Keep it simple cuz the people can’t process multi level problems and solutions. Look my taxes didn’t go up and all I gave up for that is my health and at least two additional years of health insurance premiums.

It is really about the Constitution.

All but a dozen Republicans reject the Constitution’s first enumerated power of Congress by signed to Norquist’s pledge to ignore that enumerated power that they take an oath to uphold.

Obama has called out Norquist, as have others in the administration and in the Democratic Party. But no one more than Obama has defied Norquist by campaigning relentlessly for tax hikes, no blinking.

Al Gore backed down on tax hikes even if they are the only way to preserve the global future because he was unwilling to take on Norquist.

Look at the spectacle today that is a repeat of the past two years: Republicans thinking of running for reelection in safe Republican seats afraid of voting to hike taxes that even most Republican voters think are fair because they believe they will lose the primary, not the general election, but the primary, for being too moderate.

If you can’t see Norquist as the biggest threat to any future until his hold on Republicans is broken, you aren’t paying attention.

Nothing like progress is possible without using the power to tax, and it has never been more needed than this decade for hiking taxes.

Hiking gas taxes to fund transportation.

Taxing carbon somehow to change the energy mix.

Taxing asset churn to pay for the destruction of the pump and dump ponzi scheme asset churn.

Taxing to pay for the safety net.

Taxing to pay for public investment in innovation.

Taxing to pay for the general welfare and to pay debt.

This actually makes sense. Obama did campaign on ending the tax cuts for those earning above $250K.

When he did mention SS or Medicare, he used the term “strengthen” an obfucating euphamism for cut, at least to those who have been paying atttention.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/12/obama-and-boehners-grand-bargain-gullible-democrats-are-falling-for-the-ol-good-cop-bad-cop-routine.html

Good cop says “look at taxes!”

Bad cop says, “Okay, we’ll concede taxes. Let’s destroy Medicare!”

“Hi, I’m calling to make sure my voice is heard. As a voter from your district, I’ve been crying about the Bush Tax Cuts For The Rich for the last 10 years because people getting those tax cuts were greedy. I support the President’s plan to convert them to the Bush Tax Cuts For The 98 Percent so that I can keep the money I earned.”

This bad-cop-badder-cop and good isn’t any part of it. Lesser of two evils is actually still evil.

One fight at a time.

How about restoring the Eisenhower 90% rates for the wealthy?

That was then, this is today.

I am for a 100% rate above ten million per annum.

We needed the extra money then. Military spending was double then what it is today (%GDP).

People will get what they voted for. Glad I voted 3rd. party.

… none of which require cutting Medicare or Social Security. But Obama is using tax hikes as an excuse regardless.

And the Obama tax cuts for the elites will expire automatically and new tax cuts for the less-than-elite can be seamlessly implemented after the fact.

So Norquist falls flat as a defense for Obama’s stated desire for cutting the safety net.

This merry-go-round is making people sick ( and tired ). Which may be the point of all this hype. Legitimate polling, on an array of issues inside these discussions, show this a populist conception of fair and doable. Obama and the Dems have to know even 40% of Republicans support taxes, limiting deductions and means testing on the ” job non-creators. ” Ronnie Raygun, from the grave, could spin this populist sentiment into political gold for years and do some actual good. Obama may be a lot of things but he and The Machine aren’t idiots. This is a win-win for a legacy building 2nd term President and his political consultants. Just seein’.

Well, yes, but the notion of a “good cop-bad cop” tag team is well known in the annals of torture.

Military spending was double then what it is today (%GDP).

But in absolute terms today, corrected for inflation, it is near-WWII levels.

This should leave everyone thinking ‘WTF? considering that the WWII levels bought us:

The Manhattan Project
300,000 planes
88,000 tanks and tank destroyers
250,000 pieces of artillery
Over 2700 Liberty Ships

And by war’s end:
28 fleet carriers
23 battleships
71 escort carriers
72 cruisers
377 destroyers
261 frigates
232 submarines

and over 12 million men in arms

Contrast that with what we spend today, for 1.4 million personnel, planes list in the few hundreds or dozens, 285 ships total.

And if you contend “hey we are more high-tech now”–not in relative terms. The Manhattan project was a wonder of both fundamental and applied research, and some weapons–the B-29, for instance–were marvels of high-tech at their time.

No, our military is merely a conduit for corporate largesse and rewarding political allies (Hi Haliburton!).

-stewartm

Get ready for the big medicare Obama sellout. Throw on another two years till 67 and pay thousands more in premiums, co-pays and deductibles.

