Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Sunday, Dec. 2, 2012 | 2 a.m.
I’d like to respond to Robert Blanner’s letter Wednesday, “Common sense calls for compromise.” I agree with his position that Democrats have to be willing to compromise in the current negotiations. But they’re not. All of the pressure for compromise is being applied to Republicans. Mr. Blanner seems pleased that some Republicans are beginning to waffle on their no-new-taxes pledge. A couple of thoughts: The pledge that Mr. Blanner doesn’t like was a pledge made by Sens. Saxby Chambliss and Lindsey Graham not to Grover Norquist but to donors and constituents. It’s to them the senators will have to answer. ...
In my opinion, both the letter writer and Mr. Blanner are incorrect. Mr. Blanner wants one side to compromise and the letter writer wants the other side to compromise.
We cannot hope to reduce the debt without more revenue and some of that revenue must come from higher taxation. We can't raise taxes by a lot and we can't do it all at once, or we'll cause another recession. We can't do it by only taxing the wealthy. The tax base must be broadened and anyone with an income must pay incomes tax on a progressive scale. The income tax code should be re-written with fewer exemptions and deductions, fewer rates and everyone's rate should be raised gradually.
We cannot hope to reduce the debt without real cuts in spending. We can't do it when all we do is reduce what we 'planned' to spend tomorrow and call that a 'cut'. The cuts must be real and based on what we are spending today. SS, Medicare, Defense and Foreign Aid must be a big part of the cuts.
It is way past time that we do what must be done, even though it will be painful. The longer we delay, the more at risk we place ourselves and our country.
Michael
The pledge that is taking down the country is the Democrats pledge to refuse to reform and fix SOCIAL SECURITY and MEDICARE.
WE CAN NEVER TAX EVERYONE ENOUGH TO PAY FOR OUT OF CONTROL ENTITLEMENTS
conservatives have already given in on raising revenue. Get over it
On 2 recent occasions in history, Republican presidents have been snookered on democratic promises to cut spending. In Reagan's first term, he agreed to tax increases with the pledge that after enacted, the Democrats would offer up twice the amount of revenue raised in spending cuts. The Dems never did.
Then again, President George W.R. Bush made the same mistake in budget negotiations. I sometimes use the middle initials of WD as in WD40, because Bush1 got slickied by the Dems again in his first and only term. Remember: Read my lips, NO NEW TAXES. Then he proceeded to increase taxes with the promise from the Dems for spending cuts of 3 times the tax revenue raised. It didn't happen.
If Republicans make the same mistake again, a third time, they're out.
On anothet note, the GOP has a fall back position for the budget/fiscal cliff negotiations. But none have offered it yet. I recommend that the GOP, Boehner and company, offer to extend the Bush2 payroll tax cuts which expire on December 31, 2012. By doing so, the middle class and working class still get relief. And Boehner can tell President Obama and Reid to come back in the future to do the grand bargain when the Dems are willing to talk seriously about spending cuts. So far, based on past and current history, they're not.
As I recall, the whole Grover thing was spawned by the Dems' disingenous budget talks on two separate occasions with two Republican presidents. But you rarely hear this when Grover and the signers are impugned. Liberal mainstream media is to blame.
CarmineD
Enjoyed the letter, Mr. Kessler.
One thing that is an undisputable fact regarding the fate of the Former President George W. Bush Jr. Tax Cuts For The Rich is this: The Tea/Republicans have shoved themselves into a position because of the automatic triggers where they have to deal.
But the amazing thing is they still are doing victory laps after losing in all areas from this past election.
They can't read the writing on the wall.
They are like sitting around doing nothing and hoping the President Obama throws them a bone. Or comes out with some proposal to their liking.
The Tea/Republicans are doing nothing. No efforts to step forward and negotiate.
So, I don't blame President Obama for doing what he is doing.
He is basically taking a two by four and smacking them politically. Which is the proper course of action. Because Tea/Republicans' skulls are thick and that's the only thing they understand.
Hit 'em again, Mr. President. Contrary to what they believe, you do have a mandate. We voted for this. Speaker Boehner used to use the excuse, "We're doing the will of the American people." No. That was an idle excuse he would throw out there all the time. THIS is the will of the American people. Those tax cuts for the rich are GONE, BABY, GONE on January 1, 2013. Smack 'em again til it soaks into their brain dead skulls, Mr. President. We got your back.
Let me begin by saying I don't believe all of the 2% are opposed to expiration of the Bush tax cuts. But to those that are and their GOP advocates the rest of this message is for you.
The Bush tax cuts were always intended to be temporary. Now, some seem to view them as their own personal entitlement. For ten tax years we have borrowed money to pay for that entitlement and much of it was borrowed from the Social Security Trust Fund. Now some suggest that low income tax rates are not the problem, it's all those other entitlements that are the problem. They have the chutzpah to claim the problem is not people with eight figure incomes paying less than 15% in income taxes and having $100,000,000 IRAs. It's $1100 monthly Social Security benefits and Medicare.
Fairness should dictate that we not tear down the social fabric of this country so that a few of the wealthiest can continue to receive their own private entitlement.
Comment removed by moderator. Name Calling
COSTCO is showing how this tax increase will work
They are borrowing billions of dollars against future earns to pay a shareholders this year before the tax hike
This company and other companies and individuals will beat Obama at his own games
Obama claims that people will NOT change their portfolios to avoid taxes. REALLY!!!!
Hummmmmm
The Bush tax cuts led to a more progressive tax system -- with the top 1% of the income distribution now paying about one third of all income taxes, while those in the bottom half saw their share of the tax burden cut in half falling from 6.3% of income taxes to 3.5%.
