Krugman: Obama Could 'Go Down In History As The Wimp Who Threw It All Away'

[PostmodernProphet]

If you are making over 250k , you can afford a few lousy dollars more on any income over that number.

it all depends on how you define "a few lousy dollars more".......for that matter, if you make over $75k you can afford a few lousy dollars more if the few is few enough.....I don't think you will find anyone on this board who wishes to deny old ladies orange juice......however, I can give you at least one example of someone on this board who would pretend that any attempt to fix SS will deny old ladies their orange juice.....and that is you.......liberals have no intention of treating this debate with legitimacy so long as they can continue frightening old people into supporting their political agenda to retain power.....

 

[canceled.2021.1]

While your point is certainly valid... I would agree that the Reps actually came out ahead if you look at a comparison to what would have happened.

Had we gone over the 'fiscal cliff' all tax brackets would have increased and Defense would be staring down the barrel of $500B in cuts. Dems could easily have come back this month with a quick 'here is a tax cut for those making $250k or less'... what would the Reps have done? The Reps would then also have to justify trying to increase Defense spending again.

That said, in terms of public perception you are correct... the Reps lost. In terms of the numbers, they won (barely).

The only "win" I can see for the GOP (if they are smart, which I don't think they are) is that with the tax cuts permanent, Obama and his minions don't have that cudgel to wield anymore. I think the dems are going to have trouble coming back and saying "If you want to cut spending we want more tax increases" even on the rich. But, who knows.

The American people have surprised me with their stupidity, so it is anyones guess

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

The reasoning is quite simple my friend.

First, democrats aren't all that popular either. The movement is to independents, not democrats or republicans.

Obama just made 98% of the Bush Tax Cuts permenant.

Obama Tells Progressives He Won't Budge On Bush Tax Cuts
NOVEMBER 13, 2012

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/13/obama-bush-tax-cuts_n_2124324.html

Fiscal Cliff Deal Chock Full of Corporate Pork
http://www.nonprofitquarterly.org/p...-cliff-deal-chock-full-of-corporate-pork.html

Fiscal Cliff Deal Sneaks In Wall Street Gifts, NASCAR Perk
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/02/fiscal-cliff-wall-street_n_2397933.html

The Republican Party supposedly splintered in when Bill Clinton was elected and went into office with a big majority in Congress .. two years later they owned the House.

Then, the Republican Party supposedly splintered when Obama was elected .. who went into office with the same majority in Congress that Clinton had. Two year later the republicans owned the House again.

Republicans are chomping at the bit to start negotiations on entitlements .. and they know that Obama is going to cave on SS and Medicare .. just as he always caves.

2014 is not shaping up to be good for democrats.

How exactly to you think he'll "cave"? Do you think we're in a situation where we can afford to not address SS & Medicare - 2 of the largest pieces of the budget pie? Do you think that's any different from a Republican saying that we should cut, but not to Defense?

People don't seem to get what $16 trillion, growing at a pace that we can't really comprehend anymore, will do to America and the economy, and to programs like SS, Medicare & Defense once it is through destroying that economy. We're just not a wealthy country that can afford to continue with business as usual. We're a poor country, in a great deal of debt, who will see just about everything tumble down around us unless our politicians are willing to make some tough decisions, about programs and spending that appeals to their base.

 

[The Dude]

That you is 77%+ of US households!
If you earn 50grand a year you will pay $1100 a year more in tax.
Close to a hundred bucks a month.
I said it before, it was never about taxing the rich.
It was about taxing all!

$41 in taxation for each $1. In spending cuts!!

Winners?
Losers?

The average working American loses to the criminals in government!

That the republicans voted to tax the working stiffs sickens me!
Rinos to a man!
Bohner, brown, mc Cain, the lot!

Liberals, totalitarians and thieves.
They have turned their backs on America.

Whabulance for the teabagger

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

But her raised copay is not a separate issue from what I'm discussing. SS disability is bilking the system, not the retirement benefit. I don't know why nobody cares to address that.



What was it that he was saying? Did he believe that patients w/no DNR should be allowed to die with dignity? Quite often, it is the children of one of these patients who won't let them be unhooked. Typically, they're living off of the patient's monthly SS/Pension, or other stipend, and they're too greedy to allow the parent to pass peacefully.

