home

Obama's New Economic Plan: "Buffet's Rule"

By Jeralyn, Section Economy
Posted on Sat Sep 17, 2011 at 09:03:59 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The New York Times has the details of the economic plan President Obama will introduce on Monday. It's mostly about taxes -- a minimum tax for millionaires. But then there's this:

Mr. Obama, in his plan, will call for more than $300 billion in 10-year savings from Medicare and Medicaid but not for changes in Social Security.

The increased taxes may not pass be accepted by Republicans. So what's the point?

The Obama proposal has little chance of becoming law unless Republican lawmakers bend. But by focusing on the wealthiest Americans, the president is sharpening the contrast between Republicans and Democrats with a theme he can carry into his bid for re-election in 2012.

< Schapelle Corby: New Investigative Report Alleges Australian Corruption | Eleanor Mondale Dies of Brain Cancer at 51 >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Obama's New Economic Plan: "Buffet's Rule" | 93 comments (93 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Better not be income taxes he's talking about (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Dadler on Sat Sep 17, 2011 at 09:56:19 PM EST
    It's the completely UNTAXED financial transactions and immorally undertaxed capital gains, that is where the wealth in this country is thieved from by the careless/thoughtless/selfish class. I fear, however, Obama doesn't have the spine to fight for real financial reform, that would just be too ugly and nasty and divisive.  

    and his "base" (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by NYShooter on Sat Sep 17, 2011 at 11:24:19 PM EST
    isn't big enough, sending in one dollar each, to make up for the ONE BILLION he'll need to have a chance for re-election.

    Parent
    How exactly do you consider getting taxed (none / 0) (#6)
    by tigercourse on Sat Sep 17, 2011 at 11:26:47 PM EST
    15% on a year's long investment stealing? There's kind of a difference between gigantic multinational corporations like GE or Exxon not paying a damn cent and the average person (a huge number of people have money in the market) shelling out between 15 and 30 odd percent of whatever they manage to make in a stock sale or dividend.

    Parent
    Capital gains is theft (none / 0) (#13)
    by Dadler on Sun Sep 18, 2011 at 10:03:42 AM EST
    Because it requires NO labor, contributes NOTHING to the economy, and benefits wealthy people infintely more than the small investor.  I have no problem sliding the scale, but the wildly wealthy, who make their money largely by sitting on their asses, get a free ride compared to everyone else.  And financial transactions, those giant bets that ruined the economy and are still being made?  They are UNTAXED.

    Yes, there's a difference between GE paying no taxes and a multi-millionaire paying fifteen percent for doing next to nothing.  For heaven's sake, we reward sloth on the highest levels more than we reward ANYthing.

    We have a wild imbalance of wealth in this nation, and it ain't getting fixed without either 1) printing sh*tloads of money and giving it EXCLUSIVELY to the middle class and down 2) or we can tax the sh*t out of people who have been given a de-facto free ride.  

    Sorry, but all that money horded by a tiny percentage ain't coming back on its own. That's what hording is, and that's what people addicted to wealth do.  So...you separate them from it, or you accept that your nation is doomed.

    Parent

    What "financial transactions" (none / 0) (#15)
    by jpe on Sun Sep 18, 2011 at 10:44:02 AM EST
    aren't taxed?  As someone that works in tax, I'd love to hear more about it so I can guide my clients appropriately.  

    Parent
    Capital gains involve (none / 0) (#28)
    by Green26 on Sun Sep 18, 2011 at 08:25:34 PM EST
    income from investments and investing. Investment capital is extremely important to the economy and job creation.

    Higher capital gains rates cause people to hold onto their investment longer, resulting in less tax for the government and less capital to be invested in other investments.

    Retirement plans and accounts have investment and benefit from capital gains and reasonable, yes lower, capital gains tax rates.

    Parent

    What's the point? (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by lentinel on Sun Sep 18, 2011 at 04:28:53 AM EST
    The point is to make an increasingly despondent populace think that he, Obama, actually gives a damn.

    It seems to me that Buffet (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Sep 18, 2011 at 07:53:31 AM EST
    is playing us for fools.

    On one hand he hires experts to reduce his taxes and on the other he wants to increase the taxes of others.

    If he truly thinks he pays too little all he has to do is write a check to the U.S. Treasury and drop it in the mail.

    In fact, that's all anyone has to do. I urge all the Gollywood stars who demonstrate at the drop of a hat, and drop it themselves, to put their money where their mouths are.

    Or, Buffet realizes that ... (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Yman on Sun Sep 18, 2011 at 02:04:17 PM EST
    ... his voluntary tax contribution would do virtually nothing in terms of the deficit, whereas if all millionaires/billionaires are required to be taxed at a higher rate, it could actually make a difference.

    On one hand he hires experts to reduce his taxes and on the other he wants to increase the taxes of others.

    BTW - When he's including himself in the group to be taxed at a higher rate, it's not "others".

    Parent

    I remember (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Sep 18, 2011 at 02:09:28 PM EST
    I remember when Bill Clinton also lobbied for more taxing of the rich...of course, that was when Republicans were in charge.  Warren Buffett, with all of his secret slimy deeds, is a better guy than Bill Clinton at least.

    Parent
    I don't really know either ... (none / 0) (#23)
    by Yman on Sun Sep 18, 2011 at 02:58:30 PM EST
    ... of them, so I couldn't say, but Clinton actually raised the top marginal rate in '93.

    Parent
    The vast majority of Buffet's (none / 0) (#26)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Sep 18, 2011 at 06:10:36 PM EST
    income comes from capital gain and not ordinary income.

    He's a nosy old busy body who thinks he knows what's best for the non-billionaires.

    I say a pox on these "experts" who are really Limousine Liberals riding to tell the rest of us what we must do....... wait

    That's you and Buffet.

    Parent

    Heh ... no kidding (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Yman on Sun Sep 18, 2011 at 10:02:42 PM EST
    The vast majority of Buffet's income comes from capital gain and not ordinary income.

