Obama - a failed presidency?

**1KielsonDrive** · August-30-10, 09:58 PM

I think I heard on the news today that Obama's administration has decided to renew Bush's trillion dollar tax breaks for the ultra rich for another 10 years. I mean, I'm not sure if I heard this right. Were my ears deceiving me? Am I having flashbacks? Can this president be for real? Please tell me I'm wrong. And I actually worked for this guy? For christ f*^+k_^ sake.

**jerrytimes** · August-30-10, 10:06 PM

I would be shocked if he did decide to do that, but if he did BRAVO! That would renew my faith that Mr. Obama is somewhat of a smart man. By the way, Bush's tax breaks were not just for the rich as most Democrats like to think.... those damn richies.... but no, they also served as breaks for the middle class.

Remember this. Those of you out there with jobs have a bosses and somewhere up the ladder there is an owner of your company. Some companies that are publicly traded now used to have men or women that once owned them too. These people are rich, and they are also the people [[not all of them, but some) that employ us, the working man. If they pay less in taxes, they have more money to keep their businesses alive, hence, keeping us employed. Tax breaks also give an incentive to the rich to open new business which also employs us, whether its a guy that owns a Taco Bell or a guy that owns an accounting firm.

**d.mcc** · August-30-10, 10:09 PM

Originally Posted by 1KielsonDrive

I think I heard on the news today that Obama's administration has decided to renew Bush's trillion dollar tax breaks for the ultra rich for another 10 years. I mean, I'm not sure if I heard this right. Were my ears deceiving me? Am I having flashbacks? Can this president be for real? Please tell me I'm wrong. And I actually worked for this guy? For christ f*^+k_^ sake.

If thats the case, he lost my vote

**RaumVogel** · August-30-10, 10:12 PM

OK, so how many use that revenue to employ the Chinese? I got nothing against the Chinese, but we need jobs over here.

**Crumbled_pavement** · August-30-10, 10:14 PM

Why so mad at Obama renewing tax breaks? Every economist is warning him that it would be a huge mistake to let those tax cuts expire in the middle of a recession. That includes liberal and conservative economists. If this is true, I don't think he has much choice. I don't know about 10 years though. I thought he would end up extending them for at least two years.

**d.mcc** · August-30-10, 10:28 PM

Originally Posted by Crumbled_pavement

Why so mad at Obama renewing tax breaks? Every economist is warning him that it would be a huge mistake to let those tax cuts expire in the middle of a recession. That includes liberal and conservative economists. If this is true, I don't think he has much choice. I don't know about 10 years though. I thought he would end up extending them for at least two years.

Really? I have yet to see that, only those economists who come out and say that those tax cuts account for up to 20-30% of the budget shortfalls. That was the knock against the breaks when they were passed, and it's still the the knock against them. Not to mention the fact that it only continues and almost encourages the ever increasing wealth gap in this nation. We are rapidly becoming a nation of the Haves and the Have Nots...

**Detroitnerd** · August-30-10, 10:53 PM

According to the Hill, "Obama supports extending the Bush tax breaks that benefit individuals earning less than $200,000 and couples making less than $250,000 per year, while letting the higher rates reset to pre-2001 levels."

**oladub** · August-31-10, 12:32 AM

Originally Posted by d.mcc

Really? I have yet to see that, only those economists who come out and say that those tax cuts account for up to 20-30% of the budget shortfalls. That was the knock against the breaks when they were passed, and it's still the the knock against them. Not to mention the fact that it only continues and almost encourages the ever increasing wealth gap in this nation. We are rapidly becoming a nation of the Haves and the Have Nots...

Eliminating the Bush tax cuts on the rich will add an extra $338B/10 years or an average of $33.8B/year. The 2009 national deficit was $1.42T.

$33.8B/$1.42T = 2.3%

Eliminating the Bush tax cuts will not clear "up to 20-30% of the budget shortfalls". It will only pay for 2.3% of the budget shortfall or about twice that if higher capital gains taxes are added and itemized deductions are eliminated.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpu...-budget-a.html

**1KielsonDrive** · August-31-10, 01:38 AM

Originally Posted by jerrytimes

I would be shocked if he did decide to do that, but if he did BRAVO! That would renew my faith that Mr. Obama is somewhat of a smart man. By the way, Bush's tax breaks were not just for the rich as most Democrats like to think.... those damn richies.... but no, they also served as breaks for the middle class.

Remember this. Those of you out there with jobs have a bosses and somewhere up the ladder there is an owner of your company. Some companies that are publicly traded now used to have men or women that once owned them too. These people are rich, and they are also the people [[not all of them, but some) that employ us, the working man. If they pay less in taxes, they have more money to keep their businesses alive, hence, keeping us employed. Tax breaks also give an incentive to the rich to open new business which also employs us, whether its a guy that owns a Taco Bell or a guy that owns an accounting firm.