The part that will show some real balls from O will be while he’s giving you a big grin( or it could be a somber look depending on the crowd). He will tell you about shared sacrifice that “WE” had to make. While he along with congress will continue with some of the best medical insurance in the country.

So all you soon to be medicare seniors that signed up for his campaign will now reap your reward.

Just remember future medicare seniors. All the the CEO’s, Wall street hedge funders, bankers, lobbyists and politicians that have contributed to the economic instability of America will now be saved by you. You now will add your sector as being the main contributor in saving America from going off the fiscal cliff.

Thank you for your service!

Yo, Mr. President!

Why do you think that we wanted higher taxes?

Well, there’s several reasons, but one of the BIG ones was to PAY for the things we need. Like, uh, the entitlements.

-stewartm

Eye opening indeed and you are a very credible source with impressive background. I for one would love to see more posts from you flaying our MIC and their paid stooges in Congress. MIC are the greatest obfuscators of the truth and I for one still don’t know the difference b/t an F14a and an F-14.

Oh and by the way, sense I’ve been using the tax cut for the “98%” to defund S.S. so that’s got to go.

The Eisenhower tax rates were also used to for massive infrastructure improvements such as the Interstate Highway system. While it didn’t solve all social problems it was insturmental in building the middle class, giving the poor a chance with improved services and educational opportunities and keeping an aristocracy from arising, besides when compared with today’s dollars the 90% didn’t kick in until $15 million per year. You may have to clip coupons, but you could probably get by. The MIC rationalization is fraudulent.

We’re going to need even more taxes if you actually want to pay for the entitlements.

If we eliminated all the Bush Tax Cuts For The Rich we could bring in $1/2T.

But changing them to Bush Tax Cuts For The 98% will only bring in $80B.

Next years deficit will be over $1T. How we gonna pay for that?

I don’t know why Obama’s being so mock-coy…his supporters would be happy to shout their unequivocal support for deep cuts to Medicare and Social Security from the rooftops if he asked them to. Why not own it, be completely open about it? Why not go all out and be the King of Worthless Bastards? It’s not as if anyone can object in any meaningful way at this point.

I concur. It’s really better just to let all the rates expire and go over the cliff curb. That way, you have considerably more money to keep the government running if when the Republican hold the debt ceiling hostage.

If you really wanted to do a tax cut for the 99 %, the best way to do this is by keeping the Clinton-era rates constant and increasing the personal exemption/standard deduction. That helps a lot at the lower income levels, but very little at high. By contrast, about 25 % of Obama’s “middle class” cut goes to the rich.

-stewartm

We’re going to need even more taxes if you actually want to pay for the entitlements.

I’ve already shown you how not only to fix SS, but to double it. As for Medicare, while there’s no cap, once again you’re leaving capital untouched for its funding.

Next years deficit will be over $1T. How we gonna pay for that?

$901 billion by Wikipedia.

But the best way to “pay for it” is to grow the economy, and that would be best done by a long-term increased government spending on repairing/upgrading/installing infrastructure, which not only puts people to work but also lowers the cost of business. Real health care reform also helps balance the budget.

But if you’re gonna insist on deficit hawkishness, I’ve found given the extremely limited set of options given here that it’s still not hard to balance the budget and even produce a small surplus (not that it’s a good idea).

-stewartm

No we don’t need the money to buy anything. We need to tax them to take away their power to make us their slaves, to ,reduce the oligarchy, to reduce their corrupt influence.

This was a joke on your part?

Both my parents turn 67 this year…WHEW!!!!

I am for a 100% rate above ten million per annum.

Who gets the message?

Who NEEDS ten million per year? NO ONE, unless you have committed a murder.

Enter a public defender.

Taxes are about wealth distribution, nothing else.

Taxes drains liquidity. What does that mean?

Liquidity for the poor is cash to pay the rent, buy food, to live.

Liquidity for the wealthy is to have one more play thing.

Tax the poor, they are further impoverished, Tax the rich, they have one fewer yacht, or vacation home.

The US has a fiat currency, its obligations are in its own currency. It ‘prints’ all the money it needs. It does not need to ‘borrow’ money, that is only a service for the affluent to park their cash and receive interest.

It does not need to tax to pay its bills, it ‘prints’ whatever it needs. Taxes restrain the amount of its currency in play.

Ha! What a rub there is there. See the Shadow Banking Scene.

But by appearances, it needs to tax to restrain liquidity. Otherwise there can be inflation.

Currently, we are in a depression.

It needs to tax the affluent, who have an excess of liquidity, to equalize the chances of survival for the poor.

