From The Hill yesterday:
Translation: He's being "forced" into it--again. Do you get it yet, Democrats? Is it starting to sink in? President Obama doesn't want to end theBush Obama tax rates. This makes two--count 'em two--opportunities he's had to make good on the smoke he blew during the 2008 campaign about ending the tax cuts. Both times he's passed. In short, Dems, he's just not that into you. On the other hand, he's very much into these guys.Wake up and smell the coffee.
Oh sure, there will be some "revenue increases" included in what Dylan Ratigan appropriately calls the "pro wrestling" debt limit negotiations. Appropriate because the outcome is pre-determined, what we see now is just the preliminary theatrics. But like with so many other things the president says--like his creative interpretation of what constitutes "hostilities" for example-- you have to carefully parse his words.
There will be "revenue increases" in the form of a few tax breaks ended, a few loopholes closed, and a few fees raised, but nothing that amounts to much in the big picture. Piddling amounts like this:
This is also being floated:
Yeah, right. President Obama is going to raise taxes on the same guys he sucks up to at $35,000 a plate fundraisers. The same guys he plays kissy-face with to get contributions for his re-election campaign. That'll be the day.
If you need further evidence of how seriously this whole song and dance is being taken by the powers that be, despite the screams about the alleged financial catastrophe that will happen if an agreement isn't reached by August 2:
Pro wrestling indeed. The Hulkster would be proud.
"The White House, seeking an agreement to raise the nation's $14.3 trillion debt ceiling by Aug. 2, on Monday said it would not insist that any deal include an end to former President George W. Bush's controversial tax rates on the wealthy...The White House said the president is pushing the GOP to agree to eliminate some tax breaks for businesses and loopholes for wealthier taxpayers, but is not seeking to eliminate the across-the-board rates introduced by President Bush. That means taxpayers who earn more than $250,000 annually have gotten a reprieve.
Obama still wants to scrap the Bush-era rates, but with time running out on the debt-ceiling talks, he made clear Monday that he has a new range of targets.
Translation: He's being "forced" into it--again. Do you get it yet, Democrats? Is it starting to sink in? President Obama doesn't want to end the
Oh sure, there will be some "revenue increases" included in what Dylan Ratigan appropriately calls the "pro wrestling" debt limit negotiations. Appropriate because the outcome is pre-determined, what we see now is just the preliminary theatrics. But like with so many other things the president says--like his creative interpretation of what constitutes "hostilities" for example-- you have to carefully parse his words.
There will be "revenue increases" in the form of a few tax breaks ended, a few loopholes closed, and a few fees raised, but nothing that amounts to much in the big picture. Piddling amounts like this:
"Obama's budget wants $85 billion in new user fees over 10 years, including raising the airline passenger security fee from a maximum of $5 per one-way trip to $11. Other proposals range from Food and Drug Administration food inspection fees to duck hunting fees. The $85 billion also includes federal auction of parts of the broadcast spectrum and the sale of surplus federal property."
This is also being floated:
"The administration also would tax private equity or hedge fund managers at higher income tax rates instead of lower capital gains rates.."
Yeah, right. President Obama is going to raise taxes on the same guys he sucks up to at $35,000 a plate fundraisers. The same guys he plays kissy-face with to get contributions for his re-election campaign. That'll be the day.
If you need further evidence of how seriously this whole song and dance is being taken by the powers that be, despite the screams about the alleged financial catastrophe that will happen if an agreement isn't reached by August 2:
"Complicating matters is the congressional schedule. While the Senate is in session, the House is off this week ahead of the July 4 holiday. The House is scheduled to return next week when the Senate will be away."
Pro wrestling indeed. The Hulkster would be proud.
Gay rights is cool...I'm a little leery of it to be honest, but at the same time, I'm willing to see how it plays out. Anyway, the social and economic reality is...I don't know you tell me. Something seems really out of whack. Reaganism tapped into the fear of a changing world dynamic and took hold. It's amazing in its power, but if you think about it, it really is just a manifestation of money and power and how it's dominated the landscape for ever. What is different I guess is that there is a broader perspective emergent due to the upward mobility of 20th century society. The gentry in their throes of economic ecstasy failed to recognize the monster they were creating in the underclass. They will ultimately lose, they must, they are hopelessly outnumbered. If those numbers ever equalize well then...it's called Armageddon.