Boy, oh boy, a trickle down devotee, if I've ever heard one. My experience is those rich people who get the tax breaks you're speaking of, spend it on expensive liquor and cigars at their private clubs, benefitting the few and screwing the many. Meanwhile, wresting hard earned wages from the hired help and denying them medical coverage.

**1KielsonDrive** · August-31-10, 01:40 AM

Originally Posted by Crumbled_pavement

Why so mad at Obama renewing tax breaks? Every economist is warning him that it would be a huge mistake to let those tax cuts expire in the middle of a recession. That includes liberal and conservative economists. If this is true, I don't think he has much choice. I don't know about 10 years though. I thought he would end up extending them for at least two years.

Hmmm, every economist? Name a few. Not everyone I've listened to has taken that stance.

**1KielsonDrive** · August-31-10, 01:42 AM

[quote=d.mcc;177279]Really? I have yet to see that, only those economists who come out and say that those tax cuts account for up to 20-30% of the budget shortfalls. That was the knock against the breaks when they were passed, and it's still the the knock against them. Not to mention the fact that it only continues and almost encourages the ever increasing wealth gap in this nation. We are rapidly becoming a nation of the Haves and the Have Nots...[/quote]
Correction: we ARE a nation of the Haves and the Have Nots.

**1KielsonDrive** · August-31-10, 01:44 AM

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

According to the Hill, "Obama supports extending the Bush tax breaks that benefit individuals earning less than $200,000 and couples making less than $250,000 per year, while letting the higher rates reset to pre-2001 levels."

DN, I hope you are correct and I heard it wrong. Thanks.

**Zacha341** · August-31-10, 02:10 AM

Yep. Not exactly the greedy 'ultra' rich... this is at the upper end of the middle class population that pay taxes and purchase consumer goods.

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

According to the Hill, "Obama supports extending the Bush tax breaks that benefit individuals earning less than $200,000 and couples making less than $250,000 per year, while letting the higher rates reset to pre-2001 levels."

**Detroitej72** · August-31-10, 07:49 AM

The argument for keeping the Bush tax cuts always say that if they expire, it will cause rapid unemployment. What, we don't have rapid unemployment with the tax cuts?

Obama helping out GM and Chrysler saved more jobs than any tax cuts have created.

**oladub** · August-31-10, 07:58 AM

Originally Posted by 1KielsonDrive

DN, I hope you are correct and I heard it wrong. Thanks.

The income tax increases are only for those with over $250,000 of income. The link I posted in post # 8 has a list of additional tax increases. Many fall on the oil companies. As long as someone earning under $250,000 doesn't burn fuel or purchase products requiring fuel, passed along taxes shouldn't bother them.

An especially interesting and large tax increase listed is $210B over 10 years for "international enforcement, reform deferral, other tax reform". I don't know what reform deferral is. Other tax reform probably includes the much wider use of 1099 forms for every individual with transactions over $6,000 as required under Obamacare. It is hoped that throwing a wider net will garner another $30B.

Even if President Obama is successful in getting his entire $1T tax increase over 10 years, that still only pays for 7% of, for instance, last year's budget deficit. The question remains, where will the other 93% of taxes and budget cuts come from to bridge the gap?

**Papasito** · August-31-10, 08:32 AM

Bumping taxes up to full price during a now certain extended recession will only ensure the recovery will be further out. How about fixing the economy, so the nation can afford a tax increase before slamming them with it?

I gave examples on another thread that everyone will be paying more taxes if the cuts lapse. One of the examples was the cutting of the Child Tax Credit in half. For the record: Lots of poor people have kids. Everyone will be effected. Everyone will be paying more in one way or another.

Obama and Congress have passed everything they have wanted. They have had total control and have pushed through whatever they desired to the tune of trillions. We are no better off. Maybe now they can actually focus on fixing the economy, so that it can handle a substantial tax increase, rather than be crippled by it.

If Obama really wants to be re-elected, it is the economy that will doom him if it's bad, or guarantee an easy win if it's good. Almost 2 years into the 4, it's still bad.

**Johnlodge** · August-31-10, 08:39 AM

What's the surprise? I think if McCain was elected, everything would have unfolded pretty much exactly the same, except Republicans would all be defending the policies as necessary, and Democrats would be crying foul. Oh, and it would be called "healthcare reform" instead of "Obamacare", the left would claim it just lines the pockets of big business rather accusing of wealth distribution. And instead of a Tea Party we'd still be talking about the Women In Black protests, etc. Oh, and somehow the right would still claim to be the party against spending, despite spending the same amount of money.

**Papasito** · August-31-10, 08:46 AM

Don't forget that McCain [[prior to running for Pres) was the Democrats favorite Republican. McCain only "righened" himself up to try to win the election, and afterward, had he won, he would have went straight back to being the Democrat appeaser and compromiser of principles that he always has been. The only reason McCain still seems a little bit [[and I do mean a little bit) Conservative now is because he's bitter over losing the election.
The Congress would have been Democrat controlled, Republicans would have been in the minority, and Johnlodge pretty much nailed it right on the head with his post above [[#17).