When the Bush tax cuts were passed we were in recession AND the savings rate dropped from an average of 8% in the early 90's to 2%-3% in the early 2000's. The Bush tax cut plan originally passed were designed to put more money in consumers hands to keep the economy from going into a deeper recession. The Bush tax cuts benefited more lower and middle income wage earners including single mothers and the elderly than the rich.
* 46 million married couples received an average tax cut of $1,716.
* 34 million families with children received from an average tax cut of $1,473.
* 6 million single women with children received an average tax cut of $541.
* 13 million elderly taxpayers received an average tax cut of $1,384.
* 23 million small business owners received tax cuts averaging $2,042.
* 3 million moderate-income families saw their income tax burden eliminated entirely.
Also, the Bush tax cuts brought in more tax revenue, not less.
If the Bush tax cuts didn't help any lower or middle income earners then you would hear Obama say he wants *all* the Bush tax cuts rescinded.
Additionally, there were 136 million Americans working in 2001 and 145 million Americans working in 2008 which is an increase of 9 million jobs before the recession. Bush averaged maintaining 62%-64% of our population working.
What is the end-game to Obama's class warfare tax plan? Is it an $82 billion debt reduction plan or an $82 billion dollar stimulus? If it's a stimulus then how does it stimulate the economy? Does it lower the unemployment rate and if so, by how much? If it's a deficit reduction plan then we know already it will reduce the deficit from $1.1 trillion to $1.04 trillion which does nothing and solves nothing.
Liberals are as confused about the original purpose of the Bush tax cuts as they are the purpose of Obama's class warfare plan.
The more I hear, the more I hope we go over the fiscal cliff. It will be painful to Americans but I think, of all the possible alternatives, it is the best one.
If President Obama gets his way, we will raise taxes on the wealthy, on capital gains, and raise the death tax. None of that will be disastrous but it won't bring in enough revenue to make a difference in the deficits and the debts. President Obama will promise less spending 'later' but like every time before, under R's or D's, it simply won't happen. In the end, a segment of Americans will pay higher taxes and other than that, we'll face the same situation we face today; only the numbers will be larger and more dangerous.
As it always has been, the solution lies in gradually raising the tax rates on all Americans with an income and actually reducing spending. The fiscal cliff does this, clumsily and hastily, but it does do it. It is awful that our elected leaders cannot accomplish this in a more fair and measured way, but the truth is that they will not.
Michael
Jim Weber wrote "Now some suggest that low income tax rates are not the problem, it's all those other entitlements that are the problem. They have the chutzpah to claim the problem is not people with eight figure incomes paying less than 15% in income taxes and having $100,000,000 IRAs".
Jim, the average effective tax rate for those earning above $250K is 22%-23%.
Below is a chart of the effective tax rate based on 2010 tax returns from the Tax Foundation:
Income level Range/Effective Tax Rate
$1-$15K = -14% (negative)
$15K-$30K = -5% (negative)
$30k-$50K= 3%
$50K-$100K = 8%
$100K-$250K = 13%
$250k-$1M = 22%
$1M or more = 23%
The average tax rate for all Americans is 10.1%. Those earning above $250K is 22%-23%, more than twice the national average. The average effective tax rate for those earning $30K or less is negative due to refundable credits.
http://taxfoundation.org/blog/chart-day-...
Here the Big Question;
Compromise has been part of our American History. Why now is there no compromising? Why now with this President, the House Republicans refuse to compromise? Why?
Many people of color, and people from different places, feel this is about racism, about prejudice. Well, why would someone have these thoughts and conclude this is why House Republicans have taken the hard line against America's first Black President?
Well, let see here. Well, we have 241 Republicans in the House of Representatives. Only Two (2) are African America. Meaning, only two have black faces , or they are non-white. Ok! Now, the majority of the White House Republicans are from Slave States. Yes, Slave States as known by the districts of Slave States as defined on the map of 1854. Meaning, little has changed in the boundaries from 1854 to 2012. Ok! Let's move on.
So, we have the history, and we have the present. It looks like a majority of House Republicans from southern and mid-america states are continuing in the tradition of the Slave States from 1854. It appears they are deliberately blocking all request from the first Black President in American, not on facts or general disagreement, but because of a prejudice or bias that have long been a part of the decision making process from states that have White representatives, also known as Slave States.
We have seen and heard first hand from US Senators and Republicans, and talk radio host, and from cable news personalities, saying in so many words, (and directly) they would oppose everything from President Obama. That they wanted President Obama to fail. Wow! That means, they care not about the country, as long of President Obama failed at his job of being our President. Wow! Where does that come from? Who in their right mind would want the President to fail? Any President? That's what was said, that's was the plan from day one from Republicans. From Republicans and advocates from States with White House and Senate elected officials. From many States mapped from 1854.
Are we seeing tradition, obstruction, or general disagreement? We are not seeing compromise! Why?
Longtimevegan,
You are a race baiter. What you're implying is that the democrats are the party for minorities. Texas is a sold red state and hasn't voted for a democratic president since 1976. The Texas senate has 19 republicans and 12 democrats. The Texas House has 102 republicans and 48 democrats. Texas is 38% Hispanic, 12% black and 4% Asian making Texas' population over 54% minority. Yet you write a letter implying that southern states are racist and vote according to race. Have you even checked the demographics in Alabama Louisiana and Mississippi? Longtimevegan, you're nothing but a race baiter.
Longtimevegan,
There are two main reasons R's are not compromising with President Obama. The first is they really disagree with his philosophy and actions as President. The second is that he is of the opposite party and they want an R President. As in the general population, I am sure there are a few racists in Congress but they are very few. This isn't about race. That's a convenient reason but it isn't true.
When I listen to certain members of Congress claim that reservations over the actions of Susan Rice about Benghazi are based on race, I dismiss them as quickly as I dismiss claims that opposition to President Obama is based on race.
