Ramona's picture

    So what do you say, Toopers. Can we get a little help here?

    The tax cut deal rewards Republican obstructionism by giving the wealthy the tax breaks they demanded.  It throws away precious resources needed for investments in jobs and our economy on upper income tax cuts that will do very little to propel economic growth—setting up excuses for the deficit hypocrites to argue for even more cuts to programs serving working families.  It lards the tax cuts for the top 2 percent with an indefensible cut in the estate tax – giving yet another bonus to the super-rich.  Taken together, this package locks in the growing income inequality that has plagued our country for at least another two years – and quite possibly much longer. 

    It is unconscionable that the price of support for struggling middle class families and workers who have been unable to find jobs for months and months and months is yet more giveaways for our country’s wealthiest families.  Millions of jobless workers have lived in fear for months while Senate Republicans had the gall to use their hardships as political leverage for the benefit of the rich.
    AFL-CIO president Richard Trumpka


    The Toopers, or the Two-Percenters,  the over-the-top Lords and Ladies of the Land (along with every single one of their Republican toadies and even a few Democrats--all of them high up there on Santa's Naughty List), just got the gift of their dreams from America's so-called leaders.  They got exactly what they wished for--again.

    Rocks in their stockings is what most of them deserved, but instead, we the peons, the peasants, the huddled masses, the mythical "of the people, by the people, for the people", get to foot the bill for this wildly extravagant cave-in to the usual suspects.

    President Obama said he had to give in to tax cuts for everyone because it was "abundantly clear" that the GOP wouldn't agree to anything else.  So that's it, then.  The marauders have taken over the village and the mayor, shaking in his boots, has handed them the keys.

    Come out of the shadows, peasants, it's up to us now.  We can't physically fight them; they're too strong and the only ones with weapons are afraid of them. Multitudes who should be with us are victims of a crazy Stockholm Syndrome and are siding with the enemy regardless of some big time royal screwing.  Nobody is going to help us.  We're on our own.  We could use a Hobbit or two.   A Shrek would be good.  Inigo Montoya, where are you?  Paging Robin Hood.  Waiting. . .

    In the War Room we've spread the constitution out on the table, pored over it 'till our eyes have gone fuzzy, looking for the one loophole that will stop this thing, this invasion, this onslaught.  Turns out the only loopholes are the ones the Toopers found.

    Bugger! Foiled again!

    But there is one thing we haven't tried.  We haven't appealed to the Toopers themselves.  (Face it:  We've never appealed to them, but we're out of options here.)  We've been ignoring them lately, but there are signs that at least a few of them feel at least a little guilt about taking it all and giving only crumbs back.

    A group of them, Patriotic Millionaires for Fiscal Strength, even sent a letter to the president:

    Dear Mr. President, we are writing to urge you to stand firm against those who would put politics ahead of their country.
    For the fiscal health of our nation and the well-being of our fellow citizens, we ask that you allow tax cuts on incomes over $1,000,000 to expire at the end of this year as scheduled.
    We make this request as loyal citizens who now or in the past earned an income of $1,000,000 per year or more.
    We have done very well over the last several years. Now, during our nation’s moment of need, we are eager to do our fair share. We don’t need more tax cuts, and we understand that cutting our taxes will increase the deficit and the debt burden carried by other taxpayers. The country needs to meet its financial obligations in a just and responsible way.
    Letting tax cuts for incomes over $1,000,000 expire, is an important step in that direction.


    I admit I don't recognize many of the names on that petition,  but there are some high-profile gazillionaires who have made the same obvious argument:  Gazillionaires should pay taxes, and lots of them, because--boy howdy, they've sure made the profits.   (Some of them even audaciously say their Big Bucks should stay right here in the U.S.A instead of going abroad, but that's another story for another day.  First things first.)

    A week before Obama's capitulation to the rich,  Warren Buffett told Christiane Amanpour,  “If anything, taxes for the lower and middle class and maybe even the upper middle class should even probably be cut further.  But I think that people at the high end -- people like myself -- should be paying a lot more in taxes. We have it better than we’ve ever had it. The rich are always going to say that, you know, just give us more money and we’ll go out and spend more and then it will all trickle down to the rest of you,  but that has not worked the last 10 years, and I hope the American public is catching on.”