    Uhhhhhhhhhhhmmm, yeah ... no kidding.  That's precisely Buffet's point.  Why should millionaires and billionaires be taxed at a lower rate on their investment income than someone who's earning income through their labor?

    He's a nosy old busy body who thinks he knows what's best for the non-billionaires.

    I say a pox on these "experts" who are really Limousine Liberals riding to tell the rest of us what we must do

    Actually, the proposed rule would only affect millionaires and billionaires, so unless you're including yourself in that group, he's not talking about "the rest of us".

    But some wingers get upset about the idea of people who actually have limousines paying their fair share of taxes.  Oh, wait ...

    ... that would be you.

    Parent

    Simple (none / 0) (#36)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 10:42:23 AM EST
    Why should millionaires and billionaires be taxed at a lower rate on their investment income than someone who's earning income through their labor?

    First, investment dollars are dollars that have been previously taxed.

    Secondly, investment dollars are dollars that are used by businesses to provide the jobs for those earning income through labor.

    Thirdly, holding securities long enough to qualify for the 15% long term tax rate provides for some stability in the market by encouraging investors to "ride out" ups and downs of an individual company. This allows management to be more focused on the long term rather than the short.

    Parent

    Ahhhhh ... so you AGREE ... (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Yman on Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 11:21:23 AM EST
    First, so what?  Other types of income shave been "previously taxed" (interest income) - it's still income.  A sales tax (as you propose to fund health care) is a a form of "double taxation" - but it's also very regressive, which might also explain why you like it.

    Second - again, so what?  The people affected by the "Buffet Rule" are millionaires and billionaires.  They're investing their money because they'll earn more money, not out of some sense of altruism or a desire to create jobs.  Taxing their capital gains at an ordinary income rate isn't going to make them stop investing.  It sure didn't hurt when Reagan repealed the exclusion of long-term gains in 1986, raising the maximum rate to between 28 and 33 percent, or when Clinton kept them at 28% as part of the 1993 Budget Act.

    Thirdly, so what?  We should tax the income of millionaires and billionaires at a lower rate because you think it benefits the corporations?  Then why did Reagan do away with the long-term gain exclusion in 1986?

    Heh.

    But it's not surprising you defend the idea of taxing capital gains income at a lower rate than labor income.  My, my .... I guess we have to coin a new term for your crowd ... "limousine wingers"?

    Heh, heh ...

    Parent

    Pay attention (none / 0) (#40)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 12:47:47 PM EST
    A lot of non-millionaires have long term capital gains. Would you deny them also??

    And when a Limousine Liberal starts talking about a "sense of altruism" I collapse into giggles.

    Face it. You and Obama both promote class warfare. Works great as a means to keep the great unwashed on the reservation..... until they start to think.

    Parent

    Divert, distract, distort ... (none / 0) (#43)
    by Yman on Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 01:27:52 PM EST
    You'd think with all your practice, you'd be better at it.

    Parent
    That you are (none / 0) (#44)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 02:08:58 PM EST
    not willing to accept the facts speak for you far better than anything that I can write.

    Parent
    Not very fair, Jim (none / 0) (#46)
    by Yman on Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 02:19:23 PM EST
    Although your premise is (as usual) false, that's not very fair ...

    ... setting the bar so loooooooooooooow.

    Parent

    Look (none / 0) (#49)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 02:50:15 PM EST
    you've made it obvious that you think wealth should be rewarded instead of work.

    Parent
    Are you so one sided that you can't (none / 0) (#51)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 03:34:12 PM EST
    see that wealth is the result of work??

    What would you want next? A Manifesto decreeing that all wealth be seized and disturbed according to the wishes of Obama???

    Isn't that what he told Joe the Plumber?

    ;-)

    Parent

    SOMEONE'S work maybe.. (none / 0) (#53)
    by jondee on Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 03:48:43 PM EST
    it doesn't follow though, that all private wealth is some sort of mark of diligence, prudence, and creativity on the part of the possessor.

    Parent
    True enough (none / 0) (#59)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 05:53:38 PM EST
    But why should the state take away someone's wealth on their death???

    Would you agree that what is done with your money should be your decision???

    Oh, wait... I forgot you are for taking people's money and giving it to who YOU want, not who the people who LABORED and made the money.

    Parent

    why should the state (none / 0) (#64)
    by jondee on Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 06:06:23 PM EST
    "take away", (ie, confiscate any part of) anyone's wealth at any time?

    Maybe because we need roads, bridges, safe food, no toxins in our drinking water, little kids who shouldn't have to grow up ground down by poverty..

    Parent

    Only (none / 0) (#54)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 03:49:13 PM EST
    something 18% meet your standards. Do tell what did Paris Hilton do to make her money? Nothing she was born into it. What did Sam Walton's kids to earn their money? Not a darn thing. They inherited it all.

    Just that they should pay a high rate of taxes if they are going to sit on their a** is all I'm saying but of course it becomes some hysterical screed from you.

    Naw that's not what he told Joe the plumber but I guess you weren't listening to that either.

    Parent

    Barron Hilton, the 80-year-old son of the founder (none / 0) (#55)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 03:58:55 PM EST
    Not that I have any interest in defending Hilton, but, just say'n:
    Barron Hilton, the 80-year-old son of the founder of the worldwide hotel chain that carries the family name, has earmarked 97 percent of his vast fortune - nearly $2.3 billion - to the Conrad N. Hilton Foundation, to help the homeless with housing, find safe water in developing countries and assist other good causes around the world, it has been announced.

    To Barron's heirs - who include Paris - will go the remaining three percent: some $69 million, which is said to be taxable.

    According to calculations by New York's Daily News, Paris, who once foresaw a $100 million inheritance, is now likely looking at $5 million.



    Parent
    well (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 07:56:24 PM EST
    good for him. He seems to believe that maybe the rest of his family should earn their own keep eventually.