My parents were racists of a sort and I grew up in a time where racism was rampant. That was long ago. I am not racist and the vast majority of America isn't either. Racism still exists, but it is tiny compared to our population.
Michael
RefNV,
So you do have emotions. Did the information hit close to home? Are you afraid to hear from the other sources of information other than your own? Race Baiter? What do you know about that?
You have a history of going off the deep end. Your numbers won't save you. Your wrong, again. It's becoming a habit, a pattern.
The Post is about the unbalance Republican House of Representatives and why they refuse to compromise, when in the past House Republicans have compromised. What is different now?
Fact, your party has compromised in the past, why is it different now? No, Mr. ReFreeman, your Race Baiting! Did the post make you uncomfortable, did the post describe your ideology, your family history maybe? I hope the post lend you support in dealing with your history if this applies to you and your.
The question, Why the House Republicans are not compromising now, when in the past they have compromised? That is question Mr. ReFreeman, not your attempt are Race Baiting.
Michael Casler wrote,
"As in the general population, I am sure there are a few racists in Congress but they are very few. This isn't about race. That's a convenient reason but it isn't true."
In order to deal with a problem, one must admit there is a problem. Michael, your being lukewarm again. Your being naive.
Where have you been the last 3 1/2 year while this President has been defined though the selective media as being anything but our President. Must I count the ways?
Michael, Michael, you will not gain independent voters taking this approach.
Longtimevegan,
As Mr. Casler has stated, it's not about race. Texas voted Romney 57% to 41% for Obama even though a majority of the Texas population's makeup is minority. Your theory is akin to all people of German descent living today are Nazi's. I was born and raised in Texas. My lineage traces back to Europe post civil war so I had no relatives in the US during the civil war. To claim a geographical/ ideological lineage for everyone living today in southern states back to the civil war shows your ignorance. In 1860, Texas had a population of 604K compared to 25 million today so it's clear Texas grew from state migration to the south along with foreign migrants. Bottom-line Longtimevegan, you're just race-baiting.
To no one in particular, I do not want to delete what are otherwise interesting comments because of what might be confused for personal attacks. Please back off a little and make my day (and yours) more enjoyable.
Republicans should keep doing what they've been doing and never change a thing. Stay the course and continue to ignore those massive icebergs looming all around. What could possibly go wrong?
So what if the GOP lost two senate seats in a year when control of Senate was up for grabs. So what if Democrats have won the popular votes in five of the last six presidential elections? So what if women voters, young voters and Hispanic voters can't relate to a party controlled by out-of-touch old white guys?
Note to GOPers -- Ignore those massive icebergs surrounding your ship and continue to rearrange the deck chairs.
Standard and Poor's down graded our rating after the last fiscal fiasco. If our representatives can't compromise, who will the general public blame? And why?
Longtimesvegan,
Lukewarm is the proper temperature for this 'issue'. Yes, President Obama has been fought for 3 1/2 years, but I will submit again, not in large part because he is black.
I submit that a little less than 1/2 the country is more conservative than President Obama and a little less than 1/2 is more liberal than President Obama. The others think he is about right where they want him. Of those that don't like the President, a tiny number don't like him because he is black. A huge majority of those people don't like him because he is a D and or because they disagree with his policies and philosophy.
People need to recognize the resistance and dislike for President Obama and the causes for it are the same ones that were in play during the 2nd term of former President Bush.
Michael
Vernos,
Would you take away the Congress' power on the debt ceiling and allow the Executive branch to raise the ceiling as they wish? That's been mentioned in negotiations between the two sides. Tim Geithner did not deny this when asked about it.
You're correct to say that our credit rating might well be downgraded if there is a fight over the debt ceiling again, but if we don't get a handle on taxes and spending, that downgrade is coming anyway.
Michael
Refreshing letter to editor. I agree with MC that we're likely to go over the cliff. So, let's dive in. The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.
1. The payroll tax cuts (insane to begin with) were temporary.
2. The Bush tax cuts were temporary.
3. Sequestration was caused by continual failure to act (by Congress, by POTUS) and is what we must do to redirect our economy into survival mode.
As it stands, we are on a collision course with bankruptcy and forced mega-cuts to everything if we survive. Sure, most people will survive, but it wouldn't be easy IF WE FAIL TO SEQUESTER.
Forget which Congressional talking mouth said it but something to the effect of if we start the pain NOW, the pain won't be as bad. So what are we waiting for?
Actually, after initial over-reactions, diving off the cliff may allow our economy to IMMEDIATELY regain consciousness. We need to make ECONOMIC DECISIONS based upon our ability to pay. We cannot keep paying for all the programs that give away our treasure and think all the other guys are going to pay for it. p.s. MC, our credit rating might be UPGRADED after the initial over-reactions. Our currency may also seek a natural level instead of the inflated values due to forced no-interest rates.
And now is the time to end extended unemployment benefits--as Sequestration does. All our sympathies to unemployed Americans. We're going to have to take those jobs away from the illegals and do what we must do to make a living. I write this after politely kicking-to-the-curb an apparent illegal who was offering to do contract work on my home. He didn't check out with the licensing authorities. And, he said he had to charge $XXX because he has to send $100 a week to his 2 kids in Mexico. I doubt it though--he has the behavior and tattoos of a gang banger. It took half a day of "handy" work to get all the info. I explain for those who "think" I'm racist. OK, his poor comprehension and pronunciation of English should have been a clue.
Unwanted advice for GOPers:
In the future please do more to unskew polls and continue the right-wing jihad against scary brown-skinned dishwashers, vegetable pickers and housekeepers. As the recent election proved, minority voters coupled with the women and youth vote is way overrated and benefited the Democrats only because those groups showed up at the polls in large numbers and voted.