AlienHunter nails the accepting the new reality prize.
On the other hand, in the vein of if you can't beat 'em then co-opt their dirty tricks, it was thanks to a coaliton that INCLUDED Wall Street bankrolled oodles of dirty cash that helped to pass the gay marriage law in NY State.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/nyregion/the-road-to-gay-marriage-in-new-york.html
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2010/09/23/gay-marriage-gets-boost-from-wall-street/
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/the-financiers-who-helped-back-n-y-gay-marriage-campaign/
Not so funny when you read this...
Back when the austerity (I mean, fiscal responsibility) debate was starting, it was pointed out that the United Kingdom went with a 2:1 ratio of spending cuts to revenue increases. The result has been disastrous for the UK economy and painful to working people there.
When President Obama kicked off his push, he proposed a 3:1 cuts to revenue plan:
Balance Between Spending Cuts and Tax Reform: The President’s framework would seek a balanced approach to bringing down our deficit, with three dollars of spending cuts and interest savings for every one dollar from tax reform that contributes to deficit reduction. This is consistent with the bipartisan Fiscal Commission’s approach.
Amazingly with the GOP walking away from talks, we now find out that a devastating 5:1 ratio of spending cuts to revenue increases was not good enough for them. Ezra Klein reports:
A bit more information has trickled out over the last few days detailing the exact state of the budget negotiations when they collapsed. Both sides, as they often said, were shooting for about $2.4 trillion in deficit reduction over 10 years. They’d already agreed on around $1 trillion in spending cuts and were making good progress on the rest of it. But Democrats insisted that $400 billion — so, 17 percent — of the package be tax increases. And that’s when Republicans walked.
This is bat shit insane.
Honey I shrunk my negotiating position in the deficit talks
Carguy,
that's hilarious...Kamikaze Obama...I like it. LOL!
I really think Donald Segretti is "between jobs" right now.
Excellent point. But, one never knows about the repubtilians.
Rubio....not sure. Christie, THAT guy wont; take a back seat. Actually, he can't GET IN the back seat.
aH make a good argument. OTOH, if Obama isn't going to BE president, he might as well do what he can while he can. Call the GOP out for what they are, on national TV. Take off the gloves, and then move on in 2012. He may have already lost that 3-4% of votes that got him elected last time. He shoudl take the lead of teh Japanses Army in WWII. If defeat is inevitable, do the most damage you can to the enemy before biting the big one.
I'm thinking Romney/Rubio or Romney/Christie. One for the establishment Republicans and one for the Tea Party crowd. The GOP grand poobahs aren't going to let Bachmann get on the ticket. She's too much of a liability with the Independents, like Palin was in '08. I'm guessing they've learned that lesson.
Des,
He really has no choice...The entire wealth system is aligned against him. He is one man, albeit a Presidential figurehead yet it is obvious he is not in control. No person, no matter who it might be (invoke the strongest progressive in the world) can not fight conservative power. Money is running the world...period.
We have to be satisfied with the crumbs.
Consider this: Obama fights for the tax breaks and by some quirk of legislative magic, he gets what he wants. Then? Banks stop loaning money, corporations refuse to hire, Wall street does whatever it does when somebody needs to be f*cked, all the economic indicators tank, etc. Then? Then Repubtilians start propagrandizing that liberal econo-principles simply don't work...just look at all the proof before you. Then? Then we lapse back into conservative style economic behavior and we all die. The perfect Death Wish scenario complete!
Romney-Bachmann......get used to it.
You gotta admit. The republicans can TOTALLY control government with a majority in JUST ONE chamber while the democrats COULDN'T do that with a significant majority in BOTH houses and the presidency.
I agree with RHM, lots of people are gonna say, "What the hell, give the Mormon a shot. What have we got to lose?"
What the hell has happened to this guy?
The most accurate description I've seen was from one of the comments at Taylor Marsh's blog. "He's not trying to force Democratic policies on Republicans, he's trying to force Republican policies on Democrats."
Why vote for faux Republican or Republican Lite when you can vote for the real deal?
He keeps this up and he may not get elected again.
I am just in awe of the many ways that Americans are being screwed by the Government which, sadly, seems to include Obama.
This ain't what I voted for!