    Well, yeah, Warren, plenty of us did catch on.  We're here, waiting for a real leader, and getting pretty antsy about it.  You may not be it (in fact, I'm pretty sure you're not), but if we don't find someone pretty soon who can twist arms and make those Toopers holler "Tax me! Tax me!  Make me be good!" there will be no happy ending for any of us.

    Topics: 

    Comments

    Organizing for America sent out a video yesterday wherein Obama "explained" his capitualation to the Republican Extortionists. The website welcomed responses. I couldn't resist:

    The extension of these exhorbitant Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest few percent is absolutely indefensible. Obama said so. The American people know it. But Obama did it anyway for sole reason that the Repubs threatened to hold their breath until they turned blue if they didn't get their way. 

    Obama has now cost us a few hundred billion added to the debt to pay off extortion. How much blackmail will it cost to get a START Treaty? How much to end DADT? Alas, how much will we have to give away to the wealthy to save Social Security?

    I think you can see where I'm going with this. How can we ever claim we can afford Social Security and other safety net programs once we've depleted the Treasury and assumed massive debt just to get the extortionists to allow sound policy matters to proceed? At what point do they decide there is nothing left to be gotten, and determine instead the time has come to simply drown government in a bathtub?

    This is perhaps the most inept negotiating I've ever seen, and its outcome is miserably indefensible policy. To say I'm disappointed in my President is a gross understatement.

    Inasmuch as OFA is a social network for Obama supporters, I ask that you remove my name from your records. I'll be looking for whatever opportunity is presented to actively oppose Obama's reelection. Call me sanctimonius, but this is a step too far in a series of inept steps that fail to reflect my interests and those of the Democratic Party's constituents.

    Don't call me. I'll call you. But only if I decide we have a pressing need to re-elect a Democrat more interested in being "compromised" rather than actually seizing the opportunity to lead and do what's right for the country. 


    What irks me about these millionaires is that while they'll right admit that they should pay more to the Treasury when it comes to running their businesses they fight labor (organized or not) tooth and nail.  You know, these are the people responsible for the wage stagnation that's at the heart of all of our financial problems.


    This is nothing more than a re-hash of the Carter Administration. The only difference is, it's being done in black face. I voted for John Anderson in 1980 so I'm looking for someone to fill that slot on my ballot cause I'm not voting Democrat or Republican/Tea-Bagger in 2012.


    Bernie Sanders is looking real good these days. . .


    I know I'm preaching to the choir, but this is why we need rank-ordered voting (or something similar). That would allow you to vote for Sanders (for example), but still state that you prefer Obama over Palin (or whoever gets the Republican nomination), assuming you feel that way. This would give a lot more strength to third parties (on both the right and the left), which is exactly why it'll never happen. Cry

    As for me, I won't vote third-party until that happens (or untill a third-party candidate really looks viable, but that's a bit chicken-and-egg), but I respect that others have different ideologies and beliefs, such as the "one step backwards, two steps forward" strategy that others have espoused, some having been inspired by this new book I've heard about called "Blowing Smoke".


    Not to rain on a good outrage party, but when did we on the quasi-socialist left become such deficit hawks?  Principled opposition to the Bush tax cuts would demand that they all expire, except for perhaps the bottom rung.  But I don't hear much of that from the left now (except if the lower brackets are used as a bargaining chip), and certainly didn't during the primaries or the general election in 2008.

    And another thing: fuck Warren Buffett and Bill Gates.  And George Soross (at least for 2010).  They can sit for interviews and publish all the full-page adds they want, but until they put some real money and muscle behind efforts to turn back the tide of rising inequality of income and opportunity in this country, in other words, until they become the Koch Brothers of the left, all their sympathetic talk is just meaningless blather offered to enhance their own reputations.

    And can we stop with the Carter comparisons?  They are nothing but glib distortions of recent history.  Fox News doesn't need any help.    


