Some Pissed Off Progressives

[cawacko]

I was reading some of the comments after the article and there were some not so happy campers. I can't claim to speak for anyone else but while some people express these frustrations now I bet they might feel differently later. No politician will make you happy all of the time.


Poll: Obama donors/supporters less likely to give after Prez's tax deal


Bad news for President Obama in the wake of the Bush-era tax deal he cut with Congressional Republicans: A lot of his staunchest supporters aren't going to give or volunteer their time for his 2012 re-election effort in 2012.

A new survey of of 1,132 voters who have given money or time to Obama -- commissioned by liberal activists at MoveOn and conducted by SurveyUSA -- contains a lot of potentially bad news for Obama.

The gut blow: 51 percent of former Obama contributors, say striking such a deal would make them less likely to contribute to the Obama re‐election campaign in 2012.

Bad news for other Dems: 57 percent of former Obama contributors surveyed said that they would be less likely to support Democrats in 2012 who support this deal.

As Daily Kos czar Markos Moulitsas wrote Tuesday:

"This shouldn't be worrisome to the White House because these people won't vote for him in 2012. They probably will. But will they give money and knock on doors and make phone calls and drag their social circle to the polls? Nope. They didn't in 2010. And at this rate, they sure as hell won't in 2012."

Big Labor is ticked, too. Quick reminder: Labor gave $68 million to Dems in 2008.

AFL-CIO czar Richard Trumka said: "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.

"The gains for the middle class and jobless workers in the deal come at too high a price," Trumka said.

Among the highlights from the survey memo slipped to Greg Sargent:

An overwhelming majority, 83 percent of former Obama contributors, oppose extending the Bush tax cuts for those making over $250,000 a year --- 70 percent of them strongly.

More than 74 percent of former Obama contributors oppose the president's making a deal with Republicans that would extend the Bush tax cuts for those making more than $250,000.

67 percent of former Obama contributors surveyed said they support extending tax cuts for those making less than $250,000 a year.

The liberal activists at Daily Kos have launched an online pushback, urging supporters to "Join the rebellion against the deal!"

Team Obama can smell the anger -- which is why The O is now standing at the podium in a middle-of-the-day impromptu news conference to quell the rebellion.

His first answer, however, was about as political as you can get. Asked how the American people can trust him when he "flip-flops" on a major piece of his agenda to satisfy the "politics of the moment," Obama replied:

"This isn't about politics of the moment,"Obama said. "This is about what we can get done right now."

Uh, isn't that the same thing....?


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/nov05election/detail?entry_id=78558

 

[Onceler]

I always hate it when people clamor to keep taxes high. Put that energy into fighting for defense cuts, or other wasteful spending.

In my opinion, humble as it may be, I think this was a good step for Obama; he seems to be looking at the Clinton '94 blueprint for political resurrection. And he also got a nice chunk of new stimulus out of the deal, so he didn't exactly give away the progressive store...

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I always hate it when people clamor to keep taxes high.

39% on income above 250k a year isn't high.

Put that energy into fighting for defense cuts, or other wasteful spending.

Not as effective an issue.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

In my opinion, humble as it may be, I think this was a good step for Obama; he seems to be looking at the Clinton '94 blueprint for political resurrection.

Would that be the wonderful "give the Republicans everything they want while cowering and begging them not to hurt you" strategy?

Clinton was the death of progressivism in the United States. I wish George Bush Sr. would've won another term.

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

as I and many have said for many years, obama was a vapor candidate, where everyone projected their own hopes and dreams up onto him. All you doe-eyed retards fell for it. You are all fucking proles.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I should've voted for Hillary.

 

[Onceler]

39% on income above 250k a year isn't high.



Not as effective an issue.

39% is definitely high.

"Not as effective an issue"...that's absurd.

 

[Bonestorm]

39% is definitely high.

"Not as effective an issue"...that's absurd.

It really isn't all that high by historical standards. In fact, it's quite low:

And fighting on the tax issue is kind of a core issue for people who believe in a strong welfare state and believe that gutting the welfare state so that rich people can get richer is a dumbass thing to do.

If you want a strong welfare state and programs that help the lower and middle classes you have to fund them. In order to fund them, you have to have revenues or finance them through debt. These tax cuts both reduce revenues and increase debt now which will likely result in mandatory cuts in the future. That's the Republican long-term plan. Starve the government of revenues to such an extent that cuts have to be made to the programs that Democrats have fought for for decades.

 

[Onceler]

It really isn't all that high by historical standards. In fact, it's quite low:

And fighting on the tax issue is kind of a core issue for people who believe in a strong welfare state and believe that gutting the welfare state so that rich people can get richer is a dumbass thing to do.