In the next election unskew the polls even more based on wishful thinking. Keep doing the same thing over and over because eventually the results are sure to work in your favor.
Thank you Sun Moderator for time out.
Respectfully, the intent is to general discussion on why compromise is not happening with this congress in comparison to past congressional debates in years when compromise was acceptable and a normal procedures in Washington.
The data RefNV (Re Freeman) presents in his 6:52 AM note seem accurate, although truncated. And I have problems with his interpretations. True, with the Bush tax cuts, the top 1% were paying nearly a third of all INCOME taxes. But they were taking about 24% of the total national income. Income taxes in 2011 were $1.4T, meaning the top 1% were paying perhaps $0.4T (about 30% of all national income. The lion's share of the balance was paid by the 99%. Federal Revenue in 2011 was $4.7T. 1% of the population took home 24% of the national income and paid only 8.5% ($0.4T) of the TOTAL tax burden. I know Republican's consider this a "fair" proportion. I disagree.
Freeman also states that "there were 136 million Americans working in 2001 and 145 million Americans working in 2008 which is an increase of 9 million jobs before the recession." I'll stipulate that although I've not verified it. BUT look at the other side - in January 2001, when Bush took office the first time, 4.2% of the work-eligible population was unemployed. After 8 years of conservative economic policies, in January 2009, when Bush left office, that rate was 7.8%. What happened? The Bush policies allowed more people to be employed, true, BUT the normal growth in population meant that many MORE people were actually looking for jobs.
Freeman - When you are looking at time-series data, or really large numbers, use percentages, not actual numbers. That makes data easier to comprehend. $400,000,000,000 is a LOT of money, but as 8.5% of the total US tax revenue, it is, at best, underwhelming.
Republicans should not be arguing against raising taxes. With this debt, taxes are going to have to be raised eventually. We can't grow or cut our way out of this.
Republicans should either refuse to compromise and let us go off the cliff, or if that is too dangerous for them to contemplate, then OK raising the taxes on the wealthy, and increasing capital gains and death taxes, but make it clear you are doing it under duress and don't believe it will work without real spending cuts.
Unfortunately, I am quite confident that President Obama will do exactly what our representatives on both sides have done for many years. He and the Democrats will take the extra revenue, grow the government even larger and more expensive, use very little of it for debt reduction and the only spendeing reductions we will see are the ones where the budget said spending will increase by 8 % a year and we reduce that to 5 % per year and call it a cut.
That just isn't going to work and it will be apparent that it won't work relatively quickly. When it doesn't work, Republicans should remind the public that President Obama and the Democrats got what they wanted, over the judgment of the Republicans and ask if the public wants more of the same.
I am also fairly confident that in a short time, the President is going to be forced to call for tax increases on the middle class. The math says there is no way to avoid that.
Michael
Michael Casler wrote,
"People need to recognize the resistance and dislike for President Obama and the causes for it are the same ones that were in play during the 2nd term of former President Bush."
Michael things were different from the start of President Obama presidency. Starting with the meeting by Top Republicans on inauguration day, to House Republican Joe Wilson call of "You Lie" directed at the President during a speech to members in the chambers of the House of Representatives.
In addition to being called "lazy" by John Sinnunu on National TV. Michele Bachman's reference of calling President Obama's administration a "Gangster Administration." To Darryl Issa saying the president is most corrupt president, and people in his administration. To being ask for his Birth Certificate, repeatedly by elected officials and Republicans advocates, while the leadership from parties said nothing, at least publicly, as one should have.
And you have people like Louie Gohmert, who is a Texas House Republican, saying President Obama has actively aided al-Qaida and follows the advice of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Items once championed and initiated by Republicans are being discarded and renounced, when the President agrees with a Republican position. So, one has to ask, what is different from this President from other Presidents, that on day one, a group of Republicans and Republican advocates meet to stop anything President Obama proposes. The media campaign to define President Obama as not being American, not one of us. Who is the group of "one of us"? This all started on day one. The President wasn't sworn in yet, and the attacks began.
So you can draw individual conclusions as to why the House Republicans will not compromise and do what is best for the county. One cannot pin down the motive of why House Republicans refuse to work with this President, one can judge and decide based on the "actions" from Republicans and their advocates. The actions point to a majority conclusion of prejudice, selective opposition, and to many it points to racism.
Actions tell much of motive. Where is the compromise?
I refuse to take sides on the argument that obstruction of Obama is racially oriented. I WILL point out some facts.
1. Of the 22 Senators from Southern ( i.e. original Confederacy" states, 21 voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Richard Russell (D-GA) said "We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would have a tendency to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our (Southern) states."
2. Upon signing the 1964 Act, President Johnson stated that, by doing so, he had lost the South for the Democratic Party for a generation. (But it's been more than that...) RefNV (Re Freeman), at 8:43 a.m., stated " Texas is a sold red state and hasn't voted for a democratic president since 1976." Of the 22 Senators from the South in 1964, 21 were Democrats. Of the 22 Senators from the South in 2012, 6 are Democrats.
3. I lived in Texas and Alabama for 3 years in the early 1970s and in Texas through the 1990s. The first time I found racism (anti-black) overt, widespread, and virulent. The second time I found racism (anti-black, anti-hispanic, anti-asian) widespread, somewhat less virulent, and very seldom overt. Opinion - Perhaps people had become much more aware of political correctness?
4. In the campaign just ended, I saw some signs of overt racism (anti-black, anti-hispanic especially): References to Obama's "shuck and jive" a term I've NEVER heard concerning whites, but commonly concerning to blacks. References to "wetbacks" concerning US-born hispanics. Racially oriented caricatures of candidates (bushy hair, large mustaches and shovels, non-"round" eyes, etc.)
