil because this is not just about Obama failing- it is about millions of us losing everything.

I am a big believer in taking people at their word. If someone says, for instance, that they believe that we should lock up criminals and not worry overly much about legal niceties such as trial by jury (as a poster here suggested back in June) that what they *mean* is what they said. Well, the Republican party is on record as saying they want Obama to fail. Keep in mind that one of the chief ideologues of the GOP, Rush Limbaugh, flat out said that his goal was to make certain that Obama's presidency failed. Let's presume he meant that. Let us also presume that all of those GOP elected officials who parroted Limbaugh meant it. Now, view their behavior through the lens of their words. They are trying to make certain that he cannot govern! If that means tanking the economy, so be it.

What better way to win the next election than to make certain that the economy is in the tank?

Quite honestly, this reminds me a lot--a LOT--of end-stage Weimar Germany. At the end-game, the right-wing in Germany (the Nazis, the Conservatives and the Junkers) simply made the Reichstag non-functional. The idea was to make the nation unstable so that the German people would vote for anyone who would bring about stability. Doesn't that sound familiar?

Cheers
Aj

[Glenn]

Yep AJ; Then hardcore nationalism and then complete industrialization for the purpose of war...I don't think it will be as bad as Germany, but the focus will be more on waging war.

[Toughy]

http://www.randirhodes.com/pages/rrn...rticle=8909602

and

http://www.randirhodes.com/pages/rrn...rticle=8914378

Very interesting pieces about how Obama fucked over the Republicans with the Debt Ceiling Bill that he negotiated and signed.....it seems the Tea Party crazy fucks lost big time in this deal.....

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by popcorninthesofa

Yep AJ; Then hardcore nationalism and then complete industrialization for the purpose of war...I don't think it will be as bad as Germany, but the focus will be more on waging war.

Hmmmm...see, my reading of Germany is that the focus was on waging war. This might just be an artifact of the material I've read focusing on how the entire German economy and culture was pointed toward war but it seems to me that from January 1933 onward the entire nation was gearing up for war in Europe. I think what will be different is that Germany under National Socialism was far less theocratic than what I think is barreling towards us. My concern is that we are just this side of a theocratic takeover. Now, this theocracy won't look like Saudi Arabia but rather more a mash-up of Iran after the Islamic revolution and John Calvin's Geneva with a little of late-19th century Utah (Under Brigham Young) thrown in for good measure.

Cheers
Aj

[*Anya*]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

I am a big believer in taking people at their word. If someone says, for instance, that they believe that we should lock up criminals and not worry overly much about legal niceties such as trial by jury (as a poster here suggested back in June) that what they *mean* is what they said. Well, the Republican party is on record as saying they want Obama to fail. Keep in mind that one of the chief ideologues of the GOP, Rush Limbaugh, flat out said that his goal was to make certain that Obama's presidency failed. Let's presume he meant that. Let us also presume that all of those GOP elected officials who parroted Limbaugh meant it. Now, view their behavior through the lens of their words. They are trying to make certain that he cannot govern! If that means tanking the economy, so be it.

What better way to win the next election than to make certain that the economy is in the tank?

Quite honestly, this reminds me a lot--a LOT--of end-stage Weimar Germany. At the end-game, the right-wing in Germany (the Nazis, the Conservatives and the Junkers) simply made the Reichstag non-functional. The idea was to make the nation unstable so that the German people would vote for anyone who would bring about stability. Doesn't that sound familiar?
Cheers
Aj

I have been thinking this is the underlying issue myself. The GOP, I believe, would allow us to tank, just to get more Republicans elected. They believe, with evangelical zeal, that they are the ones to save our country.

This whole mess is a true clusterfuck (good word atomic). Does anyone remember and granted, my memory is not what it was- when Clinton left office, we were in the black? The elected GOP quickly put us back in the red.

I am disappointed in Obama- I did have high hopes for his administration but maybe they were unrealistic. I just know I am disgusted with all of them-hell, they could not even agree to tax big business and their Gulfstream jets!

Bottom-line, my fear is that the GOP will win in 2012 and then we will be well and truly fucked.

[Kobi]

Originally Posted by Anya/Georgia

I have been thinking this is the underlying issue myself. The GOP, I believe, would allow us to tank, just to get more Republicans elected. They believe, with evangelical zeal, that they are the ones to save our country.

This whole mess is a true clusterfuck (good word atomic). Does anyone remember and granted, my memory is not what it was- when Clinton left office, we were in the black? The elected GOP quickly put us back in the red.

I am disappointed in Obama- I did have high hopes for his administration but maybe they were unrealistic. I just know I am disgusted with all of them-hell, they could not even agree to tax big business and their Gulfstream jets!

Bottom-line, my fear is that the GOP will win in 2012 and then we will be well and truly fucked.