    I have to agree that those who are against the tax-cuts for millionaires extension need to be careful with whom they're allying.  It's important to draw lines between whose cuts can act as quasi-stimulus (for job creation) and whose cuts just capture more capital and add to the deficit, or tomorrow you won't be feeling such an alliance with that Blue Dog you're friends with today.  Otherwise, those Dems might want to be voting for fictional teevee candiate HughGidette.  Meh.

    Warren Buffet as a liberal hero kills me, too, based on his 'my cleaning lady pays more taxes than I do', ha ha ha.  So he writes a big honking op-ed for the NYTimes or somewhere, praising Dubya and Obama for fixing the economy!!!  Fine for him and his gold-plated buddies, a lie for the rest of us.  And the next day we hear the President's awarding him a Medal of Freedom.  And yes, he gave away a good chunk of his fortune to the Gates Foundation, but it doesn't make him some Liberal hero in my book.


    Yes, well there is this one option called introducing legislation to substitute for the Bush tax cuts.  It would have the extra advantage of allowing for a redrawing of the line upwards if there is solid research suggesting that families with more than $250,000 actually do spend substantial portions of additional discretionary money they happen upon, as families in the greater NYC, DC, Bay Area and some others have been known to do.  (I know a few of them.)


    I would go for sending checks.  That's money that gets spents.  This public fight may help advertise it if working people get payroll tax holidays, but otherwise polls show few eve know they're getting more in their paychecks.  (Gotta wonder about that, though.)  Checks.  Self-employed don't get 'tax holidays'.  ;o( 


    I looked at the Millionaires list; the only name that stood out is a man who blogs at Huffpo:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leo-hindery-jr/political-malpractice-in_b_784108.html


    Great article, Stardust.  Twice he says he wants to cry.  I know how he feels.  Obama and his White House just seem more and more clueless.  Are they just thrashing around trying to make excuses for their ineptness, or are they working on a cynical agenda that was there all along?  I'm beginning to think the latter.

    Hindery says: 

    We hear from sources within the White House that the President and his closest advisors have concluded that the "electoral thrashing" we all just saw had more to do with larger economic forces and strategic decisions about health care and economic stimulus than with the particular operations of the White House. In their very own words, "it wasn't that the White House did things wrong, but that it did the wrong things."

    How can the administration say on the one hand that it "did the wrong things" and then on the other hand exonerate itself by saying that "it wasn't that the White House did things wrong?"

    Obama also shows a blatant disregard for the truth

     To this point, just a week ago, on November 8, President Obama very mistakenly said that he and his administration "didn't do what Franklin Delano Roosevelt did, which was basically wait for six months until the thing had gotten so bad that it became an easier sell politically." The truth is that FDR took office on Saturday, March 4, 1933, called Congress into special session to meet five days later on March 9th, and by June 15th, at the end of the "Hundred Days", had seen almost all of the early New Deal financial legislation passed.

    (Actually FDR called his cabinet together the night of the inauguration to start in on the problems ahead.  He also chose Harry Hopkins, a social worker, to put together the New Deal.  The genius of FDR was in the people he listened to and put to work.  Obama, right from the start, seemed almost to want to stick it to us with his choices.):

    I saw the latest Move-On ad this morning, where ordinary people took to their web-cams to tell the President he's wrong about extending the tax cuts for the wealthy.  Masterfully effective, I think.  But then I'm the choir their preaching to.


    Yes, and F Roosevelt also did his first Fireside Chat, announcing and explaining measures he was taking to deal with the banking crisis, on March 12, 1933, 8 days after taking the oath of office, which was on March 4 back in those days:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leo-hindery-jr/political-malpractice-in_b_784108.html

    That's a pretty shocking misstatement by the President.  It displays gross ignorance of perhaps the most relevant US history to the situation he actually inherited, versus the situation in which he constructed his campaign themes, and is shocking coming from a President many of us hoped had the kind of intellectual curiosity and knowledge of history that his predecessor lacked.  I guess one might make a pretty decent case that that explains a lot of what has happened, if it is generally reflective of what this President knows and perceives about Roosevelt's early presidency.