Again - opinion. Racism is a very definite component in today's politics. But people with racist views are much more cautious in displaying their attitudes publicly. In some cases they may view their attitudes as true, not racist.
My background - Human. American. More specifically, Californian by birth, Nevadan by choice. In that specific order. Unlike some posters, I will NOT claim that I'm not a racist, I'm in no position to judge impartially. I TRY not to be. I can only hope I succeed to some extent. I saw few signs of overt racism growing up or through school, so my first introduction to Texas and Alabama was "interesting" at the least.
Just an observation.
I notice, as soon as ReFreeman post a comment, Michael Casler post a comment right after.... Good Cop, Bad Cop?
Doing the homework and reading comments from pass discussions point to this conclusion.
It so, one can lose credibility in an instant with this approach.
LTV
renorobert,
The top 10% of wage earners pay 71% of all federal income taxes.
The housing bubble caused our economy to recess. Additionally, the mandatory spending, primarily entitlements and interest, has increased almost six times faster than discretionary spending, including defense, which is the part of federal spending subject to annual budgets.
In 1965, mandatory spending was $633 billion compared to $3.57 trillion today. Taxes on EVERYONE would have to increase 35% to pay for our government spending and close the deficit which is $1.1 trillion. Obama's class warfare tax plan only adds $82 billion to tax revenue which would lower our deficit to $1.04 trillion which is nothing.
The more we talk about tax rates the more people will realize the magnitude of the government spending problem.
http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/ma...
Thanks renorobert, for your response.
Racism is not overt today as it was in the 60's. For anyone to say Racism is not a part of Washington politics are in denial. What is known, the Republicans have acted in a way to deny anything supported by President Obama. This opposition is not the normal political disagreements. Especially Republican governors, signing so-called voter laws, saying there is voter fraud. When in fact the only fraud uncovered was by Republican operatives.
The new power voting block of Hispanics, Single Women, Asians and Blacks have neutralized the big money being poured into the National races. Because of this new power voting block, State races will be on a level playing field.
The people in the power voting block are asking the question, why is this President being treated differently?
LTV,
You're faulty assumption is that an opposing ideology, a different understanding of the problem or a different solution is a personal matter and it isn't. You'll have to present some concrete evidence that racism is the cause for an opposing point of view in order to prove your theory. Be aware that democratic and republican views and ideology predate Obama's term in the senate and presidency so you'll have to show an abrupt change in ideology right before and after Obama began his political career.
Michael wrote,
"Lukewarm is the proper temperature for this 'issue'. Yes, President Obama has been fought for 3 1/2 years, but I will submit again, not in large part because he is black."
You and ReFreeman responsed to my post in a defensive way. No problem. But neither of you made any sense on your responses. Your, saying in so many words, there is no prejudice or bias in Washington against President Obama. And ReFreeman, going in a whole new direction talking about Texas. The Home one Louie Gohmert.
The question why no compromise by House Republicans when the past, with other presidents, both Democrat and Republicans, there was compromise on issue once championed and intiated by the controlling party. Neither of you answered the question.
Why the planned opposition was from day one against this President? The ink had not dried, and a planned opposition was in affect. You and others who are saying the disagreement is mainly about policy, are in denial. Hiding your head in the sand like an Ostrich will not make the problem go away.
The numbers say different of your opinion. The new power voting block also agree there's a different treatment of this President, and not because of policy.
EH122,
The actions by Republicans tell a different story. A story that goes back to traditional practices from home states. It' a reality one has to experience to know. If you have experienced being treated different when all other qualifying criteria is satisfied, and actions against you are unwarranted, one will can feel being treated differently.
In the case of President Obama, he knows he is being treated differently. His focused is doing what is reasonable, and not engage in the energy wasting effort of responding to unwarranted attacks from the opposition. You know, like not responding to Rep. Joe Wilson's disrespectful remark directed at the President during the President's speech in the House Chambers on September 9, 2009.
That kind of action is being treated differently. And when the different treatment is delivered with an intent to demean,...unprecedentedly, a person of color can assume with confidence there is prejudice, bias and racism in play.
Longtimevegan,
As I said, I am sure there are a few people in Congress who give President Obama an exceedingly hard time, in part, because he is black. And that is reprehensible and uncalled for in any circumstance. Former President Bush was treated in a reprehensible way as well at times and by certain people. There are a few idiots and bigots in just about any large group. My response to it, in either case is....it's too bad and so what?
It isn't very many people and to try to insert race as 'the' reason for no compromise just doesn't fly. As to why we had compromise in the past, I have been here to watch for more than 20 years and to me, the rancor has worsened every single year. I have little doubt it will be even worse for the next President, until the American people say... Enough!
Do you really believe that after Bush and Obama and 2010, that D's would have co-operated with a President Romney. I hope you don't. I sure didn't. This IS how it is NOW, and it has little to do with race.
This is not an interesting or important subject. I would prefer that you respond to my letter of 12:21 PM. That subject is interesting and important.
Michael
wtplv - "Would you take away the Congress' power on the debt ceiling and allow the Executive branch to raise the ceiling as they wish?"
Michael,
Definetly not. I would not suggest changing the Constitution to resolve spending. It was designed to have parties negotiate and compromise to solve our social and economic issues.
The House spends more time off than doing what we hired them to do, and if any of us worked as they do, we would be fired in a heart beat. This is the least functioning "do nothing Congress" in history and next years 2013 schedule posted by Eric Cantor will make it even worse, it calls for just 1/3 of the year actually working for the people who elected them. Talk about wasteful spending, politicians collecting $100,000 plus salaries which includes perks to sit on their arses. They should work for free considering they became wealthy taking bribes and using insider trading at our expense.
FDR raised taxes in the midst of the Greatest Recession in American history which was caused entirely by greed and low taxes for those who made the most.