So you know that LIJ is a teaching hospital, and they not only use the near death patients to practice on, but I'm sure they're very happy to get the medicare/caid money to keep 'dead' patients alive.

correct on all counts. We're never going to see rational thought in our health systems.

But, we're discussing this country's financial mess, with cuts looming. So grandma can't buy o.j., but we can spend billions on unnecessary meds, and dead patients that aren't allowed to die.

The fixes seem pretty simple to me

No he said he had gotten a call that his mom was ill in Ireland , and by the time he got there she was gone. And that the doctors there said she went peacefully, they don't take extraordinary measures at that age there. THen at lunch we talked about the different philosophies of the two cultures involved regarding death.

 

[007]

Just by the numbers 250k a year makes you way richer than most Americans.

that makes you rich.

250k would be easy as hell to live on in MOST American cities.

The way Obama did this was he set it lower than he really wanted ( I know I wish it was 250k also).


The dealo is many of the Dems in congress have people who give them money in cities like SAN FRAN and NY.

In those cities 250k doesnt seem so rich.


Alot of the dems in congress were HAPPY to have that number raised.


It made it look like Obama really sacraficed.

It wasn't $250000 though was it ?

People earning $50000 have been taxed at an additional $1100 a year.
One percenters!!

 

[Althea]

No he said he had gotten a call that his mom was ill in Ireland , and by the time he got there she was gone. And that the doctors there said she went peacefully, they don't take extraordinary measures at that age there. THen at lunch we talked about the different philosophies of the two cultures involved regarding death.

Did you say there were people who disagreed with that principle? Typically, extremely wealthy people don't want to die. They'll spend any amount to extend life, no matter the quality of said life.

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

$250K is definitely not rich in my area. Maybe for a single person it is very well off, but for a family income, it's upper middle class, which is very different from wealthy.

It sounds like an awful lot from some perspectives, but a lot of people at that level - who have kids, who are saving for college, etc. - can live a fairly modest existence and still basically be paycheck to paycheck.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

Did you say there were people who disagreed with that principle? Typically, extremely wealthy people don't want to die. They'll spend any amount to extend life, no matter the quality of said life.

Yes, the people I was sitting with at the lunch, got very uncomfortable and then later had this whole discussion about how it was "really easy to say that". But when it was you, you don't want to die. Which of course, that's true, who wants to die? But that's what I mean about the whole philosophy of it. I guess it's a matter of Americans not being at peace with their mortality. Not at all at peace. I personally believe that this has a direct impact on how willing they are to kill just about anyone, in order bring themselves some phantom feeling of "security".

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

$250K is definitely not rich in my area. Maybe for a single person it is very well off, but for a family income, it's upper middle class, which is very different from wealthy.

It sounds like an awful lot from some perspectives, but a lot of people at that level - who have kids, who are saving for college, etc. - can live a fairly modest existence and still basically be paycheck to paycheck.

Okay, but again, you have to be over 250 in order to be impacted right? So lets say they make 260k. They will pay an additional 4% on the 10k over the 250. That's 400 dollars a year.

Again, most people in our area spend more than that at Starbucks every year, or wherever their morning stop is. Come on, it's not even a cup of coffee a day.

What I"m saying is that, semantics about who is rich and who is not rich aside, the effects of that tax hike, had it occurred, would not have caused harm.

Again, a reminder, we are talking about Clinton-era tax rates here.

We were pretty prosperous under these rates not that long ago.

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

Yes, the people I was sitting with at the lunch, got very uncomfortable and then later had this whole discussion about how it was "really easy to say that". But when it was you, you don't want to die. Which of course, that's true, who wants to die? But that's what I mean about the whole philosophy of it. I guess it's a matter of Americans not being at peace with their mortality. Not at all at peace. I personally believe that this has a direct impact on how willing they are to kill just about anyone, in order bring themselves some phantom feeling of "security".

Someone pretty close to me passed last year. When they were fading away, they had to sign a doc stating that they didn't want the doctors to use "heroic measures" to prolong their life, even though death was a certainty at that point. Those measures would have only extended the life, which was not what anyone would describe a quality life at that point, by days or weeks at the most.

It definitely gets you thinking how many people choose not to sign that, and how much those extra few days or weeks - many of which they're not even conscious for - end up costing. Those kinds of measures tend to be on the expensive side.

 

[cawacko]

$250K is definitely not rich in my area. Maybe for a single person it is very well off, but for a family income, it's upper middle class, which is very different from wealthy.

