President Obama Will Seek to Reduce Taxes for Middle Class
Source: NYTimes
President Obama Will Seek to Reduce Taxes for Middle Class
President Obama will use his State of the Union address on Tuesday to call on Congress to raise taxes and fees on the wealthiest taxpayers and the largest financial firms to finance tax cuts for the middle class, administration officials said on Saturday.
The proposal — which will also push to reshape the tax code to help working families and raise $320 billion over the next decade — faces long odds in the Republican-controlled Congress, led by lawmakers who have long opposed raising taxes and who argue that doing so would hamper economic growth.
But the decision to present the plan signifies the start of a debate over taxes and the economy that will shape both Mr. Obama’s legacy and the 2016 presidential campaign.
READ MORE »
Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/18/us/president-obama-will-seek-to-reduce-taxes-for-middle-class.html?emc=edit_na_20150117
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
onehandle
(51,122 posts)Lowering taxes on the middle class and raising them significantly on billionaires should be a major issue for all democrats.
merrily
(45,251 posts)is about to be sworn in.
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)Good point merrily!
raindaddy
(1,370 posts)If they were serious they would've pushed this when they at least had the majority in the Senate. Instead he signed an extension of Bush tax cuts for the rich.
Well if nothing else it feeds the, "at least he's trying" theorists. And it reestablishes Democratic party populism for Hillary in 2016.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)First ...
Those Bush tax extensions for the rich, also extended them for the working classes, too.
Secondly ...
Yes ... for HRC (or whomever is the Democratic nominee) in 2016; but more importantly, it reestablishes Democratic party populism for every Democrat running in 2016. Is that a bad thing?
raindaddy
(1,370 posts).1
He backtracked on his campaign promise to roll back Bush tax cuts for the rich. Then he waits until the end of his second term with the Republican majority in the House and Senate to propose tax cuts for the wealthy? The only good spin on this is it might fool a small percentage of Democrats who follow headlines and are naive enough to believe he's sincere.
.2
It's a good thing if "whomever" turns out to be Warren. If it's Clinton, see #1.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)they will twist themselves into pretzels to do it too!
raindaddy
(1,370 posts)simply because they're invested in deception.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I guess life is a series of insular events, all occurring without context or cause. So, a campaign promise is to be kept, regardless of the what is happening in real time ... never mind that the deal that was cut in making the cuts permanent kept millions of long-term unemployed from being cut off at the worst possible time ... never mind, the nation was facing a government shut-down ... never mind the deal effectively made the gop's deficit/debt argument, a positive Democratic argument for the rest of his Presidency ... never mind any of that; a campaign promise was broken!
I'm so glad the internet was invented ... it provides folks with an outlet for their political brilliance ... removing the need for them to actually do political stuff.
raindaddy
(1,370 posts)What's happening in "real time" are you serious? We've watched for over thirty years while the middle class continues to lose ground as the wealth in this country is redistributed. 16 million kids in this country go to bed hungry, our infrastructure is crumbling, our schools are underfunded, people are working longer hours for less money...
Dealing with the tax cuts on the wealthy wasn't a mere campaign promise, it was a core issue. And it's the reason why were still dealing with two economies in this country.
Here's a question for you SBM.. Why is it that an issue that has such a huge a impact on the welfare of the poor and middle class is relegated a mention in the President's State of the Union address six years into Obama's Presidency when the Republicans have the majority in the House and Senate while the corporate lobbyist created TPP is important enough that it's kept secret until they can fast track it through congress?
I patently await your brilliant political knowledge, feeling grateful for the outlet vast internet provides me.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Apparently, I don't. Please explain.
I do know, however, that the tax cuts, made permanent, applied the middle and working classes. I, also, know that the tax cuts, made permanent, netted some 60+ billions in revenue ... that (just about) eliminated the deficit and took that fallacious talking point off the gop table. I, also, know that the deal that made the tax cuts permanent, extended U/C compensation for the long term unemployed (at a time when there were NO jobs to be had) and averted a government shut-down that would have hurt the middleclass (and all government beneficiaries) far more.
So please, tell me how making the tax cuts permanent have hurt the middleclass.
You do realize that the above, undercuts your argument regarding the effects of making the tax cuts permanent, right?
And how would the raising of middle and working class taxes (with the expiration of the Bush tax cuts) have helped the erosion of the middle and working classes?