If you want a strong welfare state and programs that help the lower and middle classes you have to fund them. In order to fund them, you have to have revenues or finance them through debt. These tax cuts both reduce revenues and increase debt now which will likely result in mandatory cuts in the future. That's the Republican long-term plan. Starve the government of revenues to such an extent that cuts have to be made to the programs that Democrats have fought for for decades.

A) I really don't care about historical standards, at all, when it comes to taxes. When you add in other taxes & fees, someone at 39% ends up paying almost half of their income to taxes; I find that unacceptable.

B) A reasonable tax rate (I don't think anyone should pay more than one third of their income) is not incompatible with a progressive agenda of social programs & safety nets and all that; we've been brainwashed to think that it is. Much, much more of our tax bill goes to things like the defense budget, and you know that well.

It's time to change the thinking. When I hear a lot of "progressives" talk about these issues now, it seems like they WANT to keep taxes high; like keeping taxes high is now an integral part of some platform, and there is something inherently beneficial in just keeping them high.

There are MANY meaningful discussions to be had about cost-cutting that don't involve slashes to programs that progressives hold dear. No one is having those discussions, and they haven't had them since the '90's.

 

[leaningright]

As a democrat who thinks that some programs are great, even necessary, and need to be funded, I find myself agreeing wholeheartedly with Lorax....again. We have programs in the US that need to be funded...programs that provide safety nets for the poor and help for senior citizens. But for a person to have to pay nearly half of thier income in taxes is in no way acceptable. I think it is quite enough to have to work from January to the end of March or middle of April just to pay Uncle Sam. Some other plan is going to have to materialize other than raising taxes and so far that is the only message that the liberal side of the aisle has. Again, I think Obama scored well with independents yesterday...and I wish him well in further such endeavors.

 

[Bonestorm]

A) I really don't care about historical standards, at all, when it comes to taxes. When you add in other taxes & fees, someone at 39% ends up paying almost half of their income to taxes; I find that unacceptable.

Well, in order to assess whether a figure it "high" or "low" you need to have some comparator. If you have some other relevant comparator that you think is a better gauge let me know. And you seem not to understand how marginal tax rates work. The 39% rate does not apply to all income.

B) A reasonable tax rate (I don't think anyone should pay more than one third of their income) is not incompatible with a progressive agenda of social programs & safety nets and all that; we've been brainwashed to think that it is. Much, much more of our tax bill goes to things like the defense budget, and you know that well.

Again, because these are marginal tax rates, hardly anyone pays more than 1/3 of their income. (In 2001 when the 39% rate was in effect, the top 1% paid an average of 25% of their income in taxes).

And if you think that in a debate between food stamps and the defense budget, food stamps wins you need to have your fucking head examined.

It's time to change the thinking. When I hear a lot of "progressives" talk about these issues now, it seems like they WANT to keep taxes high; like keeping taxes high is now an integral part of some platform, and there is something inherently beneficial in just keeping them high.

Well, with all the nonsense about deficits lately, in order to avoid high debt and deficits you need to have government revenues. It is beneficial to have government revenues, particularly where government debt is already high and will go higher. Returning to Clinton era levels of taxation is a reasonable means to prevent the debt from continuing to explode while allowing for the social safety net programs to remain intact.

There are MANY meaningful discussions to be had about cost-cutting that don't involve slashes to programs that progressives hold dear. No one is having those discussions, and they haven't had them since the '90's.

Right, well you're certainly entitled to your opinion on that, but pretending that exploding debt and deficits pose no threat to social safety net programs that Democrats have fought for for decades and that Democrats and progressives just want "high" taxes because it turns them on is bullshit.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I always hate it when people clamor to keep taxes high. Put that energy into fighting for defense cuts, or other wasteful spending.

In my opinion, humble as it may be, I think this was a good step for Obama; he seems to be looking at the Clinton '94 blueprint for political resurrection. And he also got a nice chunk of new stimulus out of the deal, so he didn't exactly give away the progressive store...

be careful or Nigel will come in and tell you that you are full of shit for wanting spending cuts. he will then tell you that all you want is lower taxes and that you really don't care if there are spending cuts. he will then whine about how you just pretend to care about deficit spending. After that he will go and get another cracker from his masters.

 

[Bonestorm]

be careful or Nigel will come in and tell you that you are full of shit for wanting spending cuts. he will then tell you that all you want is lower taxes and that you really don't care if there are spending cuts. he will then whine about how you just pretend to care about deficit spending. After that he will go and get another cracker from his masters.

No, you're aren't full of shit for wanting spending cuts. You're full of shit for claiming to be a deficit hawk while supporting tax cuts that are not accompanied with spending cuts.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Well, in order to assess whether a figure it "high" or "low" you need to have some comparator. If you have some other relevant comparator that you think is a better gauge let me know. And you seem not to understand how marginal tax rates work. The 39% rate does not apply to all income.

