Obama to propose tax cut for middle class at State of the Union

UglyCasanova

Lifer
Mar 25, 2001
19,275
1,361
126
Link

If somehow this can get through Congress it will certainly be a good thing. The middle class is the real engine of our economy. Unfortunately the way this thing looks like it will be structured is by even further complicating the tax code with various credits rather than just lowering the damned rate and simplifying things (although they would be lowering the rate in this bill, the whole thing should be to strip out the credits and deductions and just have a low rate period).

Imo the rich will have to pay more, but the increase in spending power of the middle class will create more economic activity, and thus more money going to the 1%. Who knows what the net effect is on them, but it wouldn't be all negative.
 
Last edited:

Double Trouble

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,270
103
106
Will be interesting to hear what he says, but I've learned from experience that whenever a politician starts talking, you'd better keep a hand and an eye on your wallet.....
 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
He won't get it through GOP. Mark my words. GOP has no interest in tax cuts unless the super rich get the lion's share of the benefit. Because they are struggling, you know.
 

nickqt

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2015
8,086
8,952
136
He won't get it through GOP. Mark my words. GOP has no interest in tax cuts unless the super rich get the lion's share of the benefit. Because they are struggling, you know.

If we don't give rich people all the money, they won't give the rest of us jobs, though.
 

Pulsar

Diamond Member
Mar 3, 2003
5,224
306
126
There is one, and only one reason that this stuff is finally being proposed. For instance - increasing taxes on upper wages earners. Lowering taxes on middle class.

Obama doesn't want this to pass. But he knows he can propose it and the GOP will have to vote against it. As a result, the dems will be able to point to it during the next election cycle to make cheap political points.

Had they wanted this to pass it could have been put up SIX FUCKING YEARS AGO. You know.... when he was in office and his party had majority. But he doesn't really want these laws to pass - he just wants to score cheap points.

This has everything to do with the GOP majorities and nothing to do with him finally doing something that should have been done a long time ago.
 

UglyCasanova

Lifer
Mar 25, 2001
19,275
1,361
126
There is one, and only one reason that this stuff is finally being proposed. For instance - increasing taxes on upper wages earners. Lowering taxes on middle class.

Obama doesn't want this to pass. But he knows he can propose it and the GOP will have to vote against it. As a result, the dems will be able to point to it during the next election cycle to make cheap political points.

Had they wanted this to pass it could have been put up SIX FUCKING YEARS AGO. You know.... when he was in office and his party had majority. But he doesn't really want these laws to pass - he just wants to score cheap points.

This has everything to do with the GOP majorities and nothing to do with him finally doing something that should have been done a long time ago.

I do agree with this unfortunately.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,668
54,654
136
There is one, and only one reason that this stuff is finally being proposed. For instance - increasing taxes on upper wages earners. Lowering taxes on middle class.

Obama doesn't want this to pass. But he knows he can propose it and the GOP will have to vote against it. As a result, the dems will be able to point to it during the next election cycle to make cheap political points.

Had they wanted this to pass it could have been put up SIX FUCKING YEARS AGO. You know.... when he was in office and his party had majority. But he doesn't really want these laws to pass - he just wants to score cheap points.

This has everything to do with the GOP majorities and nothing to do with him finally doing something that should have been done a long time ago.

That's ridiculous.

You can only pass so many laws in a term. Six years ago he passed the largest economic stimulus package in US history, the largest overhaul to the nation's health care in US history and one of the larger financial regulation packages in US history.

I find it to be a common refrain that literally everything that he proposes now people say "COULDA DONE THAT SIX YEARS AGO". That's not how the real world works.
 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
There is one, and only one reason that this stuff is finally being proposed. For instance - increasing taxes on upper wages earners. Lowering taxes on middle class.

Obama doesn't want this to pass. But he knows he can propose it and the GOP will have to vote against it. As a result, the dems will be able to point to it during the next election cycle to make cheap political points.

Had they wanted this to pass it could have been put up SIX FUCKING YEARS AGO. You know.... when he was in office and his party had majority. But he doesn't really want these laws to pass - he just wants to score cheap points.

This has everything to do with the GOP majorities and nothing to do with him finally doing something that should have been done a long time ago.