I don't understand your question ... a proposal for tax reform will be mentioned in this SOTU Address because it is an initiative that President Obama (and the Democratic representative that recently wrote the mirroring legislation) plan to pursue ... when else should it be mentioned?
But I don't understand your TPP talk ... how does a currently being negotiated trade deal figure into the SOTU mix ... what is President Obama to say about it?
From what I see, you are throwing a bunch of tangentially connected grievances against the President's wall hoping that something sticks ...IOWs, your solutions do not fix your grievances. Taxing the wealthy more (while raising taxes on the middle and working classes ... i.e., reversing the Bush tax cuts) will not appreciably affect the wealth transfer from the middle and working classes, absent a direct transfer of revenues to the middle and working class ... IOOWs, while reducing the wealthy's wealth would close the wealth gap ... some ... it does not approve the state of the middle and working classes.
raindaddy
(1,370 posts)What's hurting the middle class is the tax rate for the very wealthy dropping from 92% in the 50's to, (what was Romney paying 14%) over the last 60 years. And with it we've seen the biggest transfer of wealth from the middle class to the 1% in history. So yea, tax cuts for the wealthy along with anti-labor trade agreements have destroyed the middle class. And I'm simply questioning Obama's position on both. And from his actions he's willing to do what's necessary to pass another anti-labor trade agreement but not so much when it comes to getting the 1% to pay their fair share.
The question was simple. It was about Obama Administration priorities.. The TPP another trade agreement that hands more power to international corporations, hurts labor, hurts the environment yet it receives preferential treatment. They will do everything they can to fast track it through congress without the public even having an opportunity to read what's in it.
While tax reform is placed on the back burner until the last half of his second term, knowing it'll never pass because the Republicans now control congress. It becomes just another meaningless attempt to fool the public into believing that this administration is serious about the growing divide between the wealthy and the rest of the citizens of this country.
I'm making clear direct statements and from what I'm experiencing your job is to obfuscate, avoid and try and confuse. Good luck with that.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)But let me suggest that the change in tax rates are only tangential and coincidental to the exploding wealth gap. So trying to fix that through tax policy (i.e., raising taxes on the wealthy end recipients) will do little to benefit the middle and working classes.
I will grant you that trade policy that encourages/rewards off shoring does/has hurt the middle and workin class. But, considering the US government's negotiating objectives ... that does not seem to be the case, this go round.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)yeah its just THAT simple....
I suggest that someone who thinks it is just THAT simple.....run for office!
raindaddy
(1,370 posts)Yours? My post was about the disingenuous timing of Obama's proposal.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)if you think it is easy...Run for office...Please be our guest to try it!
raindaddy
(1,370 posts)You might want to go back over the thread. The only one making that suggestion is you. I let you decide whether it was disingenuous.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)you can't have it both ways...
raindaddy
(1,370 posts)There are a number of liberal economists that would disagree with you. I guess it's just a coincidence that Reagan's hefty tax cuts for the rich coincides with the decline of the middle class?
You're exceedingly trusting when it comes to corporations creating their own trade agreements. They've historically been willing to give labor a fair shake. No need to even look it over, lets just fast track it through and get on with it shall we?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)around...
As if the Republicans would just roll over and get out of your way!
raindaddy
(1,370 posts)would've been to make the proposal when the democrats at least controlled the senate. How magical is that?
The second would be to make the same phone calls Obama made to insure Wall Streets ability to make sketch investments insured by the public.
A little arm twisting never hurts.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)It is sooooo disingenuous for you to even try this tact...My goodness...why he should have fixed EVERYTHING...EV...AH REE THANG...in 24 days right?
dotymed
(5,610 posts)the DNC finally realized it's populism or the highway.
IMO, they actually learned something from Bernie and Elizabeth and the progressive movement. It may be too late for this administration but I believe that in 2016, Progressives will be THE victors...please!
raindaddy
(1,370 posts)Because if you're losing seats to the insanity that's become of the GOP and your supporters aren't showing up to the polls, there's trouble brewing. And another shift to the right is not the answer.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)You're a week late!
What kind of a New Year's Party did you go to, anyway?
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)curtains for tax cuts for the workers ...
The only real work the Republicans will have to do is figure out how to twist reality into another bald-faced Republican lie to sell it to the brain-addled chumps that still tune into their 24/7 propaganda network.
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)Not hjs first term when he had a more pliable Congress?