Herbert Hoover did not compromise and allowed this country and Europe to drift into recessions that gave Adolph Hitler the power to solve those economic problems. People won't wait on the curb to die because the don't have food.
The Bush tax cuts were supposed to bring prosperity. Instead they brought the largest recession since the Great Depression. History supports raising taxes and NO COMPROMISE can be made on facts. It is critically important to be correct in your assessments and analysis before deciding not to compromise and that has not been accomplished.
The goal should be to grow our economy first in order to get Americans working again. Raising tax rates now will not grow our economy, it will not create jobs and it will not sufficiently close the gap between tax revenue and spend.
Obama's own debt commission, Simpson-Bowles, recommends lowering the tax rates. The republican tax plan recommends lowering the tax rates. The Simpson-Bowles plan replaces the current six-bracket individual tax rate schedule with a three-bracket schedule with the lower rates of 9%, 15%, and 24%. The republican tax reforms the individual income tax code eliminating loopholes and reducing taxes into two simple brackets: 10% and 25%. Simpson-Bowles also recommends lowering the corporate tax rate to 26% while the republican plan lowers it to 25%. Both plans recommend to remove corporate tax loopholes.
Business investing and expansion requires a stable government tax & spend policy in order to expand our economy and create jobs. We need more from our government to create the environment conducive for business expansion which leads to job creation. Many businesses have gone through the deleveraging cycle reducing the percentage of debt in its balance sheet resulting in available funds normally used for business expansion after economic contraction. Businesses are now waiting for more fiscal certainty from government before investing in expensive business expansion plans.
With the exception of raising taxes much higher on every existing tax payer, there is no way to increase tax revenue appreciably to shrink our deficit without getting the unemployed working again. Obama's class warfare tax plan would generate $82 billion which only lowers our deficit 6% from $1.1 trillion to $1.04 trillion.
Obama needs to explain that without reducing government spending every American's tax burden would have to increase 35% to close the gap between government spend and revenue.
Longtimevegan wrote "Just an observation.
I notice, as soon as ReFreeman post a comment, Michael Casler post a comment right after.... Good Cop, Bad Cop?"
Wrong yet again. Unsubstantiated, unproven and unverified assumptions are killing your arguments Longtimevegan.
Robert......
It's pay-back time.
It's time for greedy republicans to pay back the
money they stole from average Americans.
They lost the election.
It's time to cough up the money.
SHOW US THE MONEY!!!
Brilliant posts LongTimeVegan.
I am afraid though that RefNV and Michael Casler are two different souls. You still need a crowbar to pry them apart at the end of the day though. Their votes are identical in almost every way, just the wordsmithing is different.
My thoughts on this debt crisis is that Obama is letting the fishing line out slowly but surely, knowing that the easiest way to deal with the republican mindset is to just let their money become worthless, like monopoly board game money.
That will hurt everyone briefly, but a new and stronger middle class can come out of the ashes.
He's going to wait to snap that fishing pole, and those recalcitrant republicans can continue to resist, but the hook will be firmly in their mouth. And it may take months, if not years to see what he has done. Obama is crazy like a fox. He will take bad headlines in exchange for furthering the American dream.
Republicans can either bring a serious package to the table, or they will be filleted.
Jeff,
If one is defending, one is losing.
The Sun Moderator was very generous in allowing the defensive responses by ReFreeman. When in fact ReFreeman did not respond to the post, instead made a full confession of some deep seeded personal and family secret.
When the evidence is overwhelming, one can feel to need to confess for their sins and the sins of others.
It looks as if ReFreeman had a Perry Mason movement,.... "I did it, I did it".
Yes, Casler and ReFreeman my not be as one. However, the past comments on Sun articles show a pattern of Good Cop, Bad Cop. Maybe not as one...the evidence can conclude differently when reading the past comments by both writers. One thing is certain, one is emotional, and one is calm.
Michael,
Your avoiding answering the question. Remember, you choose to response to the post "Here the Question" posted Dec. 2, 2012 8:27 a.m. Instead of answering the question. you (and the other guy or gal) diverted to a Bubble reality.
This President is being treated differently. Your saying this is normal, or expected. There is no comparison of Bush and Obama of attacks by the opposition, or the cooperation between the two parties in a time of crisis.
Without support from Democrats in 2009, this country would be in dire straits right now. Not only did the two parties compromise, they did what was reasonable to address a serious problem. Instead today, we see House Republicans taking this country down at any cost, pointing to an intent of replacing President Obama. The sad part, Barack Obama did not cause the economic mess we are in. The President is helping the country recover from this disaster, doing so without the help from House Republicans.
As a recap, you (and the other guy or gal) are defending the unreasonable actions being waged against the President. Almost like a brush-off. Like, "Oh, that's not happening," or "the other guy in the oval office was treated the same." That is being in denial my friend. Supporters of the President are taking note. The votes were recorded on November 6, 2012. The President won all but one swing state, the President won the popular vote. The President won the vote of Independent Women and "Young" Hispanics. Two groups that are being treated differently by Republicans Governors in attacking the right to choose and enacting voter suppression laws.
Your response(and the response by the other guy or gal)did not address the question. Just like the Republicans this past elections. Your not connecting with the majority of Americans, your avoid certain realities.
Why no compromise with this President? What is different now from the past Presidents and congress, why does this congress refuses to compromise with this President?
Longtimevegas,
You ask 'Why no compromise with this President? What is different now from the past Presidents and congress, why does this congress refuses to compromise with this President?'
Your answer would appear to be that a vast number of R's are simply racist and won't cooperate because this President is black. You're entitled to your opinion, but with all due respect, I doubt if what you seem to believe is true.
