MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE by Michael Wolraich Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop |
We have been telling you all along that history is working in reverse. Chamberlain was the appeaser, Churchill the decider. I was the decider and Obama is the great appeaser. When did we know that Obama could be rolled? The moment that he said in public that he would not extend my tax cuts to people making over a quarter of a million. He not only caved on that one, but he has agreed to permanently extend my "no death tax" to 5 million dollars.
Best of all! The stuff he gets (extensions on unemployment, doc fix, etc.) are only temporary and automatically expire while the tax cuts are permanent!
Better best of all!! The spending cuts trigger in just two months and he still gets no slack on increasing the debt limit! We not only rolled him, but we know for sure that he can be rolled again. It's like we're still in power!
Christmas came late, but Santa was sure good!
God bless America!
--W
Comments
OK, I was a little wrong on the death tax thingy. We can fix that in 2 months now that we have the leverage.
by The Decider on Mon, 12/31/2012 - 11:29pm
by trkingmomoe on Tue, 01/01/2013 - 12:14am
The incoming congress will be significantly better than the outgoing?
Uhhhh.....
by demunchained on Tue, 01/01/2013 - 8:38am
Whether you respect him or not, spell the guy's name right.
by acanuck on Tue, 01/01/2013 - 2:57am
Done
by Michael Wolraich on Tue, 01/01/2013 - 2:51pm
I think not using a Chained CPI on Social Security was a victory, though I can't imagine why Obama brought it up in the first place. Hopefully it was as an offer meant to be cut, like a nasty scene that a movie-maker shows the MPAA and then cuts to go from NC-17 to R.
Not settling the debt ceiling now was a huge mistake. But, I'm not sure how you make a crazed opposition settle that. They went into default mode once already.
As for unemployment benefits and the like being temporary while tax rates for those under $400,000 are now permanent... What we want is an improving economy where unemployment benefits become less of an issue. This might help us towards that. As for the difference between $250,000 and $400,000 in terms of marginal tax rates... yes, some mini-tycoons found a teeny tiny break. But, whatever. It's the real big tycoons that we need to tax.
by Michael Maiello on Tue, 01/01/2013 - 3:38am
Seems like that chunk between $250K and $450K is huge - perhaps 1/7th of tax in the tax bracket with most revenue - perhaps the segment generating 25% of total?
http://www.irs.gov/file_source/pub/irs-soi/08in03tr.xls
Income and Tax Items, by Type of Tax Computation, by Size of
Adjusted Gross Income, Tax Year 2008
except where otherwise indicated)
size of adjusted gross income
returns
gross income
less deficit
taxable income
regular tax computation
generated
due to
alternative
computations
special computation
of
returns
of
returns
of
returns
of
returns
income tax
(dollars)
returns
returns
returns
returns
taxable income
gross income
by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 01/01/2013 - 2:30pm
I think that's the reason this proposal doesn't actually cut the deficit, which has ironically become the House conservatives' talking point.
by Michael Wolraich on Tue, 01/01/2013 - 2:53pm
This is the kind of partisan sentiment that has created the gridlock in DC. Obama wanted 250K, the other side didn't want to tax anyone regardless of amount. Then some on the moderate conservative side proposed just those who make a million or more. They ended up with 400K.
Some would call the give and take of negotiations. But to those stuck in trenches of partisan warfare it is appeasement.
by Anonymous Trope (not verified) on Tue, 01/01/2013 - 1:30pm
Right - forget the huge amount of revenue $ foregone, the amount of spending cuts to make up for that cash, the upcoming debt ceiling fight, and simply the loss of face and political power in seeing Obama blink yet again...
To you it's always some theoretical grudge match, not actual accounting.
by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 01/01/2013 - 3:40pm
by Anonymous trope (not verified) on Wed, 01/02/2013 - 5:55pm
by Anonymous trope (not verified) on Wed, 01/02/2013 - 5:55pm
Guardian:
.....while it's possible that Obama threw away his leverage by reaching an agreement and compromising on the baseline for tax increases, it's also true that he locked in a series of (stimulative) policy measures he might not have gotten if he done nothing.
Was it worth risking austerity policies that squeeze the middle class simply to lock in even higher tax revenues? Perhaps......when you're dealing with House Republicans, who could have very easily passed a tax cut bill after going over the cliff that ignored EITC or unemployment insurance, or even set the tax threshold at $500,000 and dared Democrats in the Senate to block it, I find it very difficult to criticize the president too harshly....Obama went with the bird-in-hand of a certain deal. Arguing that he could have gotten a better agreement had he held out sounds reasonable, but it ignores the potential obstacles in dealing with a political party that has no interest in the plight of working people or the responsibilities that come with running a large country....
by NCD on Tue, 01/01/2013 - 1:50pm