    Parent
    Point is she didn't inherit bazillions. (none / 0) (#92)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 01:30:29 PM EST
    She earns more each year from appearances, acting, her book(s), etc., than she ever inherited.

    Oh, and she is taxed on her earnings.

    You should hope she makes a lot of dough, then the gvt will get a lot of taxes from her...

    Parent

    If the person who earned (none / 0) (#63)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 06:04:27 PM EST
    the money wants to give it to their kids.... shouldn't that be their right???

    You have a serious shortfall when it  comes to personal rights.

    Parent

    You apparently (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 07:55:25 PM EST
    want a lazy entitled leisure class to run the country.

    I don't care that the guy leaves the money to his kids but why should those kids get a tax cut for doing exactly nothing? That's what I mean when the GOP wants to completely reward wealth not work.

    You apparently think that somebody who is born into the "right" family deserves special privileges.

    Parent

    The kids aren't getting a tax (none / 0) (#70)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 20, 2011 at 07:52:10 AM EST
    cut. Their parents are just giving money they earned to their children.

    I think anyone deserves the right to dispose of what is theirs and has already been paid for/taxed by giving it to who they please.

    It's called FREEDOM.

    Parent

    "Joe the Plumber" - heh (none / 0) (#57)
    by Yman on Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 04:10:08 PM EST
    The perfect example of a lying, Tea Party hypocrite - not paying his taxes, no plumber's license, "getting ready to buy a company", complaing about welfare after receiving it, etc.  I would think you guys would learn to avoid embarrassing examples.  Have to admit, though, ...

    ... it is funny.

    Parent

    You know (none / 0) (#60)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 05:57:46 PM EST
    The Lame Stream Media hopped on Joe and knew more about him in one day that we know about Obama after 6 years.

    ;-)

    Of course somebody in state government got fired for their actions. Sounded good to me.

    And no matter what Joe said.... Obama said he wanted to redistribute people's money. And that was and is the truth.

    Parent

    EVERY President redistributes wealth (none / 0) (#65)
    by Yman on Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 07:27:03 PM EST
    It's called taxation, and like Joe, the TPers love them some redistribution when they're on the receiving end of it.  Joe railed about "redistribution" till it was discovered that he was "on welfare" several times.  Try talking to a few of your fellow, retired TPers at the next meeting and ask them if SS and Medicare benefits should be cut.

    Funny how quick something can change from being an "entitlement" or "redistribution" to an earned right when someone's receiving it.

    Parent

    Uh, paying for programs passed (none / 0) (#71)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 20, 2011 at 08:00:50 AM EST
    by Congress is not the "redistribution" Obama was speaking of. And he proves it daily by calling for a tax increase. And make no mistake. He is using millionaires/billionaires as his stalking horse. What he wants is an increase on everyone who is currently paying taxes.... Of course that leaves 50% of the population out.... 99% of which are in Obama's base.

    And us retirees understand that current members won't suffer. But we do worry about the ponzi scheme that is Social Security and Obama destroying Medicare with his taking $500 billion from it..... Death Panels anyone?

    Remember, I have called for a single payer system based on Medicare for everyone paid for by a 17% national sales tax collected at the POS (not a VAT). So I, and many of my friends, are not against taxes to may for government, just for EVERYONE paying their fair share.

    And zero is not fair.

    Parent

    So many fairytales, so little facts (none / 0) (#73)
    by Yman on Tue Sep 20, 2011 at 08:37:55 AM EST
    Uh, paying for programs passed by Congress is not the "redistribution" Obama was speaking of. And he proves it daily by calling for a tax increase. And make no mistake. He is using millionaires/billionaires as his stalking horse. ....

    Really, Jim?  He's confided in you?  Or did you read about his secret plan in an email?  Heh.  Everyone will have to eventually pay a little more in taxes, because we have a huge deficit - but don't tell your TP friends that.  They think we can do it by cutting spending alone.  I guess it's possible, if you're willing to let the uninsured die, as they are.  OTOH - the military spending cuts better not be too big, and don't you dare touch their entitlements.


    What he wants is an increase on everyone who is currently paying taxes.  Of course that leaves 50% of the population out.... 99% of which are in Obama's base.

    Is it fun just making figures up in your head?  Because that's all you ever do, and your fairytale numbers are funny.

    BTW - You're watching too much Faux News.  You both conflate income taxes with taxes, which is a heeeee-YOOOOOOGE difference, no matter how often you do it.  What I don't get is why it's always the wingers who pay the least in taxes who are complaining the most, like retirees.  Wonder how they'd feel if we taxed their SS and medicare benefits - or maybe cut them.  Personally, I can relate, Jim ... I'm tired of supporting all these elderly freeloaders (/s).

    And us retirees understand that current members won't suffer. But we do worry about the ponzi scheme that is Social Security and Obama destroying Medicare with his taking $500 billion from it..... Death Panels anyone?

    "Death panels"?!?!?  Hahahahahhahahahahah ... Not just a winger lie, but the lie of the year for 2009!  Bringin' back the classics, huh, Jim?


    Remember, I have called for a single payer system based on Medicare for everyone paid for by a 17% national sales tax collected at the POS (not a VAT). So I, and many of my friends, are not against taxes to may for government, just for EVERYONE paying their fair share.

    Yes, Jim - you're in favor of using one of the most regressive taxes possible to pay for healthcare.  Why would that be surprising?  You like a sales tax because, as a retiree, you don't spend nearly as much as someone younger, with kids, etc.  Suddenly, your crocodile tears for the "poor and working class" paying more for gas goes out the window when it comes to making them pay more income taxes and funding healthcare.  Funny, how that works.  Guess we can call you guys "Pickup truck/SUV conservatives".

    Heh.

