Why Obama has Taken Re-Taxing Rich Off the Table (and how it killed our credit)

Obama has gone after the lynch-pin of the New Deal - fair taxes for the wealthiest Americans.

By adding a "cuts only" default mechanism to the new 'Cat-Food Commission Extreme' he virtually guarantees there will be no new taxes for the very people who can afford to pay more.

I think it's fairly obvious that this is the reason our credit rating was downgraded; the President's 'cut's only' backup plan is not adequate to stabilize the budget as it fails to increase revenues at all. And there is not a snowball's chance in hell that the R's on the committee will increase taxes on the wealthy in a significant manner.





If we simply increased taxes on the wealthy to those of the Greatest Generation, the debt would be gone in 10 years. Without debt, we would get our AAA rating back.





Our credit rating was not downgraded during the Great Depression, why? Because of increased taxes on the wealthy.





To be fair, it's the TeaBaggers who started this. But they have been enabled by the White House's failure to engage with progressives or attempt to enact progressive solutions, or progressive framing on the debate. In the end, the President signed off on a deal that gave the baggers 98% of what they wanted, and crashed our credit rating.


It's the revenues, stupid. (IMHO)

Chess is a game where The Pawns are sacrificed to protect The Royalty.
Obama IS playing Chess, and playing it well.
I don't believe The American Royalty has suffered a single loss during his administration.
.
.
.
.
It only sicks if you are a Working Class pawn.




Who will STAND and FIGHT for THIS American Majority?
You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.

Sure, you might have a sense of how the pieces move, but little else.

And I have to laugh at those who use the Chess analogy this badly.

In high level chess, pawns are not sacrificed to protect the royalty as you incorrectly claim. The pawns are a critical part of high level chess.

In fact, in high level chess, the majority of games are decided BY THE PAWNS.

I know, you think think that sounds crazy. But that is actually the truth.

Most chess high level chess games proceed to a point in which the only pieces left on the board are some pawns, and the kings (the kings never leave the board).

By the "end game", the "royalty", the queens, bishops, knights, and rooks ... they've ALL been traded off.

And it is the King, and a few pawns who determine the outcome.

But why let this tiny fact about real chess screw up your non-nonsensical comparison.

In the end, most of the Pawns DIE,
and only The Royalty WINS!

I will grant you this much,
Obama DOES seem to sacrifice The Pawns without much thought.
As you pointed out, maybe he is not as good a Chess Player as I first claimed.

ROYALTY.

The original queen dies.
The Bishops die.
The Knights die.
And some of the pawns live ... and at least one, becomes royalty.

And I love your flip flop ... at first you claimed that Obama was sacrificing pawns because they have no value ... and now you want to claim he sacrifices them too easily, because you recently learned that they have far more value than you knew they had.

Please, give it up ... skip the Chess analogy going forward ... find some other manner to bash Obama. Pick a game or a sport that you know something about.

other than Obama sycophants ever suggested the man can play chess? Besides, only a real nerd would bring a chess set to a poker game. As regards the pawns, they are always the first casualties.

And ... I should mention that plenty of those who use chess to praise Obama also do not understand the game either. Both often think in terms of the "4 move check mate".

There is one part of the chess analogy that I think does apply to Obama, and that I think he is thinking on a much, much longer strategic time horizon then most of those assessing things.

I get the sense that Obama looks at FDR's legacy, not from the perspective of the time in which FDR served, but in terms of the ground work FDR laid down, and on top of which, even greater reforms grew.

If I were to use a chess analogy for FDR, he played a strong middle game. In chess, the mddle game is where you get things set up for what it to come later.

FDR didn't get to play the end game. Later Presidents did that. They took what he did and advanced.

I think Obama has done the same for both HCR and Financial reform. Obama won't be the President when the end game on those is played. Because chess is a long term struggle. But he set a strong foundation.

Most of those who misuse the chess analogy (both sides) do so by analyzing the most immediate moves, whether positive or not.

But in real chess, with people who know the game, many of the most powerful moves are "quiet". The novice observer want to see the Queen move. After all, she is the most powerful singular piece on the board. They scream for the bold Queen move. They want the queen to charge to the center of the board.

And that is a terrible chess strategy.

Politics is poker, not chess. The Russians lost the Cold War thinking like you. In poker the mark who tips his hand, bets big and then folds predictably is everybody's friend at the table. That's Obama.

However, with the mere sacrifice of a pawn, the Lord said, "let them return to life.":)

to try to convince us how this apocalypse we're experiencing is really a well-crafted plan, you're down to level of now dissecting the game of Chess to tell us how CRITICAL and IMPORTANT


PAWNS *REALLY*

ARE?!


:wow:


And FYI, pawns have little to do with the endgame. The other 'royalty': Rooks, Bishops, Knights and of course the Queen are most used to achieve checkmate.
Pawns are the least crucial in the game, and you have so many to "sacrifice"; surely you know that. Think before you spin.

any time of the day, any day of the week.

He was not forced into any position. This is what he was placed in office to do. That is certainly clear.

I'm so very disappointed right now...

he doesn't care about us.

K&R!

I don't want taxes to be fair. I want them to be effective. Every time you mention fair taxes to a Republican, they state that the bottom half of the society doesn't pay taxes at all. I don't care if the system of the graduated income tax isn't fair. It works. It makes society run better. While it's true that corporations and the rich by far use more tax dollars; to pay for a United States Navy to patrol the high seas and protect the tremendous volume of merchant vessels carrying goods to and from the United States, to pay for an interestate highway system to transport goods inside the country, to pay for the Internet and the rockets that send telecommunications satellites into space which are a key to our current high-tech economy, to pay for a court system in which the largest single use is in the resolution of business disputes, among many other uses, I don't care about fairness. I just want a tax system that makes the country work better. That system is one that insures the stability of the working and middle classes by allowing consumers (who are 70% of the economy) to have enough money in their hands to keep it all going. Republicans always blame Democrats of promoting a redistribution of wealth and social engineering in the tax scheme they propose. That's precisely the point. Since the dawn of the first governments in humankind, taxes have been used to redistribute wealth and to better engineer the workings of society. Of course it's social engineering. Civilization depends on social engineering. Do people want to live in a tax free libertarian paradise like Somalia?

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

do what their corporate masters want them to do.

Question: Why do you think U.S. tax code is 71,684 pages in length?

Answer: So that they can have more of these § and these ¶.

If you are rich and powerful, you get to write the rules. Thus, K-Street will ensure that one of those little thingys above, that was written by you and for the benefit of you, is on one of those pages.

What...? One of your's is not in there?

Uh-oh...

Another question: Why do you think 1% of the population controls 38% of the wealth?

Answer: Because our fedgov Representatives let them have it. They let the K-Street boys turn our free-market economy into a tightly controlled-market economy, that benefits their contributors and restricts the rest of us.

on the numbers at that point in time. Anybody with half a brain can "see" where the revenues will come from and it won't be cuts to spending on the big 3. When the bush tax cuts expire that will add some 4T alone.

I do not believe obama will extend them again though I am not so sure how good it will do to let the tax breaks expire when the loopholes companies like ge used still exist.

But there is no one panacea. It's coming from several sources (none of which will be from the big 3.)

Just 6 R votes, and but a single Dem vote is needed to extend those cuts or even make them deeper.

Obama has put us in a trick bag.

There is no difference between Free Republic and DU these days. Bi-partisanship!

Long Live Romney!

:barf:

Even so, both sides are right; for both sides are responsible for consuming that which they stole from the future. Likewise, both sides were on board when the proposal to loot the SS Trust Fund was put on the table.

Ultimately, the reason for the downgrade can be found in the shovel wielded by our elected Representatives. For a country that continues to dig, when all of the signals say stop, is not a wise investment.

Our government represents a manifestation of corruption--morally corrupt Representatives representing a morally corrupt and/or ignorant electorate.

Nevermind the Republicans (1) held the debt limit hostage and threatened to let the Nation default for the first time in history; (2) refused to raise taxes even though they claimed they were interested in reducing the deficit; and (3) refused to negotiate with Democrats, and chose instead to grand stand on a Balanced Budget amendment that would have mainly limited the ability to raise revenues.

Ignore all that and blame Democrats! Carry on!

BUT, if you want to show you are objective, then blame both sides, and adhere to false equivalency!

the progressive wing of the party will have even more votes - perhaps this is why he came up with a commission that negates the house altogether.

When a President starts passing legislation Only because he gets the vast majority of his votes from the Republican side of the isle and not his own party, he has effectively left us.

I suggest he swap out his cabinet with progressives and start listening to us, or he will find himself further marginalized and may wind up a pariah.

IMHO

Imagine that, Republicans...grandstanding. You seem surprised by their behavior. You shouldn't be, for I am not. Nor am I surprised when the roles are reversed and it's Democrats doing the grandstanding.

However, our Representatives are much more in touch with one another, than they are with their constituents. The grandstanding is pure theatrics meant to be consumed by rank and file Ds & Rs. Do you ever watch WWF...? Nor, do I, but it's pretty much the same thing.

That's why I don't take the back and forth blame games between these boys and girls too seriously. What I do take seriously is Ds & Rs entering the conference room together and closing the door behind them. It's what they are planning behind closed doors that concerns me.

Remember that McCain even opposed the original tax cuts for the wealthy. Of course he flip-flopped to get the Republican nomination. The blame for our current situation can be attributed to primarily the ridiculous Tea-Bagging idiots. What would the nation's bond rating be if they followed the Backman and didn't raise the debt limit? B-? I hate the damn Republicans and the ground they walk on. I wish the absolutely no good. They are evil to the core.

Every day I regret more my vote for this wholly owned tool of the plutocracy.

Just need to find out who owns them.

This downgrade was largely an expression of their disappointment that the political establishment didn't fall into line and deliver those cuts to SS and Medicare on the originally planned date. Personally, I think the Tea Party was what screwed up the little charade. The rest of the political establishment (including the WH) had been maneuvering into a position from which they could make those cuts and spread the political fallout around evenly, but the nutty Tea Party made any deal impossible at the last minute. That's why we've got this current arrangement, specifically designed to leave the Tea Party nuts without any room to fight.

This is what happens when the political establishment kowtows to financial industry criminals. They're making political demands.

If I were Obama, I'd take this opportunity to shift to a very aggressive stance on prosecuting Wall Street criminals. Throw a dozen of these pampered frat boys in the federal penitentiary system and I expect you'd see a change of attitude very quickly.

I'm afraid I have looked at the evidence and found the arguments that he is doing the best he can to be lacking believability, at least for me.

But there is still plenty of time and things he can do to change my mind.

For one, he can lobby Pelosi and Reid to have only the strongest progressives on the committee, and ask that they vote as a block.

If thats what you want just say so because that was the only other option near the end the republicans were supporting, that or him using the 14th option in which case they would have gotten completely off the hook with their base and been able to use it to after him and the democrats in general.

I use "" now to denote worthlessness.

Way to go baggers!

for you, do you believe that such a bill would have even gotten enough republicans in congress to support it and to vote yes with the current congress or atleast not stonewall it back when the dems had control? If the answer is no then could you please point out to me the part in the constitution I missed that shows where Obama may sign legislation that hasnt been approved by congress?

Thanks

on a bill to increase taxes on the wealthy that is supported by 83% of Americans, then the answer is yes.

Using the full power of the bully pulpit, and holding the Senate and the Executive, this could be accomplished.

If the President does not think it's possible, he has surrounded himself with the wrong advisers, IMHO.

There are plenty of progressives who would love to be on his cabinet.


Further, if we walk it back a few steps, to Dec of last year, we see that the President could have increased taxes on the wealthy and delayed the debt ceiling crisis altogether by simply DOING NOTHING, and letting the Bush tax cuts expire.

Then, he never should have allowed the debt hike to be tied to stealing social security, that was an error of epic proportions. Unless it was not an error and his intent was to use social security funds to pay for the wars, and the bank bailout, and tax cuts for the ultra-rich, when in fact social security does not add one nickel to the deficit.

That's how I see it, anyway.



"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR

"The American people have a good habit—the habit of going right ahead and accomplishing the impossible." - FDR

as they made it clear their intentions were to do all they could to make sure obama would be a one term president even if in the process it damaged the nation so I dont think he would have gotten the 25 it would have taken.

On the one hand, President Obama and the Democratic Party have not treated the assault from the Republicans and their uber-rich conservatives as an act of war. You don't sit down to tea and crumpets with an ogre who wants to eat your children and try to work out a win-win compromise.

On the other hand, Standard and Poor correctly identified the reasons why it downgraded the credit rating of the USA. Indeed, as grahamhgreen states at the end, "It's the revenues, stupid." I would add that major cuts in "defense" spending along with increasing taxes on the rich would immediately offset our financial problems, and begin the necessary process of creating a job-friendly economic environment. Indeed, it is Demand that is the job creator, not the wealthy. In order to have Demand, Americans need to have the Money to buy, and this creates the Demand that prompts hiring people to meet the Demand. It is so obvious that the conservatives have to constantly distract the people into thinking that the rich guys are the job creators.

Finally, it appears that President Obama from the beginning surrounded himself with the likes of Geitner and Sommers. What do you expect? So far he has shown himself to have a spine with the consistency of overcooked spaghetti. We need to push President Obama to represent the Democratic Party and especially the citizens of our wonderful country. So far, many progressives have pushed President Obama to do what is necessary. The bottom line is that we need to push him far, far more than we have!

that would have included closing loopholes in the tax code in order to improve the revenue but it got shot down by the GOP?

Obama's latest deal with republicans is nothing more than a carefully planned campaign ad. He has told his wealthy backers "don't worry, I have your backs" thus ensuring a place at the corporate table in the next election. There is no more democratic party (with the possible exception of Bernie Sanders) and as has become all too apparent, there will be no salvation for the working poor and middle class while in the hand of Barack Obama. I cannot believe I was so easily duped. At first I thought Obama was just a bad negotiator but the truth is much more sobering. He believes in what he is doing. He has sold us down the river. Hopefully more good intentioned liberals will finally wake up and start making more noise. I honestly do not know what we can do since we are no longer represented in the halls of government but we must do something to save this nation (if it is not already too late) from the greed of the powerful few.

I am honored to receive your first post! I agree with everything you say, pretty much, and followed a similar period of being duped. Just do what you can, a little or a lot, eventually we will win. I still have a thin sliver of hope that Obama might turn around and embrace progressive solutions, although this may only be because I think it would we the easiest and fastest way to solve our countries problems.....

In the Democratic Party. He is an independent.

Many folks, including myself, do love the man. And I cannot say I have seen anyone looking more Presidential than he has when addressing the grave "debtceiling/shock doctrine" economic crisis of the past few weeks.

But he is not a Democrat.

Yes, Bernie Sanders is a socialist-leaning independent. Yet he represents all the good that the Democratic Party is supposed to stand for. I think that was what the post was indicating, not that he was a member of the Democratic Party.

By not standing up to the trickle down corporatists, Obama has created the worst of all worlds, lefties no longer trust him and righties attack him like they would anyway. He has sent a signal that we will continue a shift to the right which is the WRONG direction, fiscally and socially.

One solution - Chris Hedges : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaCufTW9ID4

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.