    I think "intellectual curiosity and knowledge of history" is what we expected of him, yes--and he seemed to have it, didn't he?  So what is going on now?  How could he make such stupid mistakes, knowing how easy it is to fact-check and come down on him for it?  I think it's more that our own miscalculation.  Something has changed him, and I suspect it's a too-heavy leaning on the people the people he chose to advise him.  Why he chose them in the first place is another mystery.  We can't blame everything on Rahm Emmanuel.  Obama is the top dog.  He's the decider.


    There's a lot here, Ramona.  Free association: Against Obmama and Rahm's claim that you should waste a good crisis, they did just that, IMO, in terms of not tackling fin-reg out of the gate.  People yell at me that health care was more important, but after his backroom deals with hosptials pharma, and insurance, he turned it over to Congress anyway. 

    I'll say straight out that he lied on Jon Stewart when he made the insane claim that his administration 'fixed the economic meltdown' or some such for far less than the S& L crisis cost'.  Now, the creative accounting of pretending that most banks have paid back their TARP loans being used as any sort of metric is so bogus; Bloomberg estimates that the cost to the nation was more like $12.8 trillion, figuring in guarantees, too.  And then the Fed list of emergency loans sure adds to that estimate.  Just utter lies.

    But Obama did tell us he admired Reagan's gamechanging whatever-it-was.  Sigh.  And we thought he was just courting moderate Republicans; silly us!

    Cry, kick ass, smack politicians on the Hill for being so unconcerned and unhurried while so many are losing their jobs, unemployment, houses, hope, metal health.  Sick.  Morally depraved.  Clueless on purpose.



    Go, Dan.  That little presser will no doubt be quoted for a long time..Historical cluelessness about one of two most crucial safety nets we all pay into, whining about what 'he' did for us even if we still whined about health care cost containment via public option, la la la...

    I loved this concerning his 'error's' on SS:

    The White House press office chose not to address the issue.'  Yeah I can see why not...  ;o)

     


    All of the above, Stardust.  You've got it.  I watched Obama make decisions that were baffling at best, and I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.  No longer.  I've watched the Dems in the house and the senate twiddle their thumbs when they should have been taking action and I was willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.  I gave up on them long before Obama, but I wanted to believe they would at long last do the right thing.   The few who are fighting back have my undying devotion, but they have about as much chance of making a difference as I have. 

     I wonder which countries will come in and help us nation-build when the time comes?  I really think we're toast.

     


    Toast,  We. Are,  Unless.  --And I haven't a clue what can realistically come next, though there are plenty of murmurs around.

    It's been interesting to me to watch which have been the 'come to Jesus' moments for Obama supporters, whether critical mass over several issues, or one bridge too far of sell-outs to the Oligarchs, or the lies and/or pretenses.  Many of us who were disenchated early, but still hopeful to some degree, kept begging people to put on Jiustice's blindfold, listen to what was unfolding, and analyze things without knowing whose administration we were speaking about.  Impossible mind-game, really, but questions and standards worth thinking about, IMO.

    War, rendition, Rule of Law, targeted assassinations of Americans and even drug dealers abroad; the White House tanking most effective fin-reg, his justice dept. limiting evidence for suspected 'terrorists' in court, arguing that even groups giving free time to reconciliation teaching between warring factions in the ME was 'aiding and abetting terrorism'.  So much wrong stuff.

    But this one has been some clarion call for so many; they say even people at Daily Kos are beginning to grouse, and I assume that's a pretty big deal!  ;o)

    Bernie Sanders want is to demonstrate; some wanted us to 'move our money'; don't know how widely that message has gotten out.  I ask, 'What money?'  ;o)

    Guess we need a Constitutional Convention, find a way to run more parties' candidates, with run-off voting.  But we also have the SCOTUS we've got, and goddam if the R's win the Wite House in '12, it will be a sight to behold.  All those social issues like abortion and gay rights and immigration and ....well, you know the rest.

    Guess we'll have to keep our ears peeled about actions that might help; but for today?  Keep being pissed, Ramona.  And telling us about it.


    Latest Comments