It's backward logic again. Take an assumption.... R's are racist... and then use the fact that R's have been uncooperative with this President as 'proof' that racism is the reason why.
My reaction? Oh boy, what twisted logic you weave. I've already said where I think most of the non cooperation comes from... and I've already stated that I disagree with some of it, but a belief that racism plays a big part in it....I don't think so.
Michael
Jeff,
I agree, with your comments, "just let their money become worthless, like monopoly board game money."
This President is learning how to deal with Republicans. If you will recall, the President said he would take the issue to the America people back in 2010. He did, and it worked.
MC: It's the Dems who refuse to compromise. They have engineering a no-win "offer" to ensure the GOP is blamed---because O. and company WANT middle class tax cuts to expire. O. only asked for a one-year extension and he got it. Even O. can do simple math--we cannot afford our current spending even if the middle class pay more and more. They just keep spending and spending, foreign and domestic. A few are agreeing that our military bases in Europe can be closed and the troops brought home--so they can give away more to those who REFUSE to work.
Michael,
Actions tell much of motive. The assumptions are reasonable based on the actions by the majority committing the actions, and the demographics of the opposition against the class, groups, and individuals being affected.
In the court of public opinion, at a minimum there is enough circumstantial evidence for an verdict of bais and special treatment against the President.
You call it twisted logic? Your hiding, your diverting, your avoiding a reality...your disconnected.
Jeff and Longtimevegan,
At the risk of speaking for Re Freeman, from his posts I would surmise that he believes in no tax increases and tax cuts in an effort to grow the economy.
There are some areas where I agree (calmly) with Re Freeman, but I do believe tax increases are necessary. It's not because I think we need to punish the evil rich. It is simply because we spent a lot of borrowed money and we need to pay it back.
Logic and math tell me that taxing the rich won't be nearly enough. It will take that plus a careful ratcheting up of middle class tax rates, plus making all Americans with an income pay taxes on a progressive scale, plus difficult changes to entitlements, defense and foreign aid spending and probably moving to a single payer government run health care system (not the ACA, which is a hybrid system).
My issue with President Obama is that (and I may be wrong) he will stop after he raises taxes on the wealthy, raises capital gains and death taxes and not raise taxes on the other classes. He will leave the ACA pretty much intact. He won't reform the entitlements and he will continue to spend much more than comes in through taxes and he won't re-write the income tax code.
If he acts as I suspect he will, eventually, he or another President will be forced to do all that he didn't do .... or we will continue on the course we are traveling until inflation eats the lunch of every American and we will all be very sorry.
I know you two like the President and agree with his policies but we need to travel from A to at least F. The President has maybe made it to B. What do you think he should do to make it to F? I've already said what I think. I am interested in your thoughts.
Michael
Roberta,
I give credit to President Obama and the D's. They have totally outflanked the R's.
I, like i think you do, recognize that unless draconian cuts to spending are made (highly unlikely), taxes must eventually be raised on the middle class and the lower classes can no longer be exempted from income taxes.
The President and D's have offered the 'rosy' plan with only tax increases on non favored groups, more spending, and a 'promise' to look at the nasty stuff later. Then they asked for a 'plan' from the R's, knowing that any plan they propose that isn't the Obama plan will necessarily 'have to' contain all the nasty stuff left out of Obama's plan, such as higher taxes on all groups and or very unpopular cuts in spending.
I have to give them credit. It's a brilliant plan and the R's are backed into a corner.
If I were the R's, I'd do one of two things:
I'd refuse to go along and watch us go over the cliff and take my chances.... or...
I would say for the good of the country, I'm going to agree to what the president wants but I would state clearly what I believe the future will hold and why I think this is a bad plan... and take my chances.
At this point Americans simply are not willing to do the tough stuff. The President recognizes this and uses it to his advantage. I think you and I both know the day is coming soon where everyone's taxes will have to go up, spending cuts will have to be implemented .... or inflation and a weakened dollar will crush our economy and financially decimate most Americans.
A majority of Americans are willing to buy the rosy plan Obama presents. That's tragic but it is what it is. My only hope now is when the inevitable happens in the next four years, this President has whatever it takes to tell the truth and implement the 'nasty' stuff we have avoided for so long under both parties.
Michael
"Businesses are now waiting for more fiscal certainty from government before investing in expensive business expansion plans."
The business of 2010 Republican congress is "Uncertainty." This is one thing they are good at.
"A majority of Americans are willing to buy the rosy plan Obama presents. That's tragic but it is what it is. My only hope now is when the inevitable happens in the next four years, this President has whatever it takes to tell the truth and implement the 'nasty' stuff we have avoided for so long under both parties.
Michael"
Don't count on it Michael. President Obama won't. Much easier for him to sugar coat the brutal truth to make it more palatable. He'll be gone and the onus for fixing will fall on his successors. More than likely young and upcoming Republicans.
CarmineD
Carmine,
I don't count on it. I don't count on much of anything anymore. The R's and the D's have been unwilling to do what was necessary for so long, I just don't expect much anymore. I still 'hope', but 'count on it'?.... not so much.
Michael
Yesterday, commenting about REfNV's habit of careful picking and choosing of the available data, I stated that, with the Bush tax cuts, "... the top 1% <of the population> were paying nearly a third of all INCOME taxes. But they were taking about 24% of the total national income" . At 110PM RefNV (Re Freeman) offered in rebuttal the comment that "The top 10% of wage earners pay 71% of all federal income taxes."
He may, or may not be accurate. But he's done it again! I discuss total income, he promptly tries to use the income of only WAGE EARNERS!! Do he truly believe that income consists solely of wages? No interest? No capital gains? No rents? For 2011 Mitt Romney reported income of about $19M. He reported ZERO wage income!!!