Fool me once............
riversedge
(70,245 posts)yes, I agree with your comment but it is a populist idea--that could bring us all together.
deutsey
(20,166 posts)So it seems like the perfect time to push a liberal/populist agenda.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)
SunSeeker
(51,574 posts)I think the point is why didn't he push this proposal 4 years ago when it could pass? Because they don't want it to pass. This is nothing more then pure politics - making it look like they are for the middle class (but in word only) while making sure it doesn't really threaten the 1% so they keep getting their large donations for the next election. Disgusting.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Because it wouldn't have passed at ANYTIME during his Presidency and there would have been nothing to gain from putting it up, then.
SunSeeker
(51,574 posts)The only time Obama had a veto - proof majority in the Senate was at the beginning of his term, for all of 24 working days. He used those precious few days to push through what was urgently needed--the stimulus package and auto bailout that stopped the massive job losses.
SunSeeker
(51,574 posts)If he compromises with the GOP so that a proposal passes, he's a sellout working for the 1%. If he pushes a wish list of what we progressives want, which of course has no chance of getting past the GOP, he gets "NO points."
Unlike you, I give him Obama a LOT of points for what he is doing here, namely teeing this issue up for 2016 and defining what Dems are all about.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Exactly and Exactly!
merrily
(45,251 posts)Among many other things, it's an insult to us. Four years in the Senate, campaigning in 2008 on tax increases for the rich, six years as President with a Democratic majority Congress and he suddenly activates for tax cuts for the middle class and free community college as the most Republican Congress since 1928 is taking over?
Give me a damned break.
SunSeeker
(51,574 posts)And they weren't even consecutive days. And one of those 60 votes in the senate was Lieberman, who would have never voted for a tax increase. Obama used those precious few days to stop the economic free fall via the auto bailout and stimulus package.
This is being presented now because we have growth now, yet all of the income gains are going to the 1%. This proposal tries to fix that.
So you want him to just do nothing?
merrily
(45,251 posts)Last edited Mon Jan 19, 2015, 08:58 PM - Edit history (1)
just as Kennedy would have.
And, even assuming Lieberman was the problem--which he wasn't--what exactly what was done to try to bring Lieberman around? They took away oneof his two chairs for campaigning against Obama. What was he offered, or threatened with, for not going along with legislation that would have benefited the public? The Lieberman talking point has been addressed too many times, including on DU. It's a shibboleth. The real problem was the compromises the WH before Congress even started on legislation.
Even if you were correct, how long does it take to take a vote? Kennedy's health was no surprise to anyone. And why was there almost no support for Coakley when she ran against Brown? That was the ONLY election going in the entire country at that time.
But the size of the Democratic majority during Obama's first year is not even the issue. We're six years in now. And, whatever the size of the majority he had during the past six years, it was still a majority in at least one house the entire time.
Point is, he is proposing far more liberal things now, and pushing them to the public harder, than he did when he had a far better chance of getting them passed. You excuse him for not doing the kind of thing he is doing now when he had 59-60 votes in the Democratic Caucus, and praising him for doing it now, when he has exponentially less chance of success.
D.C. kabuki
SunSeeker
(51,574 posts)Dems didn't make Lieberman a douchebag--he was born that way. Kennedy's decline was sudden, after he initially responded to treatment. Dems did not hatch some nefarious plot not appoint a "placeholder" just to subvert their own agenda. If you are going to present such paranoid conspiracy theories, post supporting links.
Lieberman would never have voted for this tax increase.
It is NOT false that there were only 24 working days of a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. Here is a summary:
1. 1/07 – 12/08 – 51-49 – Ordinary Majority.
2. 1/09 – 7/14/09 – 59-41 – Ordinary Majority. (Coleman/Franklin Recount.)
3. 7/09 – 8/09 – 60-40 – Technical Super Majority, but since Kennedy is unable to vote, the Democrats can’t overcome a filibuster
4. 8/09 – 9/09 – 59-40 – Ordinary Majority. (Kennedy dies)
5. 9/09 – 10/09 – 60-40 – Super Majority for 11 working days.