By the way, do the Women In Black still protest the wars even with Obama in office?

**gibran** · August-31-10, 10:38 AM

yes.. they protest....why do you the some small fractions are dissapointed inhim...by th eway for those who hate the WIB ..they go after the neocons as well...and that puts them in the same camp...LOL

**rb336** · August-31-10, 10:43 AM

Originally Posted by Johnlodge

What's the surprise? I think if McCain was elected, everything would have unfolded pretty much exactly the same, except Republicans would all be defending the policies as necessary, and Democrats would be crying foul. Oh, and it would be called "healthcare reform" instead of "Obamacare", the left would claim it just lines the pockets of big business rather accusing of wealth distribution. And instead of a Tea Party we'd still be talking about the Women In Black protests, etc. Oh, and somehow the right would still claim to be the party against spending, despite spending the same amount of money.

pretty damn close, except every real progressive I know already says the same thing about health care reform. Fact is, if most of Obama's programs weren't implemented, we very likely could have seen 25% official unemployment numbers. The Reps would have had to do exactly the same thing, or they would lose any chance of ever regaining a majority for a generation.

**rb336** · August-31-10, 10:47 AM

Originally Posted by Papasito

Bumping taxes up to full price during a now certain extended recession will only ensure the recovery will be further out. How about fixing the economy, so the nation can afford a tax increase before slamming them with it?

actually, there isn't even a weak correlation that backs up your comment. A stronger correlation exists between declining tax rates - especially cap gains tax rates - for the wealthy and the decline in real wages for the middle- and working-class families. That, after all, is the REAL root of our economic problem

If Obama really wants to be re-elected, it is the economy that will doom him if it's bad, or guarantee an easy win if it's good. Almost 2 years into the 4, it's still bad.

and still better than if the republican plan [[um, what plan? exactly) had been enacted

**maxx** · August-31-10, 11:17 AM

Originally Posted by 1KielsonDrive

Boy, oh boy, a trickle down devotee, if I've ever heard one. My experience is those rich people who get the tax breaks you're speaking of, spend it on expensive liquor and cigars at their private clubs, benefitting the few and screwing the many. Meanwhile, wresting hard earned wages from the hired help and denying them medical coverage.

Yes, you have to ask where are all the economic benefits that were supposed to trickle down to the average person from the last eight years of tax breaks for the rich? No doubt all the heirs of the billionaires who died this year will run out and open new businesses in the U.S.. har har

**maxx** · August-31-10, 11:29 AM

http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/...-paul-krugman/
"...Krugman criticizes Senate Republican leaders who portray proposed bank regulations as just another Wall Street bailout. In fact these hypocritical leaders are doing all they can to thwart the Obama administration’s modest reforms and befriend Wall Street, hoping to net some cold, hard political cash from the bankers..."
"...The marginal tax rate on those who earned more than $3 million [[in today’s dollars) dropped from 91 percent during the Eisenhower years to 28 percent by 1990. Now the richest 400 people in the US are effectively taxed at only 16 percent, according to the latest IRS report. And that doesn’t even include the money these stupendously wealthy people didn’t declare and the resulting taxes they didn’t pay. In fact, we are losing $100 billion in taxes from the super-rich each year because they are hiding their money in overseas accounts. They’ve stashed it there for one purpose only — to avoid taxes that they are legally required to pay. [[We lose another $30 billion a year in corporate profits taxes hidden in the same ways.)..."

**1KielsonDrive** · August-31-10, 12:40 PM

Originally Posted by rb336

pretty damn close, except every real progressive I know already says the same thing about health care reform. Fact is, if most of Obama's programs weren't implemented, we very likely could have seen 25% official unemployment numbers. The Reps would have had to do exactly the same thing, or they would lose any chance of ever regaining a majority for a generation.

Many people don't seem to understand that debate is often strictly academic if you, yourself are not directly impacted. As a person who has been unemployed for three years, without medical coverage, living from my retirement savings, with the prospect of greatly reduced Social Security, this is no longer academic. And as I look around, I'm in pretty damn good shape, relatively speaking, to many I see and know. Our politicians keep saying we have to do this and we have to do that for this industry, the DOD, and that business, or they'll fail with catastrophic consequences. But you never hear them say we must do something dramatic and it must be done right now, to save the middle class.

**d.mcc** · August-31-10, 01:14 PM

Originally Posted by rb336

and still better than if the republican plan [[um, what plan? exactly) had been enacted

there actually is NO FUCKING REPUBLICAN PLAN... All I hear from Republicans is, "Vote for us, and we're gonna fix it"

then... crickets! How are you going to fix it? What is your plan? Can you outline it for us? We're supposed to vote for you because you say you're going to fix it???