EH122 (Eric Hutson): You say in response to LTV "You'll have to present some concrete evidence that racism is the cause for an opposing point of view in order to prove your theory."
The use of steroids in baseball is illegal. A player later found to use steroids hits the final grand slam home run that wins a world series. Present some concrete evidence that this specific hit was (or was NOT...) the direct result of his steroid use.
Expressions of racism are not nearly as overt today as in the 1960's. There is, however, no evidence that racism as an attitude is any less prevalent today than it was in the 1960s. Nor that racism has any less (covert) influence on people's actions. Racists have simply become slicker. "Shuck and jive" isn't racist any more. It's just another way of referring to a "song and dance story." Really???
Longtimevegan....
Thank you for your many posts. You hit the nail on the head time after time......
Unfortunately, racism is alive & well in this country. Many people deny it but action speaks louder than words.....
The Republicans don't get it but that's nothing new. The country is changing very rapidly, and the GOP is getting left behind at the bus stop. They, in some cases, don't even have a bus ticket, but for years they didn't need one.....
That's no longet true....
renorobert summed it up by saying:
"Expressions of racism are not nearly as overt today as in the 1960's. There is, however, no evidence that racism as an attitude is any less prevalent today than it was in the 1960s."
The re-election of Obama four weeks a go may be, in some respects, more important than his selection as president in 2008. It will be interesting to see what historians say over time...
Despite an economy that is still struggling, Americans decided to return Obama to the White House for four more years...
That says a great deal about this country. That also says that the Republicans on Capital Hill failed with their one main objective.........to make President Obama a one-term president.
I find it interesting that many of the Republicans are still in denial about what happened and they are still determined to keep the president from doing his job....
For what ever it's worth, look for Obama to be more aggressive in his second term. He's not running for a third term (constitutional limitations) and he clearly understands what needs to be done....
I look for him to "take names & kick butt."
renorobert,
ReFreeman is not an honest broker of information. I've called him or her out many times about the cutting and pasting of information, information he or she does not understand. Always wanting someone else to interpret what been posted.
Did you read the responses to my post about The Question of why the President is being treated differently? The responses went south, it read like a confession of sorts. I recognize this as someone being in the Bubble.
Comedy movements actually. And very emotional responses, which say much of the narrow thinking positions being expressed.
El_Lobo wrote,
"Unfortunately, racism is alive & well in this country. Many people deny it but action speaks louder than words....."
True words El_Lobo. We know Racism is alive and well in America. However we know that the power voting block of Hispanics, Single Women, and Blacks are more likely to experience being treated differently. What is clear, Racism is slowly going away because of generation change. Not from attitudes changes from people in position of authority, or from people in controlling positions. Like many of the Republicans in the House of Representatives. To say there are no racist in the House of Representative, in either party, is being in denial. The evidence points more to the Republicans, based on their actions in opposing the President. The President is being treated differently. The majority of Americans who voted for the President know this. In addition to supporting the President's agenda, the voters support the President as being one of them, as being an America.
For anyone to say the treatment of this President is in comparison of other Presidents are defending the special treatment Barack Obama have been receiving from day one of his Presidency.
Anyone who defends Bias, Prejudice or Racism, is being one of same.
Lonetimevegan...
Good post! I agree with you...
Yes, this country is changing and the Republican Party is having great difficulty adjusting to the change.
An argument can be made that the GOP is doing anything and everything that they can do in order to fight off the change.....
I have said many times on this board that the GOP wants to take this country back to the year 1901. I continue to believe that....
Their vision of America is one of a "white run; white controlled and male dominated America."
Their entire platform, along with their actions, reeks of that very thing...
If the GOP doesn't change, they will cease to be a major political party.....
You're correct with your statement saying:
"What is clear, Racism is slowly going away because of generation change. Not from attitudes changes from people in position of authority, or from people in controlling positions. Like many of the Republicans in the House of Representatives.
You're a breath of fresh air on this board. The constant but closet racism that is exhibited by many of the right-wing posters on this board is sucking all of the oxygen out of the air..
Longtimevegan: I don't actually have a trace (or more...) of masochism. I bang my head repeatedly against the wall because it feels so good when I stop!
Besides, while ReFreeman is a lost cause, maybe I can head off someone else who may be starting to believe him.
The Founding Fathers created the electoral college System not with the small states necessarily in mind, They created the system to keep from giving the people themselves the opportunity to directly elect the president....
Many of the Founders had serious reservations about giving the vote to the masses. Alexander Hamilton stated that to give the vote to the masses would be a great mistake because the masses would sell their vote to the highest bidder....
Presently, the Electoral College System favors the large states. Most people don't believe that but it's true.
A presidential candidate can currently win the White House by carrying a mere 11 of the 50 states.
Only in a very close election, such as 2000, does the small states figure into the mix. The larger states such as California, Texas, New York, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan. Florida, Georgia, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Virginia, New Jersey, Tennessee and Wisconsin receive most of the attention from the presidential candidates....
Of course, that's where the electoral votes are....
In many of our presidential elections over the year's it's has not been unusual for one or both of the candidates to completely ignore many of the smaller states.
Nixon made a grave mistake in 1960 when he pledged early on that he would visit all 50 states during his campaign.
The day before the election Nixon was in Alaska and his opponent, John Kennedy, was having lunch in Illinois with the mayor of Chicago.
Kennedy carried Illinois , with the help of Mayor Richard Dailey, by approximately 9,000 votes & became the president... An interesting fact about the presidential election in Illinois in 1960 was the fact that Nixon carried 92 of the 101 counties but got beat.
In this year's election Obama carried 11 of the 14 states that I have listed.
What did Bill Clinton keep telling us during the recent campaign? I believe he said it's all about arithmetic!
He wasn't talking about the Electoral College but he could have been and he would have been correct.