    Parent

    As you know (none / 0) (#76)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 20, 2011 at 09:53:48 AM EST
    I would make the sales tax easier on the "poor" by not collecting it on unprepared food, older automobiles, utility bills, fuel and some clothing....

    BTW - I did a quick calculation and at 17% I would about the same as I do now.

    And Obama, as you are, is as transparent as a window at Tiffany's. He knows, as I do, that there aren't enough "rich" people to effectively impact the deficit.... He knows as we all do that what you and Obama want is a tax increase on everyone but his base.

    But you still don't understand where us ordinary working class people's heads are.

    Gut the DOE. It doesn't educate.

    Gut the DOE. It doesn't produce energy.

    Gut the EPA. It's job is done.

    Gut NPR and PBS. There is plenty of programming available.

    Gut the DOS. All they do is talk and give money away.

    Then come back and I will talk about other cuts.

    Parent

    You're not "working class", Jim (none / 0) (#78)
    by Yman on Tue Sep 20, 2011 at 10:44:47 AM EST
    Sorry, Jim - you don't get to decide where "us ordinary people's heads are", because you're not one of them.  You're "retired class" - living on the taxpayer's dole.

    In reality, strong majorities of Americans favor raising taxes to cut the deficit, and veeeeerrrry large majorities favor higher taxes on the rich.

    OTOH, being the self-proclaimed expert on the desires of the "working class", I'm sure that you have polls showing that Americans want to close the Dept. of Education, the DOE, EPA, and NPR.  Otherwise, your TP wish list - like your "pants on fire" 'Death Panel' lie ...

    ... is nothing more than a silly fairytale.

    Parent

    This just out (none / 0) (#79)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 20, 2011 at 12:41:17 PM EST
    from the AP..... Obama is wrong. The rich pay more, much more than the poor.....

    Would the AP lie to us???

    Of course people are in favor of raising someone else's taxes... Especially that 50% who pay nothing!

    "Don't tax you...don't tax me...tax that feller behind the tree..."

    Now that was said by a Demo!

    Parent

    C'mon, Jim (none / 0) (#83)
    by Yman on Tue Sep 20, 2011 at 03:06:05 PM EST
    You're the one claiming to speak for "ordinary", "working class" Americans.  Let's see a few polls showing how American want to close the EPA, DOE (both of them), etc.  Okay, okay, how about just one?

    (cue sound of crickets chirping).

    Heh, heh ...

    Parent

    Yman (none / 0) (#85)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 20, 2011 at 03:51:36 PM EST
    I was born the son of a sharecropper and know the meaning of work. More so than you will ever know. I also understand discrimination and what it took to level the playing field.

    That's something you may have read about.

    Now.

    Tell me how AP has it all wrong.

    And since no one has ever done such a poll, then you don't have one..... But us folks with a bit of common sense know that the waste in all these agencies is staggering and the results harmful.

    They are perfect examples of bureaucracies on steroids.

    Parent

    The AP?!? (none / 0) (#88)
    by Yman on Tue Sep 20, 2011 at 04:35:30 PM EST
    I was born the son of a sharecropper and know the meaning of work. More so than you will ever know. I also understand discrimination and what it took to level the playing field.

    That's something you may have read about.

    Really, Jim?!?  And how is it that you know this about me, considering you know nothing about me other than the fact that I'm a lawyer?  Oh, that's right ... the same way you know everything else, ...

    ... you just make it up.

    You're funny.

    BTW - Congratulations on being related to someone from the working class that you claim to speak for.

    Heh.

    Tell me how AP has it all wrong.

    You want me to agree that the rich pay more than the poor?  Uhhhhmmmm, ... yeah .... no kidding, Jim.  The richest 1% own 70% of the wealth in the U.S., so of course they "pay more" than the poor.  So what?  You need an AP article to state the obvious?

    Now, Jim ... tell me what makes you think that "ordinary" "working class" Americans agree with your agenda.  Do you have the slightest bit of evidence, or are you just making it up ...... again.  Hey, I just got a call on the other line and I've been nominated as the official spokesperson for "ordinary" and "working class" folks.  As spokesman, I call BS on your agenda and say that the "ordinary" "working class" Americans want the EPA to do more, rather than be abolished.  They want taxes raised to close the deficit, not just spending cuts.  They consistently want the wealthy to pay more of the tax burden.  (Shoot - meant to do that without posting evidnce but I forgot - force of habit, I guess).

    Heeeeeeeyyyyy, maybe we should go where the real money is, and cut SS benefits and Medicare benefits for the retired class who are sponging off the rest of "us", right, Jim?  Oh, wait ...

    ... lemme guess ...

    Parent

    Well, I see that you have (none / 0) (#90)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 20, 2011 at 10:17:48 PM EST
    finally outed yourself.

    Tell me Commissar, how much money should we take from the rich? What's their "fair share?" 90% 100%

    How much should us retirees pay?? Would just 75% be enough to satisfy your greed for other people's wealth? Isn't that it? Isn't your motivation greed and envy??

    The Soviet Union failed, Yman. And that's why.

    And know what? You don't know beans about labor until you have chopped cotton.. or worse, chopped sweet potatoes where each runner has to be carefully moved...

    Don't like heat?? Set out cabbage plans on a 35 degree day in light rain in February. One person holds the shovel, inserting it into the soil while the other bends over and puts the plant in the dirt and holds it there while the shovel is pulled out. After awhile your hand becomes numb with cold and raw where it rubs the shovel and your back and  legs ache from fatigue.

    Ever used a two row walking cultivator?? You drive a team of mules pulling the plow cultivating the cotton. At the end of the row you have to pick up each of the sweeps and hook them above ground and then turn the cultivator, unhook the sweeps drop them on the ground plow the next two, repeat...

    Tough work for a 12 year old but I did it and was proud to say I did a good job.

    Ever suckered and tied tomatoes?? After a while your hands turn green and your finders become raw from tying the strings around the plant to the stick...

    No, you have done none of this. You know that and I know that.

