I can't think of anyone in recent history who is so consistently right.

the ratio, 14 times, crushes the RW nonsense.

Still, consider that the President's proposed Medicare savings is $400 billion, four times as much as the RW attempts to raise the age.

Krugman defines it as a savings of "$113 billion in federal funds over the next decade," and on top of that it's a cut in benefits for Medicare recipients.

Mr. Krugman doubtless knows this, and like a good teacher leaves the point for the class to derive for themselves, but the matter is clear as spring water....

[IMG][/IMG]

A whole lot of people think someone has to suffer for anything good to happen. It's an epidemic of foolishness, cloaked as wisdom.

to reduce its funding so that people think it's no longer "worth it" to keep.

P.S. I SO love that poster! It must just KILL republicans that Krugman gets "merged" with George Clooney.

Call it the "Kick 'em while they're down" Republican plan for Medicare.

Following several links, I find this.

"He (Obama) also wants the estate tax to be levied at 45 percent on inheritances over $3.5 million, a step several Democratic senators balked at. The Senate bill made no changes to the estate tax, which currently taxes inheritances over $5 million at 35 percent. On Jan. 1, the estate tax is scheduled to rise to 55 percent beginning with inheritances exceeding $1 million."

So under current law - Obama does nothing, estates over $1 million will be taxed at 55%.

Instead of "doing nothing" Obama is offering estates over $3.5 million a $1.375 million tax cut on the first $3.5 million and then a 10% cut on every dollar after that.

This is called an "increase".

Would we still call it an "increase" if that bill was passed on January 2nd?

Why not start by asking for a better deal?

Because, Obama is not really asking for a tax increase here. He's really giving a tax cut to some very rich people. What are we getting for that? Here's what we are giving up.

"KLEIN: So how much does this cost? With a $1 million exemption and a 55 percent rate—in other words, what will happen if we do nothing—the estate tax would raise about $700 billion over the next 10 years. The Lincoln-Kyl version would raise less than $300 billion. And the compromise most Democrats have coalesced around—which was the 2009 level, with a $3.5 million exemption and a 45 percent rate—would've brought in a bit less than $400 billion." via the Daily Howler http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh121610.shtml

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/138

So, Obama is giving up $300 billion in tax cuts to the very wealthy. Again, what are we getting in return?

Why should we settle for $400 billion when we can get $700 billion by doing nothing?

Again, since Obama's plan still gives rich people tax cuts on their first $250,000 in income, I do not consider it very progressive at all. It gives average tax cuts to the top 1% of $28,000 and average tax cuts to the middle quintile of a mere $1,350. Let them expire and make the case to the American people for something better, something fairer, something more progressive, and something better than the accursed payroll tax cut that Obama is still pushing.

If he had said "I have no proposal - let's let everything expire and then start negotiating after Jan 1st", he, and the Democratic party, would be blamed jointly with the Republicans for middle class taxes increasing. This way, the Democrats can say "we very clearly made a proposal, but the Republicans wanted tax cuts for the rich so turned it all down". $1,350 may be 'mere' to you, but it's a sizeable amount for the middle quintile.

You should also remember that the 'do nothing before Jan 1st' option is expected to put the US economy back into recession, and increase unemployment by about 1%. That will hurt people. It's (a) worth avoiding, and (b) worth making clear the Republicans are to blame if it happens.

Finally, we've seen the Republicans are willing to hurt the US economy for political gain, over the past 4 years; they have gerrymandered House seats that make it very difficult to throw them out if the public blames both them and Democrats for a new recession. They may be calculating that their seats will hold up enough to retain the House in 2016, and a general "all politicians are responsible for the recession" feeling would help them in the Senate and presidency. They may well feel just as stubborn about negotiating anything meaningful in 2013.

also actually favor the wealthy.

That was my point $1,350 IS "mere" compared to the $28,000 that the 1% gets - from the Obama proposal.

My question is - where are the frigging progressives? Where is anybody, (outside of an obscure poster on DU that almost nobody reads) who are saying bullcrap to keeping 78% of the Bush tax cuts?

Where is Kucinich? Where is Baldwin? Where is Warren? Where is Franken? Sheldon Brown? Doesn't anybody know the meaning of progressive taxation?

Why can't the public hear about options like these -