6. 1/10 – 2/10 – 60-40 – Super Majority for 13 working days
Total Time of the Democratic Super Majority: 24 Working days.
http://mauidemocrats.org/wp/?p=2442
Obama already passed middle class tax cuts. This is not the most liberal thing he has ever done. The right decried his stimulus package and the auto bailout as outright socialism. Obama pushed those through during the precious few days he had a filibuster proof majority. This latest initiative is being brought now because we have such strong growth now, yet the increases in wealth is going to the 1%. This addresses that income inequality, that is why the package includes the proposal to raise $320 billion over the next 10 years in new taxes targeting wealthy individuals and big financial institutions to pay for new programs designed to help lower- and middle-income families. The Washington Post did a much better job of laying out the proposal than the OP's link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-likely-to-make-economic-recovery-a-centerpiece-of-state-of-the-union-address/2015/01/17/22ecec32-9cd6-11e4-a7ee-526210d665b4_story.html?hpid=z1
Obama could not propose such a tax increase and stock trade tax when we were in the depths of the recession and the stock market was cratering--and that was when he had those 24 days. He correctly used those days to address what was most urgently needed--to stabilize the economy and stop the massive job losses. The stimulus package and auto bailout did that.
Of course this tax proposal will hit a Republican brick wall, but I think he is doing this to stake a position that Dems can then carry into 2016. As the Washington Post notes at the above link:
merrily
(45,251 posts)by Kennedy most certainly did follow Kennedy into that Senate seat. And, as I said, it doesn't even take 24 days to take a vote.
Moreover, Bush and other Presidents seemed to get a lot of what they wanted without every having a veto proof majority, sometimes without even having their own party in the majority in both houses. That has been the fate of all Presidents since the Solid South changed from Democrat to Republican and California did the opposite. And the Constitution read the same way when they were office, as did the Senate rules.
So, trying to argue Obama's hands were totally tied is not only wrong, but only makes him seem weak (as in my opinion, do most of the excuses that get made for him). So, you are not helping him at all, but doing the opposite.
However, as my post said, this is year 6. The whole 24 day meme was for year 1 and has been debated on DU and didn't even apply to things like Obama's nominees, budgets that he sent to Congress, etc.
SunSeeker
(51,574 posts)Please provide links that Obama had more than 24 working days of a filibuster - proof majority.
merrily
(45,251 posts)I am not doing it again every time someone repeats that excuse. If you don't believe it, I don't really care. You ignore whatever i posted that you didn't like anyway.
SunSeeker
(51,574 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)SunSeeker
(51,574 posts)I know it is because you're making shit up.
Obama only had 24 working days of a filibuster - proof majority. That is a fact. That is why I was readily able to find credible links to support it. And why you couldn't find a link to support your lie.
merrily
(45,251 posts).As I said, I don't really care what you think of my refusal to be your google monkey. Even if I did, it's not as though my producing the link would change your mind about me or anything else. I could show you Obama pointing to the calendar to which Ive linked here time and again and, at most, you'd ignore it
So, not wasting my breath. Smear all you like.
SunSeeker
(51,574 posts)As I understand it, on DU, if you make a statement of fact, you should be prepared to back it up. And if you don't, it is fair to assume the statement was a lie.
I am not asking you to be my "Google monkey." I can Google just fine for myself. I provide links for my assertions, like all nondefensive DUers do. I did so in this thread.
Since you claim to have this link and have posted it many times before, as you claim, then it should not even require a Google search. It should be sufficient to simply search your journal or just do a site search on DU (that little box on the upper right of the home page if using a pc) with your name (merrily) and key words that would pull up your old post with that link. I have no idea what words you may have used in such a post. Only you would know that...if there was such a post.
merrily
(45,251 posts)
SunSeeker
(51,574 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts) SunSeeker
(51,574 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)Smear on.
As it is now after 3 on the East Coast, you even get to it undisturbed. Have fun.
SunSeeker
(51,574 posts)You sure like wasting time. I am not letting you waste any more of mine.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Buh bye.
rtracey
(2,062 posts)count them up, see if he is correct
SunSeeker
(51,574 posts)Please state how many working days of Dem supermajority you contend is shown by that chart.
NYC Liberal
(20,136 posts)If you think it's only started now, you've been living under a rock or not paying attention.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)There is nothing liberal about his appointees that have all been conservatives. There is nothing liberal about the TPP, fracking, or embracing the Patriot Act. There is nothing liberal about firing Howard Dean and Van Jones or turning his back on ACORN. There is nothing liberal about letting the war criminals slide and yet leaving Gov Siegelman rot in prison. Nothing liberal about Arne Duncan or Thomas Wheeler.
Pres Obama may be to the left of Romney but that doesn't make him liberal. Recently he has decided to stand up to the Republicans, but up to now he has, at the best tried to reason with the Republicans, or at the worse, kowtowed to them.