So call me a communist. Just don’t call me a Bolshevik. Refer to Mikhail Bakunin.

Yeah, but when those rates were at 90% during the Eisenhower years the MIC was becoming the monster it is today. That’s why the middle class expansion of those years was actually modest (although it seems massive in comparison to today and the Great Depression that pre-dated those rates.)

“…reduce the oligarchy??????????”

That’s a nice idea. One problem. I think most of the oligarchs will not support that.

No. Which part of it sounded humorous? The time to hold the President accountable for his willingness to gut Medicare and Social Security was during the election, not after. Now he has free rein to do whatever he pleases, and it’s impossible for him to offend his cult.

But Obama is doing none of that laundry list. He’s hiking taxes in the middle of a recession to . . . . . . . reduce the deficit, not to secure the social safety net or any other of those goodies you mention.

Didn’t he say “$2.50 in spending cuts for every $1.00 in new revenue”?

LOL!

We need… socialism!

The tax code rate is a joke on the 99.9%.

The maximum tax rate for those making $388,351 per year, or more, is nominally 35%.

$388,351 is 35 times (rounded) the Federal Poverty Level (I am acutely aware of that poverty level, being $21 per year below it).

$388,351 should be more than anyone could need.

But they are pikers compared to the Oligarchs.

The joke is that people making ONE THOUSAND times that amount per year ($388 million), or those making TEN THOUSAND times that amount per year (3.8 billion) are in the same category.

It amounts to a flat tax which heavily penalizes the lower strata. And lets the upper strata off free.

This is by design.

The tax rates should progress up from what is now the highest tier.

100% at ten million.

Failure at that is what has got us to level of inequality in income, and thus wealth, that we have today. More than thirty years in the making.

Right. Just take away some of their money. They don’t need it. Trust me on that.

That $2.50 in spending cuts for every $1 in revenue proposal was made early this year for the FY2013 budget. FY2013 started October 1. So now we are discussing FY 2014.

How does letting Republican vote for tax cuts instead of requiring they vote for tax hikes deal with:
* climate change which requires a carbon tax or cap and tax
* fixes transportation infrastructure that requires doubling the gas tax
* pays for all the increased health care spending bloat you want

If the tax cuts all expire, Grover Norquist wins and he is able to dictate to Republicans no new taxes and only tax cuts.

Norquist has rejected the US Constitution in favor of the Continental Congress of 1786. The first enumerated power of Congress is fundamental and underpins everything else in the Constitution. Without that power, the rest is impossible. Nothing can be more anti-American than Grover Norquist’s pledge.

What Obama and Boehner have been proving is Republicans will not use their first enumerated power of Congress under any circumstances. Obama has Boehner rejecting any and all tax hikes no matter the cuts in exchange. Republicans once elected to Congress will not honor the Constitution.

No one should let Republicans off the hook.

Expediency and avoidance will not solve the problem that has been plaguing the nation for a quarter century.

Hiking taxes in the middle of a recession is the only way to quickly end the recession.

We have tried cutting taxes to get out of a recession. How fast did the recession beginning in 2001 really end with all the tax cuts and helicopter drops of tax rebates? I say we are still in the 2001 depression because overall, everyone lost from 2001 onward, with only fake recovery in the form of ponzi scheme wealth to make you think you were better off, which got you to spend money didn’t have which hired someone into a job that was temporary not permanent like they thought when they spent.

Reagan started the 1981 recession by cutting taxes, and ended it by hiking taxes. The tax cuts were being pushed through Congress in the winter, spring, summer during a slow expansion, and then when the tax cuts were certain, the recession was begin in July 1981 with Reagan signing the bill in Aug 1981; the recession was declared at end in November 82, a month after Reagan agreed to cancel half the tax cuts and signaled he would agree to tax hikes, doubling the gas tax, hiking FICA, along with inflation hiking taxes with bracket creep – the indexing in the 81 bill did not go into effect until 85.

Hoover signed tax hikes in 1932 (which were increased regularly by FDR) ending the recession – 1933 to 1937 was a robust expansion with lots of job creation, and the 1937 recession was caused by a helicopter drop of cash in Bonus payments FDR vetoed three times and Congress overrode.

Time to hold voters responsible for voting for Republicans who campaigned on cutting entitlements to give tax cuts to the rich.

If the voters want their Social Security and Medicare they would vote for zero Republicans which would mean one or two Republicans in Congress.

Obama represents all voters, even those who voted to have their entitlements cut.

It would be nice if Obama would represent those who don’t want their entitlements cut, and if his supporters would demand that of him, instead of making excuses for him.