    You discourage me. Now tell us again about what I don't know.

    Parent

    Hahahahahahahha ... (none / 0) (#91)
    by Yman on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 08:00:46 AM EST
    The "communist" card?!?!?  That's all you've got?!?  Scrapin' the bottom of the winger barrel, huh?

    Heh, heh, heh ...

    No, Jim, it shouldn't be 90 or 100%.  As a matter of fact, it should be zero.  I mean, after all, those millionaires and billionaires provide jobs when they hire us to work as their pilots, limousine drivers, maids, gardeners, etc.  If anything, they should be rewarded for all their hard investing, slaving over those hedge fund prospectus.  You may be on to something.  I think we should eliminate their taxes and go where the real money is in the budget.  If we get rid of Medicare and SS, we'd have enough to give the millionaires and billionaires a nice, tax break, and we'd eliminate the problem of all those elderly retirees living the lives of welfare queens and sucking up the fruits of our labor so they can play poker and drink with their buddies.  Let 'em get off their lazy behinds and get a job, instead of telling stories about jobs they had decades ago.  Don't even get me started with benefits for military retirees (/s)...

    (Heeeeeeyyyyyy - those straw arguments sure are easy!  I'm starting to understand why you like them so much!)

    But, seriously ... congrats on picking cotton and potatoes back in the 30's or 40's - still trying to figure out how some manual labor several decades ago makes you "working class" now, let alone how you feel entitled to speak for "ordinary" "working class" Americans.  But at least you stopped talking about what your father did or claiming credit for the accomplishments of your and your father's generations.  That was funny!

    Interesting concept, since many wealthy Americans grew up middle class - some even poor.  I guess that means Michael Bloomberg can call himself "middle class" now, right?  Does he get to be the spokesman for "ordinary", "middle class Americans?

    Heh.

    No, you have done none of this. You know that and I know that.

    You discourage me. Now tell us again about what I don't know.

    I'll say it once again - slooooowly and in simple words so you'll understand.  You know nothing about what I've done or haven't done, Jim ... and your colorful, Steinbeck-esque descriptions nothwithstanding, your few years of farm labor sounds easy compared to some of the jobs I've had.  We won't even talk about my father and grandfather, who worked in the coal mines of NE PA.  I could try your route of painting a sob story for you, but that would be silly.  Suffice it to say that they'd probably think working on a farm would be like a day at Club Med compared to seeing the sun one day a week and a slow death from sucking in coal dust, or a quicker death from being crushed or entombed under hundreds of tons of rock.

    As for telling you about what you don't know, tempting as it may be, ...

    ... who could find the time for that?

    Parent

    Lung cancer? Skin cancer? (none / 0) (#93)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 05:30:49 PM EST
    Take your pick.

    See ya later, you've started to be boring.

    Parent

    If we're gonna use that standard, ... (none / 0) (#94)
    by Yman on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 07:16:24 PM EST
    ... I shouldn't bother to ever respond to you, Jim ... but what fun would that be?

    BTW - Not just lung cancer, Jim ... more common disease is pneumoconiosis ("black lung")or chronic bronchitis.

    But hopefully you didn't get a mole from the few summers you spent on the farm.

    Parent

    class warfare is the stock price (none / 0) (#56)
    by jondee on Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 04:05:05 PM EST
    going up after massive layoffs, or another round of outsourcing, or a reduction in worker and environmental protections.

    The workers's loss is the investor class's gain. Just as we're ALL still paying for the excesses and gains of the few in the last ten years, today.

    Don't anyone hold thier breath waiting for the bullet heads and Fox-parrots like Jim to ever mention this though.


    Parent

    The stock market going up (none / 0) (#61)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 05:59:37 PM EST
    is Obama and the rest of the politicians giving billions to the banks......

    QE anyone?

    You need to be reading MT.

    Parent

    giving billions to the banks (none / 0) (#82)
    by jondee on Tue Sep 20, 2011 at 01:58:41 PM EST
    is just MORE class warfare.

    So whats your problem with talking about it? as if the discussing of it was the "class warfare"? That mentality and framing is pure, cowardly, unadulterated Fox & Friends swill.

    Parent

    As Col Potter (none / 0) (#86)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 20, 2011 at 03:54:27 PM EST
    so delicately put it, "Horse hockey."

    It is Fox that pointed out the money taken by Dodd and Franks and other Demo politicians.

    Wanna talk about them? Or are you too "cowardly?"

    ;-)

    Parent

    don't tell me about (none / 0) (#87)
    by jondee on Tue Sep 20, 2011 at 04:07:48 PM EST
    horse hockey until you can come up with some names of some dead lumberjacks, chief.

    You're so thick that you believe that Fox's b.s discussion of (just) "Demo" politicians covers the issue; not considering for a second that the bigger picture includes money being doled out so that pols in both parties will look the other way, while the theives gaming the system in their favor laugh their as*es off at fools like you.  

    Parent

    I aint chief and (none / 0) (#89)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 20, 2011 at 10:02:19 PM EST
    if you don't understand my point that the Far Right wants to get in your bedroom and the Far Left wants to tell you what to eat, smoke, as well as protecting pets, trees and other wacko environmentalism stunts making these two lovely parts of our society merely opposite sides of the same coin.....

    Well, Brave RacismClaimer, you ain't been paying attention!

    Have a great night!

    lol

    Parent

    the Far Right wants to get (none / 0) (#95)
    by jondee on Thu Sep 22, 2011 at 01:24:32 PM EST
    in your bedroom AND "gut" the EPA, DOE etc -- and also send the little children of Iran to Jesus..

    The Far Right has two horns, in other words. And the one can't accomplish squat (get elected dog catcher) without the other..

    Not to overstate the obvious.

    Parent

    I find (none / 0) (#27)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Sep 18, 2011 at 07:46:47 PM EST
    that an odd comment from somebody who thinks candidates who tell people what to do with their lives are a-okay.