SunSeeker
(51,574 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)I listed. He is better than Mittens but far, far from pushing a "liberal agenda".
SunSeeker
(51,574 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)spying are liberal? Granted he has taken some liberal stands, but in many areas he is definitely not liberal. How about education? He appointed Arnie Duncan. How about Internet security? He appointed Thomas Wheeler. Time after time his appointments have been far from liberal. His chief of staff openly disparaged liberals.
SunSeeker
(51,574 posts)FDR put Japanese Americans in concentration camps. No president is perfect.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)in Lilly Ledbetter (accomplished) and the end of DADT (accomplished) and the end of DOMA (nearly accomplished) and the ACA (accomplished) and minimum wage increases (accomplished for those he can affect) and the immigration executive orders, not to mention the tax cuts for the working class and his Jobs proposals.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)items I have listed above. He is better than Mittens but hardly has been pushing a "liberal agenda". What Arne Duncan is doing isn't considered liberal, not Thomas Wheeler. Rahm Emanuel outwardly disparaged liberals. I will say that at in the last few months he has acted more liberal than he did in his first 6 years.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)For you. Even on balance, it is still plenty liberal enough for most liberals ... so says the polling.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)you aren't a liberal in my book. Just because one believes in same sex marriages or the legalization of marijuana, that doesn't balance out support of the TPP, fracking, the Patriot Act, NSA spying, torture apologizing, indefinite detention, drone killing, continuous war in the Middle East, etc.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Attempt to have their value but the test for liberalism.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Attempt to have their values be the test for all of liberalism. You're trying to argue that your values/ issues are more true to really, real liberal values than other issues/values.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)I don't agree. Liberals don't apologize for torture, for example.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)in order to pursue their own (income equality) purses ... as another example.
24601
(3,962 posts)environmentally conscious investments that are worthy? And don't we all admire Hillary Clinton's investment advisors, particularly those specializing in cattle futures?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)as long as Wall Street cuts them in. Wall Street gains are zero-sum to the most part. And when bubbles burst, the wealthy are not hit as hard as the lower class schmucks that are just trying to make a decent percentage. Wall F'n Street is a sham all the way.
red dog 1
(27,820 posts)"There is nothing liberal about letting the war criminals slide and yet leaving Gov. Siegelman rot in prison."
Also, there is nothing liberal about the Obama administration asking the judge in the Siegelman case to INCREASE Gov. Siegelman's prison sentence
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/06/05/1097552/-Gov-Don-Siegelman-Facing-20-Years-Obama-Pushes-for-Long-Sentence
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)anymore.
tavalon
(27,985 posts)NYC Liberal
(20,136 posts)Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)While, this Congress has significantly fewer Democrats ... the vote registry would hardily characterize the former Congress as "pliable."
But, YES ... NOW! Now is, exactly, the time to introduce these issues ... it frames the 2016 race(s) in a way that places the gop on the defensive.
merrily
(45,251 posts)And did US Senator Obama introduce a tax bill?
NoJusticeNoPeace
(5,018 posts)doing it soon enough
No wonder we cant ever get anything done around here.
underpants
(182,834 posts)There have been several tax cuts for the middle and lower middle classes. They were part of the recovery and they worked very well.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)
harrose
(380 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)But it does draw a clear line of difference between Democrats and republicans, going into 2016, where we will be electing a President and the republicans have far more seats to defend in the House and Senate (with most of them in Blue/purplish districts), than we lost in 2012 ...
So, Yep! This is perfect timing!
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)Elections (IIRC) are November 2016 and it's only January 2015. I suspect most of the genpop will have forgotten about this by the time the general rolls around.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)this 2016 race will be media front and center from the moment the first Democrat declares, through election day ... It is the "new" election cycle way.
It's best to frame the argument now.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)When do you think someone will declare they're running? Roughly when, I mean, I'm not asking you to pick an exact day (although if you can, tell me so I can put a bet on).
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I predict the 1st big name (probably HRC and Bernie).
tjl148
(185 posts)Propose it when it can't pass instead of when you had a chance to pass is "perfect timing"? It is if you work for the 1%. And if this is the strategy for 2016 it is a stupid one. There are enough votes in the House to kill this and let repugs in potentially close races to vote for it. Makes a good headline - voted with Dems for the middle class tax cut. Sorry it didn't pass. But I'm not only bipartisan but for the little guy. Yea, that will work just fine for us.