An evangelical clusterfuck. This doesnt conjure up fantasies of a good time.

The Clinton surplus is debated as a myth. I dont pretend to understand voodoo economics or how best to reframe or manipulate data for a specific purpose. This article helps to do that: http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

All I know is basic math. If you have a deficit, there are only three ways to reduce it - increase revenue, cut spending, or a combo of both.

We can continue to quantify and qualify, and expound on any number of theories and crapshoots. But no matter how hard we try, we cannot escape simple math.

We also, in my opinion, cannot escape that in allowing ourselves to go global, we lost (or forfeited) a great deal of control over our own economy and economic wellbeing. This defies common sense.

I dont know who, if anyone, has the answer that will put us back on the path to prosperity or even just an even keel. Just seems to me, we need to abandon economic gymnastics, reclaim basic math and accounting principles, and get our collective heads out of this dysfunctional relationship we have with the accumulation of wealth and power and the corruption of character and values it breeds.

I dont know that the Democrats or the Republicans have the ability or desire to tackle this head on. They are both complicit in and working hard to tame this creature they jointly created.

I do know that, I, dont want to be caught up in a bunch of marketing stategies and campaign bullshit that is just nonsensical and illogical in both nature and content but sounds plausible given the right presentation.

As Americans, I do believe we have the ability to accomplish and overcome many things. But, we cant do either until we are willing to abandon the fantasy world we live in and get firmly reentrenched back in reality.

For me, come election time, I am going back to the basics in deciding who to vote for. I will be looking for those whose actions speak louder than their words, who are strong in basic fundamentals even when those are not popular, who doesnt promise me a bunch of bull we both know is not feasible or plausible, and who doesnt make me feel like I am choosing the least offensive of 2 evils.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by The cute widdle wesbian

Here's something else little to think about. I'm a well-earning person, I have a pretty big paycheck, so to speak. But I'm working class, just like the whole of my family. Our hard-earned money is being taken away from us in order to pay (in a lot of cases) people who simply don't want to work. I understand that there are people on wellfare who honestly can't work and need help. I'm all about helping the poor and people in need, but don't deny that there are plenty of people out there who gladly take mine and your tax dollars to sit on the couch and smoke weed all day. I'm in tough times to, why the hell do I want to pay for them? The way my mind works, I have to think of myself and my family first. But here's the other side of that: There are rich people who, like someone else said, barely pay a fraction of us working class people's taxes because they can. So the government wants to take a bit of money from the people earning 1 million bucks a year to help the starved. I could easily live off of 75 hundred bucks a year, trust me. We're in a tough spot. My only question is, why in hell are we arguing? Why are we making such a big deal out of the right and the left? Right now no one has jobs, no one has money, many don't even have food to put in their children's mouths. Why are we worried about the rich or the poor in particular, why aren't we worried about the honorary citizens of this country. We need to balance each other out.

See, I can't live on $7,500 a year. Keeping a roof over my head--no food, no clothing, no utilities, just the roof over my head--runs me around $14,000 a year. My utilities run another 6K a year, or so only one of those (the cable TV) is optional. Fuel for my car runs me about ~$2400 a year if ALL I do is drive to and from work and shopping trips.

The reason we are making a big deal out of the right and left is that these are meaningful distinctions. Having a right-leaning government or a left-leaning government makes a world of difference! It's the difference between public schools and libraries (favored by left-leaning government) or a gutted public education system and no public libraries (favored by right-leaning government).

How about dumping all that money into all those countries who've never done a damn thing to help us?

What is a better return on investment, one-half of 1% of our GDP going to foreign aid or a several hundred billions of dollars to clean up after a terrorist attack? I'm going to argue that the former is a better investment. Btw. of the G-8, we spend the least amount on foreign aid. Japan, which has a population only slightly larger than the state of California, spends every year what we spend in five in foreign aid. Japan. Which has ten percent of the population of the United States.

Again, I may sound terribly unamerican when I say this, but we need to think of ourselves and ours first. Feed your people, not theirs. When we can aford to dump billions of bucks into the sea, let's do it. But we need to quit the spending as well as quit the rich people money hogging. So the democrats want to dump all the money at the poor, and the republicans want to dump it at the rich (basically speaking). So what goes to us?

The Democratic party is trying to preserve the middle class, the Republican party is trying to dismantle the middle class. What's more, modern American conservatives are not conservative. The more I read conservative thinkers (not Limbaugh et. al. but real thinkers like Russell Kirk, Edmund Burke, etc.) the more I realize that *I* am a conservative and that what passes as conservative is actually more along the line of libertarian-theocratic. The Democratic party are the real conservatives in American politics. The Republican party is the party of right-wing radicals.

Cheers
Aj