    It seems to me no one wants to rule over the masses more than the GOP. They advocated authoritarianism for everyone but the wealthy know that the rules won't apply to them when they are instated so they're willing to go along.

    Parent

    Well, well (none / 0) (#29)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Sep 18, 2011 at 08:29:05 PM EST
    Just where did you get that little bitty nasty?

    Maybe from the Democrats who want to tell parents they can't have their male child circumcised?

    That you can't smoke in a bar but you can drink booze?

    How about no toys in Happy Meals?

    Banning gold fish as pets?

    Emoting that calling animals "pets" is insulting?

    Spiked any trees lately killing lumberjacks?

    How's that glass house you live in doing today?

    Parent

    Do you (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 07:11:17 AM EST
    really pay attention to what the GOP is going and saying? I really have to question whether you ever do.

    Good grief. Mandated ultra-sounds for women? That's actual legislation. Teri Schiavo anyone? You're comparing some people's thoughts to actual legislation that has been passed? LOL.

    Parent

    don'tcha know (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by CST on Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 09:38:37 AM EST
    toys in happy meals and the ability to carry around whatever gun you want wherever you want are soooo much more important than a woman's right to choose, or a person's right to legally marry who they want, or someone's right to die in peace.

    Parent
    The point is, as I have commented (none / 0) (#34)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 10:20:17 AM EST
    before is this.

    The far Right and the far Left are just opposite sides of the same coin.

    The Right wants in your bedroom.

    The Left wants to tell you what to eat.

    Neither position should be acceptable to anyone calling themselves "liberal."


    Parent

    my point was (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by CST on Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 10:59:48 AM EST
    false equivalency

    Parent
    It's not false (none / 0) (#41)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 12:49:28 PM EST
    Just look at the total picture.

    Parent
    See what I wrote to CST (none / 0) (#35)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 10:29:59 AM EST
    Teri Schiavo anyone?

    Now let me see.

    I seem to remember that no asked her what she wanted. They all claimed she was dead.

    And I also remember that her parents objected, but they also were paying for her treatment.

    Why did the Left want to pull the plug???? What harm did it do to let the parents support her?

    Question.  Have you ever had a discussion about what to do about a loved one who the Doctor says won't improve??

    Well, I have and the ^98#!7^%4w3 Doctor was wrong.

    You mouth about "rights." What greater right is there than the right to live????????????????

    Parent

    Teri Schiavo (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 02:47:12 PM EST
    was a cause celebre of the conservatives.

    First of all, she was a vegetable so no one could currently ask her what she wanted but she had made it known to numerous people prior to becoming brain dead that she didn't want to live like she was living.

    Her parents were not paying for her treatment. Medicaid was paying for her treatment.

    Her husband wanted to pull the plug but apparently for all the yammering by conservatives about the "sanctimony of marriage" they really don't believe that once a person marries their spouse becomes the main person in life. Apparently conservatives now believe much as they do in Muslim Countries that women are the sole property of whoever wins in the courts.

    The point being she didn't want to live. Technically kept alive by machines but brain dead.

    You obviously never kept up with this case back when.

    I'm glad to finally see you admit that you agree with American Sharia because this was the same type thing that happens in Muslim countries. Teri's wishes are to be ignored because her parents couldn't deal with the facts.

    Parent

    We're way off topic (none / 0) (#50)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 03:30:49 PM EST
    let's bring it up in the next Open Thread

    Parent
    More Tea Party hypocrisy (none / 0) (#42)
    by Yman on Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 01:22:53 PM EST
    ... not to mention a faulty memory.  Anytime someone with such basic problems with facts starts off with "I seem to remember ...", you know it's going to end up in fairytale land.

    I seem to remember that no asked her what she wanted. They all claimed she was dead.

    No one claimed she was "dead".  "No one asked her what she wanted" because she was in a "persistent vegetative state".  After a decade of futile treatments, however, a trial was held, and it was determined that she was in a persistent vegetative state and she would have wanted the feeding tube removed.  Moreover, the decision was for her spouse to make, not her parents.  The "harm" it did was to keep someone hooked up to machines against their wishes, and against the directives of the person authorized to make those decisions.  The right that's "greater than the right to live" is the right to decide whether you want to live in a vegetative state against your wished for more than a decade to satisfy the agenda of some winger right-to-lifers.

    And I also remember that her parents objected, but they also were paying for her treatment.

    Of course, in the real world, Schiavo's medical care costs wre paid by the funds from her medical malpractice suit, and from Medicaid.  Those would be the same suits that TPers love to rant about, and the same type of publicly funded programs that they want to end so that they can let the uninsured die.

    Parent

    What nonsense (none / 0) (#45)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 02:17:35 PM EST
    What is the difference in being a persistent "vegetative state" and "dead?"

    Please tell me because if she wasn't dead she was murdered.

    Of course all approved of by the state and screamed for by the Left. 99.99999999% of which had never had "that discussion" with a doctor?

    And of course it was her spouse's. But why couldn't he just turn her over to her parent's who had pledged to pay for her care???

    Maybe it was because she was taking up valuable space and resources that could be used for more productive members of society.... I suspect that there will be more of this when Obamacare causes resource rationing and the Benefit Review Boards (aka Death Panels)readily agrees with the Left that "pulling the plug" is the humane thing for the patient and society.

    Careful, Yman. You are edging close to concentration camps and gas chambers for those selected.

    Parent

    Nonsense, indeed (none / 0) (#47)
    by Yman on Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 02:34:44 PM EST
    Seriously, Jim?  A "persistent vegetative state" is, indeed, different than being dead, Jim.  If she was dead, there would have been no controversy.  her remains would have been buried, cremated, etc., and the story would have been over.  But here's a link if you can't quite get it.

    A wakeful unconscious state that lasts longer than a few weeks is referred to as a persistent vegetative state.