What kept him from proposing this Jan'14?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)When, during this entire Presidency, has the time/period when tax reform that shifts more of the burden to the wealthy?
First ... no there are not. Secondly, there are no republicans that will go on record favoring such legislation ... to even argue this indicates you haven't been paying the least bit of attention.
Timing. More specifically, the 2016 election cycle hadn't started yet.
merrily
(45,251 posts)
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)The Republicans have control of both Houses of Congress, all of the Democrats in both Houses of Congress support it, and President Obama is the one who called for it in the first place.
So, when the Republicans run for re-election in just 14 months, how are they going to explain to their constituents that they didn't cut their taxes for them?
How's that going to go over with their own base, who has been screaming about the high rate of taxes they have had to pay for the last 6 years?
That shit won't play in Peoria, that's for sure.
valerief
(53,235 posts)
n2doc
(47,953 posts)He knows there is no chance the repubs will go along. But if he can get them defending the 1% against the rest of us, that is a victory. The key is how much he and the democrats in general will fight against the inevitable repub lies and their MSM enablers. I think it is a positive move, but it will have to be followed up with a lot of effort to keep it from being twisted into "class warfare" and "socialism" by the usual suspects.
Fearless
(18,421 posts)Because he knows it won't pass and just wants his legacy to look better?
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)3d chess? against who? us?
Fearless
(18,421 posts)And I don't think he's stupid.
SunSeeker
(51,574 posts)Pray tell how this is against us.
Fearless
(18,421 posts)It's the only thing that makes logical sense.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Presidential, House and Senatorial running of the table ... I agree.
Who would have their legacy dependent on an initiative that is likely to fail?
Fearless
(18,421 posts)SunSeeker
(51,574 posts)He's doing this to tee up the issue of tax fairness and income inequality for 2016. Plus some parts of his plan which have bipartisan support, like expanding earned income tax credits, might actually get passed. The proposal makes sense.
SunSeeker
(51,574 posts)And one of those Senate seats was Lieberman--who was the reason we don't have a public option, and would never have voted for this tax increase.
Summary:
1. 1/07 – 12/08 – 51-49 – Ordinary Majority.
2. 1/09 – 7/14/09 – 59-41 – Ordinary Majority. (Coleman/Franklin Recount.)
3. 7/09 – 8/09 – 60-40 – Technical Super Majority, but since Kennedy is unable to vote, the Democrats can’t overcome a filibuster
4. 8/09 – 9/09 – 59-40 – Ordinary Majority. (Kennedy dies)
5. 9/09 – 10/09 – 60-40 – Super Majority for 11 working days.
6. 1/10 – 2/10 – 60-40 – Super Majority for 13 working days
Total Time of the Democratic Super Majority: 24 Working days.
http://mauidemocrats.org/wp/?p=2442
Obama already passed middle class tax cuts. This is about addressing income inequality, that is why the package includes the proposal to raise $320 billion over the next 10 years in new taxes targeting wealthy individuals and big financial institutions to pay for new programs designed to help lower- and middle-income families. The Washington Post did a much better job of laying out the proposal than the OP's link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-likely-to-make-economic-recovery-a-centerpiece-of-state-of-the-union-address/2015/01/17/22ecec32-9cd6-11e4-a7ee-526210d665b4_story.html?hpid=z1
Of course it will hit a Republican brick wall, but I think he is doing this to stake a position that Dems can then carry into 2016. As the Washington Post notes at the above link:
Fearless
(18,421 posts)SunSeeker
(51,574 posts)Lieberman was an Independent at that point even though he continued to caucus with Dems, but he always voted like a Republican. He fucking endorsed McCain over Obama. He voted against tax increases. He and other conservadems would have never voted for a $320 Billion tax increase on anyone when we were in the throws of the worst part of the great recession. Obama used those precious few days to push through the auto industry bailout and the Recovery Act, which got us out of the worst of the recession and stopped the job losses.
Now that the economy is growing, he has a better environment to propose spreading that growth around rather than letting it all go to the 1%. Even if it doesn't get past the GOP, it does make it crystal clear for the voters where Dems stand. Hopefully that will get Dems off their asses in 2016 so that we can win back the House and Senate, and keep the White House.
Fearless
(18,421 posts)SunSeeker
(51,574 posts)http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/17/obama-sotu-taxes_n_6493144.html
Fearless
(18,421 posts)SunSeeker
(51,574 posts)Some Republicans want to position themselves as fighting for the middle class ahead of 2016. Romney claims he's all about ending poverty now.