Tell us... do you hold that same standard to SPENDING? Measure spending per capita and tell us where we stand. How about we just go back to Clinton era SPENDING per capita?

Again, because these are marginal tax rates, hardly anyone pays more than 1/3 of their income. (In 2001 when the 39% rate was in effect, the top 1% paid an average of 25% of their income in taxes).

Is that all taxes or just federal income taxes?

And if you think that in a debate between food stamps and the defense budget, food stamps wins you need to have your fucking head examined.

Ahh... there it is... the old 'well, because they haven't done it in the past, there is just NO WAY we should discuss doing it in the future'

Fucking moron.

Well, with all the nonsense about deficits lately, in order to avoid high debt and deficits you need to have government revenues. It is beneficial to have government revenues, particularly where government debt is already high and will go higher. Returning to Clinton era levels of taxation is a reasonable means to prevent the debt from continuing to explode while allowing for the social safety net programs to remain intact.

LMAO... yeah... those deficits are just nonsense. In order to avoid high debt and deficits, you need only one thing....

The morons in DC to quit spending more than they take in. Period. FIFTY straight years they have outspent their revenue. FIFTY FRIGGIN YEARS. In good times and in bad.... they spend spend spend.... always more than they take in.

Right, well you're certainly entitled to your opinion on that, but pretending that exploding debt and deficits pose no threat to social safety net programs that Democrats have fought for for decades and that Democrats and progressives just want "high" taxes because it turns them on is bullshit.

What poses the threat is exploding SPENDING. THAT is the threat to those programs.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

No, you're aren't full of shit for wanting spending cuts. You're full of shit for claiming to be a deficit hawk while supporting tax cuts that are not accompanied with spending cuts.

No, you are full of shit for continuing to pretend that is my position. It is not. But no matter how many times I state that fact, you continue to ignore it. because my ACTUAL position is not in sync with your preconceived notion of what you want my position to be.

 

[Bonestorm]

Tell us... do you hold that same standard to SPENDING? Measure spending per capita and tell us where we stand. How about we just go back to Clinton era SPENDING per capita?

I'm all in favor of that.

Is that all taxes or just federal income taxes?

It's federal income taxes, the subject of discussion.

Ahh... there it is... the old 'well, because they haven't done it in the past, there is just NO WAY we should discuss doing it in the future'

Fucking moron.

I understand that you overcompensate for your intellectual inferiority by calling others names, but give it a rest.

LMAO... yeah... those deficits are just nonsense. In order to avoid high debt and deficits, you need only one thing....

The morons in DC to quit spending more than they take in. Period. FIFTY straight years they have outspent their revenue. FIFTY FRIGGIN YEARS. In good times and in bad.... they spend spend spend.... always more than they take in.

Well, we can agree that, unless they have absolutely no other course of action, politicians will not cut spending because people won't like it if popular programs are cut (and lobbyists won't like it when their clients lose funding). That being the case, in order to avoid high debt and deficits you need revenues. The Republican plan is to force the cuts, to make it the only possible course of action, by starving the revenues. It isn't rocket surgery.

What poses the threat is exploding SPENDING. THAT is the threat to those programs.

I suppose we'll just agree to disagree here.

 

[Bonestorm]

No, you are full of shit for continuing to pretend that is my position. It is not. But no matter how many times I state that fact, you continue to ignore it. because my ACTUAL position is not in sync with your preconceived notion of what you want my position to be.

You're on record as supporting these tax cuts. There are no corresponding spending cuts accompanying these tax cuts. Hence, you support tax cuts without corresponding spending cuts. A true deficit hawk wouldn't.

 

[Onceler]

"It's federal income taxes, the subject of discussion."

In my post, I specifically pointed to other taxes & fees.

The way this thread is going is kind of a microcosm of the national debate and particularly the debate we see time & again in Washington. Both sides have been brainwashed to think that there is no middle ground here. I reject the argument that defense will win out over food stamps any day.

The bill that progressives are all up in arms about is exactly the kind of compromise bill that we should be seeing all of the time in Washington.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

It's federal income taxes, the subject of discussion.

While that may be the discussion, it was NOT what Lorax stated. Lorax brought up the TOTAL taxes the top people pay. He did not refer to JUST fed income tax.

I understand that I am dishonest and continually pretend peoples positions are what I want them to be rather than what they are.

Thank you for being honest... you fucking moron.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

"It's federal income taxes, the subject of discussion."

In my post, I specifically pointed to other taxes & fees.

The way this thread is going is kind of a microcosm of the national debate and particularly the debate we see time & again in Washington. Both sides have been brainwashed to think that there is no middle ground here. I reject the argument that defense will win out over food stamps any day.

The bill that progressives are all up in arms about is exactly the kind of compromise bill that we should be seeing all of the time in Washington.

Agreed.