    As opposed to brain death, persistent vegetative state (PVS) is not recognized by statute as death in any legal system.

    In Schiavo's case, it was sometimes referred to as a permanent vegetative state, since it lasted for more than a year - in her case, 15 years.

    Ahhhhh, yes ... the slippery slope argument - for those who can't make an argument against the actual case, so they have to argue against imaginary bogeymen ("concentration camps", Shariah law", etc.).

    Funny stuff.

    BTW - Ohhhhhhhh ... so now Schiavo's parents were merely offering to pay for her care, as opposed to a couple of hours ago, when you claimed they were "paying or her treatment".  Not that it matters, since their wishes were contrary to their daughter's wishes, and it wasn't their decision to make.  Then again, I guess if you were a vegetable hooked up to a machine for 15 years, you'd rather have Tom Delay and the Bush admin make your health care decisions than your spouse, huh?

    Heh.

    Parent

    Well,well (none / 0) (#52)
    by jondee on Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 03:44:03 PM EST
    if that composite strawman were any bigger, it'd be rampaging through Tokyo.

    Funny, in all the years I've been visiting this site, I don't remember ANY of the left-leaning posters here ever discussing the possibility of banning the word "pet", or discussing the cruelty endured by goldfish, or promoting the use of legal means to try to ban circumcision..And by the way Jim, link me to some info about lumberjacks being killed by spiked trees; I hadn't heard about that ever happening.

    That b.s you're slinging out of your glasshouse is just hitting the wall and splattering in your face.  

    Parent

    Uh, I hate to tell you this (none / 0) (#62)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 06:01:51 PM EST
    but just because it isn't discussed here doesn't mean that it isn't happening.

    You need to read out more.

    Parent

    Or, you're just making it up ... as usual (none / 0) (#68)
    by Yman on Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 08:13:53 PM EST
    Earth First denounced tree spiking, but I'm curious about these fairytales of lumberjacks killed by tree spikes.  Could you provide a single link to a news story about lumberjacks killed by tree spikes, 'cause otherwise ...

    ... it only exists in your head.

    Parent

    Or, as usual, you're just making it up (none / 0) (#69)
    by Yman on Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 08:14:22 PM EST
    Earth First denounced tree spiking, but I'm curious about these fairytales of lumberjacks killed by tree spikes.  Could you provide a single link to a news story about lumberjacks killed by tree spikes, 'cause otherwise ...

    ... it only exists in your head.

    Parent

    And burning lumberyards... (none / 0) (#72)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 20, 2011 at 08:03:03 AM EST
    Such nice friends you have.

    Parent
    Still not ONE link, Jim? (none / 0) (#74)
    by Yman on Tue Sep 20, 2011 at 08:42:57 AM EST
    C'mon, Jim ... eco-terrorists killing lumberjacks by spiking trees?  That should be easy to find.  Unless, of course ...

    ... it's a lie.

    Still waiting     ...

    Parent

    And destroying (none / 0) (#75)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 20, 2011 at 09:42:50 AM EST
    automobiles on car dealer's lot.....

    Parent
    STILL no link? (none / 0) (#77)
    by Yman on Tue Sep 20, 2011 at 10:27:47 AM EST
    Heh, heh, heh ...

    Parent
    you better believe (none / 0) (#81)
    by jondee on Tue Sep 20, 2011 at 01:24:34 PM EST
    he's searching furiously for one confirmed story from anywhere in the world in the last couple of decades.

    Parent
    I wonder if he even bothers (none / 0) (#84)
    by Yman on Tue Sep 20, 2011 at 03:08:14 PM EST
    I think he just reads this stuff on some winger blog or Faux News and figures it must be true, ...

    ... or just makes it up.

    Parent

    not one confirmed instance (none / 0) (#80)
    by jondee on Tue Sep 20, 2011 at 01:20:34 PM EST
    that you can point to..

    Why lie about these things and just muddy the information waters further?

    Whats the problem with facing the known facts squarely and working from there?

    Parent

    Limousine.. (none / 0) (#58)
    by jondee on Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 04:21:25 PM EST
    Yeah, if Buffet wants his opinion treaured and considered irrefutable by the annointed-of-the-Teabag, he should get a syndicated talk radio show (it's a sign of true success and diligence in this great land of ours.)  

    Parent
    Without The Deal, (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by MO Blue on Sun Sep 18, 2011 at 03:48:15 PM EST
    which was even more generous to the rich than Bush's tax cuts, Obama might have more credibility when he "talks" about the mega rich paying their fair share.  

    "Promises, Promises" (none / 0) (#1)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Sep 17, 2011 at 09:12:17 PM EST
    - Jerry Orbach, (Law and Order) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJsLBVb3lmw

    Extremely cynical poltiics by Obama, (none / 0) (#2)
    by observed on Sat Sep 17, 2011 at 09:27:48 PM EST
    IMO---but well played.
    Even if it doesn't pass, at least he's (none / 0) (#4)
    by tigercourse on Sat Sep 17, 2011 at 11:22:24 PM EST
    trying something.

    So all he's trying is good politics? (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Towanda on Sun Sep 18, 2011 at 12:29:25 AM EST
    Lousy politics for me, only a few years from Medicare and with no time -- and a declining income -- to prepare.

    But how nice for him.


    Parent

    Dont'cha know?! (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by nycstray on Sun Sep 18, 2011 at 01:16:15 AM EST
    you aren't supposed to notice the 300B coming out of the safety net, yer supposed to be too busy cheering taxing millionaires!

    Or something like that . . .

    Parent

    You just aren't getting with the program (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by MO Blue on Sun Sep 18, 2011 at 09:33:19 AM EST
    The president is sure that if he "talks" about making millionaires pay a couple of pennies more, you will think it is fair that he reduces Medicare and Medicaid benefits.

    It could also reassure Democrats who have feared that Mr. Obama would agree to changes in programs like Medicare without forcing Republicans to compromise on taxes.  