It sounds like an awful lot from some perspectives, but a lot of people at that level - who have kids, who are saving for college, etc. - can live a fairly modest existence and still basically be paycheck to paycheck.

My friends call it HENRy - High Earner Not Rich.

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

Okay, but again, you have to be over 250 in order to be impacted right? So lets say they make 260k. They will pay an additional 4% on the 10k over the 250. That's 400 dollars a year.

Again, most people in our area spend more than that at Starbucks every year, or wherever their morning stop is. Come on, it's not even a cup of coffee a day.

What I"m saying is that, semantics about who is rich and who is not rich aside, the effects of that tax hike, had it occurred, would not have caused harm.

Again, a reminder, we are talking about Clinton-era tax rates here.

We were pretty prosperous under these rates not that long ago.

I get what you're saying, and don't disagree for the most part. I rememeber one small business owner last year saying that she was going to be sure not to earn more than $250K, because she thought taxes would go up on all of it. And it's certainly more well off than most Americans, and the Clinton tax rates are reasonable.

I just don't like throwing around the term "rich" (or wealthy) for people at that level. In my area, it really isn't all that. People at that income who have more than 1 kid certainly don't feel rich, especially when it comes time to send them to college.

 

[Bonestorm]

$250K is definitely not rich in my area. Maybe for a single person it is very well off, but for a family income, it's upper middle class, which is very different from wealthy.

It sounds like an awful lot from some perspectives, but a lot of people at that level - who have kids, who are saving for college, etc. - can live a fairly modest existence and still basically be paycheck to paycheck.

I'm not sure where you live, but $250,000 is a lot of money anywhere.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I'm not sure where you live, but $250,000 is a lot of money anywhere.

compare the square footage that $250k will buy you in NYC, San Fran, Boston, Houston, Chicago, Denver, etc... You will find it varies greatly. You get far less for your money in the Northeast (and most of Cali) than you do in the South/Plains states/Mountain West.

Add in the higher state taxes that you tend to find in some areas (again, Cali for example) and that $250k dwindles fast.

Not that $250k is going to be poor, but it is certainly more upper middle income than 'rich' in many densely populated areas in the country.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

I do love liberals so. For months during the election, all we heard was how taxes had to go up on the richest 1% represented by those making $250,000 and more. Now that the bill has been signed, these same folks are saying "Well, $250,000 isn't really rich" and "It all depends on where you live"

Hilarious. Sad, but hilarious. Party of principle 24/7 with liberals

 

[Bonestorm]

compare the square footage that $250k will buy you in NYC, San Fran, Boston, Houston, Chicago, Denver, etc... You will find it varies greatly. You get far less for your money in the Northeast (and most of Cali) than you do in the South/Plains states/Mountain West.

Add in the higher state taxes that you tend to find in some areas (again, Cali for example) and that $250k dwindles fast.

Not that $250k is going to be poor, but it is certainly more upper middle income than 'rich' in many densely populated areas in the country.

This is just a commentary on housing stock in certain metropolitan areas. $250,000 per year is a lot of money and a lot more money than most people earn pretty much anywhere in the country. That people choose to spend a good portion of their high income on housing in areas where housing is scarce (or on private school for their kids where private school placements are scarce) doesn't make it not a lot of money.

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

This is just a commentary on housing stock in certain metropolitan areas. $250,000 per year is a lot of money and a lot more money than most people earn pretty much anywhere in the country. That people choose to spend a good portion of their high income on housing in areas where housing is scarce (or on private school for their kids where private school placements are scarce) doesn't make it not a lot of money.

My only point is that it isn't rich - and it isn't. Like I said, from a certain perspective it probably seems like a ton of money, but that doesn't mean it's rich. Comfortable? Yes.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

There is really one simple definition of rich.

Anyone who makes $1 more than you do

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

This is just a commentary on housing stock in certain metropolitan areas. $250,000 per year is a lot of money and a lot more money than most people earn pretty much anywhere in the country. That people choose to spend a good portion of their high income on housing in areas where housing is scarce (or on private school for their kids where private school placements are scarce) doesn't make it not a lot of money.

Housing was mentioned because it is fairly easy to compare square footage prices... it is the overall cost of living that is the difference. Regardless, no one is saying it is not a lot of money or that it is more than most earn. What is being said is that it doesn't necessarily make you rich.