Fearless
(18,421 posts)And then those things end up benefiting themselves. Cite: Trickle down economics for instance.
LittleGirl
(8,287 posts)Thank you for posting that information. I knew that the 'super majority' was brief yet every single GOPer claims that it was 2 yrs. I remember it wasn't true and thank you for posting the timeline. I have saved that info into my hard drive and will use it the next time someone from the 'other side' claims it again.
SunSeeker
(51,574 posts)LittleGirl
(8,287 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)
Cha
(297,323 posts)
NBachers
(17,122 posts)Stick together?
NBachers
NYC Liberal
(20,136 posts)since he's already signed tax cuts for the middle class.
Cha
(297,323 posts) NYC Liberal
IronLionZion
(45,462 posts)
PSPS
(13,603 posts)Here we go again with another "middle class tax cut." If you read the particulars, they're bringing back that weird definition of "middle class" as those making under $200K per year. Yes, that's right. $200K.
How many people do you know who make $200K/year? I certainly do and they're not struggling at all. They don't need any tax cuts. Did you know that $200K/year is in the top 1% of households? The median income in the country is a little over $50K/year. Now that's the scandal. If $200K/year defines a "middle class" income and lifestyle, why do only 1% make that much?
It doesn't make sense, of course. But it isn't meant to make sense. The $200K/year figure was chosen not for its accuracy but for its political viability. If enough people aren't affected, the thinking goes, there will be little opposition and, if there is, it will have political consequences. Well, that certainly worked well last time, didn't it?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)do they NOT apply to those earning less $200,000?
Response to Mira (Original post)
glasshouses This message was self-deleted by its author.
jmowreader
(50,560 posts)FSM only knows, the working class could use more money in their pay envelopes.
Problem is, did you ever see a time when the GOP didn't try to slash taxes on the wealthy?
I don't think the GOP would have much of a problem giving up a 10-percent cut on the lowest two or three brackets - but they'd have a HUGE problem with it not being coupled to a larger cut on the top brackets, a capital gains tax cut, a business rate cut and a lot of new deductions.
I would prefer they devise a deduction for business owners who raised their employees' pay and/or added new employees. If you gave me 25 cents an hour as a raise that would do more for me than reducing my tax rate by 10 percent. And 25 cents per hour is two bucks a day - next to nothing, I get more than that by leaving fifteen minutes later at night.
tavalon
(27,985 posts)This is what I want. I want you to get up there and blow the roof off. Talk about the things that liberals, your actual base, want to hear about, like race relations, the environment, global warming, preserving the social safety net and hell, even making it stronger, talk about unemployment and about the dangers of a military industrial complex gone mad. Don't talk about the next big talking point in the Beltway.
It isn't, IMO, about talking points anymore.You compromised so much during this Presidency for political expediency and you just don't need to do that now. This is the only SOTU where you can strut out there and tell everyone the great things you did in his Presidency (he did do some amazing things, not as much as I would have wanted, but ACA alone deserves strutting, and those SC judges and Lily Ledbetter and ...) and you should bring back that firebrand community organizer who helped droves of us to believe "Yes, We Can!".
Screw politics, your time is effectively done (I know, I know - he has two more years but then, he doesn't, does he?) so take off the damn political expediency mask or admit it isn't a mask. It isn't like anything you say in 2015 is going to change that our next President is going to be a woman and another Clinton, like it or not.
I want you to play the honesty card. This is the time and the SOTU is the place. I don't want to hear about tax cuts, I want you to point out the elephant in the room, shitting all over everyone but the Koch brothers and their nasty ilk. Channel MLK like you did so many years ago.
Please, Mr. President.
tavalon
(27,985 posts)This is what I want. I want you to get up there and blow the roof off. Talk about the things that liberals, your actual base, want to hear about, like race relations, the environment, global warming, preserving the social safety net and hell, even making it stronger, talk about unemployment and about the dangers of a military industrial complex gone mad. Don't talk about the next big talking point in the Beltway.
It isn't, IMO, about talking points anymore.You compromised so much during this Presidency for political expediency and you just don't need to do that now. This is the only SOTU where you can strut out there and tell everyone the great things you did in his Presidency (he did do some amazing things, not as much as I would have wanted, but ACA alone deserves strutting, and those SC judges and Lily Ledbetter and ...) and you should bring back that firebrand community organizer who helped droves of us to believe "Yes, We Can!".
Screw politics, your time is effectively done (I know, I know - he has two more years but then, he doesn't, does he?) so take off the damn political expediency mask or admit it isn't a mask. It isn't like anything you say in 2015 is going to change that our next President is going to be a woman and another Clinton, like it or not.
I want you to play the honesty card. This is the time and the SOTU is the place. I don't want to hear about tax cuts, I want you to point out the elephant in the room, shitting all over everyone but the Koch brothers and their nasty ilk. Channel MLK like you did so many years ago.
Please, Mr. President.
Turbineguy
(37,346 posts)It's against their religion.
CrispyQ
(36,478 posts)Bumper sticker philosophy, but true. Tax cuts aren't the does all end all of everything, but the dems will stupidly continue to frame the debate in republican terms.
"...faces long odds in the Republican-controlled Congress."
Makes you wonder if that's why this may finally be proposed - cuz they know it won't pass.
Call me underwhelmed & out of trust.
SunSeeker
(51,574 posts)The proposal is more accurately summarized as a tax increase on the rich, raising $320 Billion over 10 years to be used to give the middle class tax relief, job training, etc.:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/17/obama-sotu-taxes_n_6493144.html
Also, when you put more money in the hands of the middle class in this consumer driven economy, they spend it and create jobs. They are the true "job creators," not the rich who just sock their money away.
vi5
(13,305 posts)"But goshdarnit, nothing I can do about it with this Congress. Amirite people? High five!"
Things are playing out just as they were expected to. Now when there is zero danger of anything even remotely liberal passing, he's all for it. Good cop (Obama)/Bad Cop (Republican congress) in full effect ladies and gents.
SunSeeker
(51,574 posts)And for the 24 working days he had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, he pushed through the stimulus package and auto bailout, pulling our economy out of free fall.
The ACA, his legacy, has already saved thousands of lives. Before the ACA, 45,000 Americans were dying because they had no health coverage.
This proposal is about addressing income inequality and teeing up this issues for 2016.
lark
(23,121 posts)It's not about taxes, it;s about jobs!! When you use a Repug meme, good things don't happen. Repugs will NEVER cut taxes on the rich, although they could cut taxes on the middle class and drive us further into a deficit hole.
obxhead
(8,434 posts)Oh yeah, insuring the financial stability of medical insurance companies.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Or claim that the middle class should be grateful for the upper class and how they won't be able to create as many jobs. This puts Republicans in a tough place.
SunSeeker
(51,574 posts)tjl148
(185 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)Republicans will be forced to oppose a tax cut.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)while cutting them for corporations and the wealthy and well-connected.
candelista
(1,986 posts)But we have a Democratic President. How strange! 
Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)It has to be a jest. or sick joke
If he had done this right after his inauguration it would have meant something. At this point in time (when it will go nowhere, as he damn well knows) it is nothing more than diversion. SO what's he trying to draw our attention from?
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)colsohlibgal
(5,275 posts)I'd like to see that defended as liberal, and he was trying to sneak it by the public with no discussion. And where are all those Wall Street CEOs who defrauded millions? Not in jail where they belong, but safe with a golden parachute we paid for, counting their millions.
840high
(17,196 posts)Response to Mira (Original post)
Corruption Inc This message was self-deleted by its author.
cpamomfromtexas
(1,245 posts)THIS WILL BE THE END OF FAMILY FARMING,
heirs will have to sell off parts of farms to pay off the IRS if stepped up basis is eliminated. The bad part is inflation drove most of the increase in value!
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Incorporate ...No?
cpamomfromtexas
(1,245 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)If the concern is taxation upon death of the principle, then incorporation avoids that, as the entuty survives the death of the principle.
The only problem with incorporatinformation comes if the land is reprised to non-farming use, and maybe not even then so long as the labs remains commercial.
What am I missing?
cpamomfromtexas
(1,245 posts)Corporate farming will be happy to have you paying estate tax on paper gain which is caused by inflation. Thereby causing your heirs to have to liquidate the farm to pay that tax.
Ultimately this will lead to fewer family farms and less competition for the corporate "Monsanto" type farming operations.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)This definitely sets the stage for 2016, by leaving the Republicans with no one else to blame for not cutting the taxes for the Middle Class . . .after they have said that taxes are too high for the last 6 years!
geretogo
(1,281 posts)