    Why aren't you reassured by this tactic? Man you just want everything (ABG logic here) expecting that you actually receive the benefits that you paid premiums for several decades.    

    Parent

    BW, for those who are worried that (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by MO Blue on Sun Sep 18, 2011 at 09:40:16 AM EST
    Obama may raise the Medicare age, they have the great Obama POS health insurance legislation to thank for making this reduction of benefits "more" conceivable.

    "Potentially raising the retirement age for Medicare is something that deserves a lot of consideration," said Christina Romer, the former head of Obama's Council of Economic Advisers. She said such an increase in the eligibility age is more conceivable with Obama's health care law because guaranteed private health insurance would be available to middle-class early retirees starting in 2014. link


    Parent
    It was always my worry (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by KeysDan on Sun Sep 18, 2011 at 10:47:43 AM EST
    that "Medicare for All" was off the table, because "Medicare for None" was on it.   The clues were everywhere--starting with huge "savings" in Medicare to support about half of the costs of the ACA, and savings that were based, in large measure, on the flawed and/or misrepresented Darmouth Atlas. And, on top of those savings (which have never, to this day, been given detail) we are now talking of cost shifting to individuals and businesses with more cuts, including changing the age for Medicare eligibility.   Expansion of Medicaid was easier because, after initial full Federal funding, it could be reduced as is the wont of "welfare programs".  

    Parent
    I agree (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by MO Blue on Sun Sep 18, 2011 at 11:20:00 AM EST
    Also, IIRC there were quite a few people who warned that this POS legislation would cause more harm than good but others chose to only look at the shiny objects that were dangled before their eyes to keep them from looking at the whole picture.

    One of the shiny objects, expansion of Medicaid, is also one of the programs that Obama was more than willing to put on the chopping block in his attempt to reach a "Grand Bargain" with Boehner. By the time Obama is through, more people will be without affordable health care than before he began. But hey, he is "talking this week about" having millionaires pay more taxes when behind the scenes he is working for cutting marginal tax rates for them and corporations under the guise of "tax reform" as part of his "Grand Bargain."

    "Reform" is now a solidly bipartisan dog whistle for screw the poor and the middle class in order to transfer more money to the uber rich (otherwise known as campaign contributers).  

    Parent

    Yes, Obama has been trying "something" (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by MO Blue on Sun Sep 18, 2011 at 10:21:37 AM EST
    since January, 2009 and this is just another attempt to accomplish his goal.

    WaPo, Jan 15, 2009: Obama To Hold Fiscal Responsibility Summit

    President-elect Barack Obama will convene a "fiscal responsibility summit" in February designed to bring together a variety of voices on solving the long term problems with the economy and with a special focus on entitlements, he said during an interview with Washington Post reporters and editors this afternoon.

    "We need to send a signal that we are serious," said Obama of the summit.
        [snip]
    Obama said that he has made clear to his advisers that some of the difficult choices -- particularly in regards to entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare -- should be made on his watch. "We've kicked this can down the road and now we are at the end of the road," he said.

    After the Senate failed to achieve cloture on establishing a deficit commission in 2010, President Obama established the Cat Food CommissionI by an executive order in February, 2010.

    After manufacturing a debt limit crisis by not including it as part of the Obama tax cuts for the rich in Dec. 2010, he tried to slash the safety net programs in the Obama/Boehner negotiations. While those negotiations failed, Obama was successful in having the Super Committee (Cat Food CommissionII)included in the legislation and has continued to pursue pushing his "Grand Bargain" which will exchange cuts to the safety net programs for cuts to the marginal tax rates for corporations and the mega rich.

    A shame that he has not been the same "fierce advocate" for policies that help average folks as he has been for cutting the safety net programs. He has been unrelenting in his pursuit of that agenda.    

    Parent

    Might be good if he got off (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by MO Blue on Sun Sep 18, 2011 at 11:33:30 AM EST
    of his crusade to cut domestic and safety net programs and actually help people like Mr. and Mrs. Falon. Funny how he is a "fierce advocate" of going big on cutting programs that people need under the guise of deficit reduction and a proponent of going small on stimulating the economy. To paraphrase Obama, "Let's start at the low end and see what happens." This is what happened then and continues to happen now.

    At a food pantry in a Chicago suburb, a 38-year-old mother of two breaks into tears.

    She and her husband have been out of work for nearly two years. Their house and car are gone. So is their foothold in the middle class and, at times, their self-esteem.

    "It's like there is no way out," says Kris Fallon.

    She is trapped like so many others, destitute in the midst of America's abundance. Last week, the Census Bureau released new figures showing that nearly one in six Americans lives in poverty -- a record 46.2 million people. The poverty rate, pegged at 15.1 percent, is the highest of any major industrialized nation, and many experts believe it could get worse before it abates. link

    But what the hey, his savvy business friends and campaign contributers are doing exceeding well and their bonuses are skyrocketing once again. Priorities man.

    Parent

    It's evil (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Sep 18, 2011 at 01:06:29 PM EST
    It's just plain evil.

    And nobody who matters will scream and yell about it as long as a Democrat leads the charge to do it.

    Parent

    it is a great bet, actually, that the mass of (none / 0) (#19)
    by seabos84 on Sun Sep 18, 2011 at 11:45:10 AM EST
    droolers will forget that the $ell 0ut - 0 - crat$ did NOT let bush's tax give away retire in the lame duck session last year.

    but, on monday he'll pound the podium about taxing the ...

    belch ... fart ...

    huh?

    rmm.

    Without The Deal (none / 0) (#24)
    by ruffian on Sun Sep 18, 2011 at 03:38:21 PM EST
    He would be selling the Obama Middle Class Tax Cut about now. I think the GOP would have had a harder time resisting that.

    BTD is busy so I had to throw that in.

    Obama's New Economic Plan: "Buffet's Rule" | 93 comments (93 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment