General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsGOP Have Been Throwing Tax Cuts at Billionaires for Decades, While Squeezing the Working Class
http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-and-right/pattern-clear-gop-will-bend-over-backwards-make-life-better-1-percent-notGOPers Have Been Throwing Tax Cuts at Billionaires for Decades, While Squeezing the Working Class for Every Penny
***SNIP
When George Bush came to office the federal government taxed the value of estates over $675,000. Congress immediately raised the exemption to $1 million and in 2009 to $3.5 million. In 2010 Congress boosted it again to $5 million and in 2012 indexed the exemption to inflation. This year an individual will pay taxes only for the value of an estate over $5.25 million. A couple will receive an exemption of $10.5 million.
In sum, over 13 years Congress increased the estate tax exemption almost 800 percent and then indexed it to inflation. During that time the cost of living rose by 32 percent.
From 1997 to 2007 Congress refused to raise the minimum wage a penny. Then in 2007 it reluctantly raised it by $2.10 over three years. Since 2009 Congress has again refused to revisit the issue. Today and for the foreseeable future any proposal to index the federal minimum wage is dead on arrival.
In sum, over 16 years full time workers earning the federal minimum wage have seen their income rise by 40 percent, to $15,000. During that time the cost of living rose by 45 percent.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Obama went and re-extended those tax cuts.
And it doesn't seem to me that too many in Congress are upset by these policies, regardless whether it is the letter "R" or the letter "D" after their names.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)because it benefits them personally. Seems like.
That voluntary extension of the Bush tax cuts in 2009 remains the single thing that most angers me about the President.
The big focus of his campaign was to do away with the Bush tax cuts. He must have said it hundreds of times. Instead we chose to widen the income gap exacerbating the deficit, igniting all this horrible austerity advocacy.
And incredible as it seems, some of the austerity measures were offered up by that very Obama Administration that voluntarily extended the Bush tax cuts.
Can you say betrayal?
RKP5637
(67,103 posts)cash flow. When one goes asking millionaires for policies that might improve their lot too, but also effect the cash flow to those holding the purse strings and benefiting from their respective policies, it is a fool's errand in USA, Inc.
"We the people" hold the power in this country, but often have clouded vision when we vote.
One of the first solutions is to get the money, bribery and paybacks out of politics in this country. ... but many always think all D's are above this, it is not the case. For big $$$$$ often R=D=I.
How to accomplish clearing up this mess is a good question. To me, we went seriously off-track in the 80's with this inane concept of trickle down economics. We've seen how well thar works. To restore the balance in this country might well take several generations.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)It was an attempt to get the Republicans to the negotiating table on issues like a jobs bill or other economic aid.
It was a foolish attempt, in that it did not directly tie the two into a single bill. But Team Obama made the mistake of thinking Republicans are sane.
After the big losses in 2010, Obama shifted right. Why? Big losses. That's what lead to the austerity measures.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)did the President create the Catfood Commission®? Many of us feel that the President was ideologically committed to Chained CPI and such before any negotiating table.
You seem to be saying the big losses for Democrats in 2010 were the result of being too far left.
That claim couldn't be more incorrect. The big losses were the result of no public option which had a huge favorability polling and extending the tax cuts for billionaires and millionaires. There was no voter enthusiasm after these failures by the President.
No public option and extending the Bush tax cuts were the move to the right. And that is why we failed in 2010.
The people didn't show up to vote for Obama in 2008 because they imagined him to be far right, like Bush. They flocked to the polls because they thought he was liberal, possibly even a socialist as the Republicans claimed during the campaign.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The "Catfood Commission was after the 2010 losses.
Democrats lost big in 2010. So Obama shifted right.
Yes, simple statements of fact contain ideological justification.
The big losses for Democrats were because left-leaning marginally-attached voters didn't show up. Partisans on the left still voted, but we didn't do nearly as good a job bringing other people to the polls with us.
Meanwhile, the batshit-crazy wing of the Republicans dragged right-leaning marginally-attached voters to the polls as if it was a presidential election year.
No, the people who believed that still showed up. They're the partisans. What changed is they had decided Obama was an exact mirror of their own political beliefs, and were disappointed when Obama did not do exactly what they wanted.
If you want an example, Afghanistan. Lots of those folks were sure Obama would pull out of Afghanistan despite candidate Obama saying he would send a "surge" to Afghanistan. They were disappointed when Obama did what he said instead of what they wanted him to do. If you'd like another, single-payer. Candidate Obama didn't promise it, yet those folks acted as if he did.
(Btw, this does not mean Obama was perfect or always did exactly what candidate Obama said he'd do. For example, the mandate in the ACA.)
Disappointed partisans did not work as hard to get voters to the polls as in 2008. Those marginally-attached voters were the ones who did not show up.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)Turnout among committed Democrats was about the same in 2008 and 2010.
Turnout among left-leaning marginally-attached voters went way down.
Those statistics really don't care if you agree with them.
El_Johns
(1,805 posts)show up in 2010 doesn't have a shred of evidence behind it.
You can say he created the commission.
You can say voters didn't show up.
Making one the cause and the other the effect requires more.
Particularly since the commission was created BEFORE the elections.
The commission first met on April 27, 2010.[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Commission_on_Fiscal_Responsibility_and_Reform
The 2010 United States elections were held on Tuesday, November 2, 2010.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_elections,_2010
Then there's this:
The original proposal for a commission came from bipartisan legislation that would have required Congress to vote on its recommendations as presented, without any amendment. In January 2010, that bill failed in the Senate by a vote of 5346, when six Republicans who had co-sponsored it nevertheless voted against it.[5] Thereafter, President Obama established the Commission by Executive Order 13531.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Commission_on_Fiscal_Responsibility_and_Reform
The Executive Order was signed February 18, 2010.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-national-commission-fiscal-responsibility-and-reform
"Those facts don't really care if you agree with them".
So I think you'll have quite an uphill climb trying to show that Obama created the catfood commission because of the falling away of left voters.
If there's any cause and effect here, I think it runs the other way.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Obama embraced austerity measures like Chained CPI after the 2010 election. The theory before the election was the commission would do short-term stimulus and then long-term deficit reduction.
That didn't happen, because the Republicans didn't want stimulus, and team Obama stupidly thought they could negotiate.
El_Johns
(1,805 posts)the left.
Star Member jeff47 (10,304 posts)
22. He created it because of the 2010 losses.
The "Catfood Commission was after the 2010 losses.
I think you owe the poster an apology after talking "statements of fact" all over him.
O. started moving right as soon as he got elected & the CC is just one example of same. Thus the disaffected left.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)I will now commit seppuku for the horrific mistake of saying 'created' instead of "Changed the focus of the commission from short term stimulus/long-term deficit reduction to austerity"
Alternatively, one could describe that as actually 'creating' the catfood commission, since "catfood commission" was not the goal of the committee when Obama created it.
O. started moving right as soon as he got elected & the CC is just one example of same. Thus the disaffected left.
Who turned out and voted in 2010.
Again, exit polls show the left went to the polls. The left didn't bring anyone else along because they were not happy that actual Obama was not dream Obama.
El_Johns
(1,805 posts)Enthusiast (25,860 posts)
17. If what you say is true why did the President create the Catfood Commission®? Many of us feel that the President was ideologically committed to Chained CPI and such before any negotiating table.
Response:
Star Member jeff47 (10,308 posts)
22. He created it because of the 2010 losses.
The "Catfood Commission was after the 2010 losses.
"Many of us feel that the President was ideologically committed to Chained CPI and such before any negotiating table."
Democrats lost big in 2010. So Obama shifted right.
Not only that, but you chide the poster for not being all "fact-based" like you are.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Gonna cop to your error?
El_Johns
(1,805 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)Anyone else must correct them. Good to know.
El_Johns
(1,805 posts)Feb 2010, by Executive order.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024365729#post28
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)due to the constant influx of misinformation. I thank you for shining a light on the actual events as they transpired in 2010.
El_Johns
(1,805 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)They certainly can't hope to change our minds.
Response to Enthusiast (Reply #23)
Enthusiast This message was self-deleted by its author.
RKP5637
(67,103 posts)none want to hear that. Many D's are "not" FDR's.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)What The Corporate Oligarchs And 1% Are Doing Today
How Corporate Oligarchs And The 1% Have Systematically Undermined US Democracy And The Middle Class
How The Liberal Class Sold Out To The Corporate Oligarchs And 1%
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)JHB
(37,158 posts)Last edited Thu Mar 13, 2014, 10:47 PM - Edit history (3)
...and has not been restored since.
After adjusting for inflation, before the Kennedy-era tax cuts typically over half the brackets (sometimes well over half) affected incomes over $250,000, with about 40% affecting incomes above $500,000. Inflation eroded those levels (the brackets were not indexed for inflation) until the late 70s, when the top bracket dipped those into the single digits. Reagan's tax cuts cut even those further, eliminating brackets starting at over 500K entirely. And by the end of his term, the top bracket kicked in at roughly the median income, not anything that could be considered high (BushI went back on his "read my lips" line because these were unsustainably low).
To paraphrase Leona Helmsley, it seems progressivity is for little people.
In case you're wondering why I picked 1942 as a start date, it's purely for readability, thanks to my graphics skills or lack thereof. I need to figure out how to pull off skipping some intervals, because some of those inflation-adjusted brackets reach higher. Much higher:
pampango
(24,692 posts)is closely correlated to those graphs.
JHB
(37,158 posts)They're an update and improved version of ones I made back in March 2012. The 1913-2013 one is still a "rough draft" thanks to the scale problem I mentioned. I probably need something like Illustrator to fix it.
It's easy to find charts that show the top rate history, but that only tells part of the story and in some ways a misleading one. The debates in 2012 centered on "is $250,000/year 'rich?" Well, why was the talk just about one bracket? How were the brackets structured in the past? Sure, you can debate whether this rate is too much, or that one too low, that's a fair debate. But where were the brackets spread?
Couldn't find anything like that. Finally found historical income tax rate tables at The Tax Foundation that were conveniently CPI-adjusted, and got Excel to display them graphically.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)The Bush tax cuts passed the Senate by a 62-38 margin. Our party is part of the problem.
TBF
(32,045 posts)but I have noticed the biggest difference since Reagan became president and started cutting the capital gains tax.
Barack_America
(28,876 posts)Stop buying their shit. Ignore the marketing; we don't "deserve" or "need" luxury or convenience. Sometimes it feels like our "buying power" is the only control we have left.
bullwinkle428
(20,629 posts)K&R.
JHB
(37,158 posts)...it always has more pages added to it, thereby "proving" the need for more "simplification".