Why does GOP "have to" vote against it? They choose to vote against it because it benefits the middle class at the expense of their ultra-rich donors. It's a choice, no "have to" about it.
 

nickqt

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2015
8,086
8,952
136
There is one, and only one reason that this stuff is finally being proposed. For instance - increasing taxes on upper wages earners. Lowering taxes on middle class.

Obama doesn't want this to pass. But he knows he can propose it and the GOP will have to vote against it. As a result, the dems will be able to point to it during the next election cycle to make cheap political points.

Had they wanted this to pass it could have been put up SIX FUCKING YEARS AGO. You know.... when he was in office and his party had majority. But he doesn't really want these laws to pass - he just wants to score cheap points.

This has everything to do with the GOP majorities and nothing to do with him finally doing something that should have been done a long time ago.

It takes 60 votes in the Senate to pass anything, because of cloture (filibustering).

Period.

Name when Obama had 60 solidly LIBERAL Democrats in the Senate.

Unlike the Republican party that votes lock-step or faces primary challenges from the insane asylum (hence, no liberal Republicans), there are - gasp - conservative Democrats who wouldn't have voted for any of that, or the public option, a larger stimulus that wasn't 1/3 tax cuts, etc.
 

Sonikku

Lifer
Jun 23, 2005
15,883
4,883
136
Why cut the middle class' taxes and save them some money directly when we could just give the upperclass a tax cut and wait for the wealth to trickle down?
 

unokitty

Diamond Member
Jan 5, 2012
3,346
1
0
FT_14.12.16_wealthInequality.png

There is one, and only one reason that this stuff is finally being proposed. For instance - increasing taxes on upper wages earners. Lowering taxes on middle class.

Obama doesn't want this to pass. But he knows he can propose it and the GOP will have to vote against it. As a result, the dems will be able to point to it during the next election cycle to make cheap political points.

Had they wanted this to pass it could have been put up SIX FUCKING YEARS AGO. You know.... when he was in office and his party had majority. But he doesn't really want these laws to pass - he just wants to score cheap points.

This has everything to do with the GOP majorities and nothing to do with him finally doing something that should have been done a long time ago.

Pew Research
The wealth gap between America’s high income group and everyone else has reached record high levels since the economic recovery from the Great Recession of 2007-09, with a clear trajectory of increasing wealth for the upper-income families and no wealth growth for the middle- and lower-income families.

Under Obama, the wealth gap has grown to record levels. And the middle class has declined.

His speech won't change any of that. But hey,

If you want to believe Obama's words, your welcome to keep believing Obama's words.

Uno
 

drebo

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2006
7,034
1
81
Gonna trickle down any time now, just a little more money to the top :)

You realize that shit like "stimulus spending" and "quantitative easing" is "trickle down" too, right? It just has a different source.
 

shady28

Platinum Member
Apr 11, 2004
2,520
397
126
Pulsar is right and you guys forget very quickly. It's that poor chess player thing where you can't see past the first move again.

Neither Dems nor Repubs would want this to pass. They are both beholden to the same masters.

Obama can only do this now because :

1 - He's a lame duck, his political apex is over and he has nothing to lose

2 - Neither the GOP nor the Dems want this to pass; the lobbyists in Washington will ensure that, but the GOP will get the blame because they 'control' congress.


I'm also not at all convinced that this isn't another Obama "stupid american" move a la ACA / Grubergate.

After all, you DIDN'T get to keep your plan if you liked your plan. The man is an bald faced liar and anything he puts down needs to be scrutinized.



Remember this, after the Obama tax hikes on the 'rich' :

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=35990392&postcount=109


"An hour of research about who "earmarked" this or that would make you a much more educated person. Democrats and Republicans do the same exact thing, to slightly different constituents.

Some examples :
Joe : Payroll tax up to 35%
Rich guy : Capital gains tax for assets held more than a year : 15%

Assets passed to your heir (inheritance):
Joe : Estate Tax Up to 40% (the average American has most of their wealth tied up in their house)
Rich guy : Inheritance of stock and financial assets : Step-up, ie you only get taxed on what they gain in value *AFTER* you inherited it. So you get $100mil in stock from your folks, and it does not go up in value, you pay no tax.

Carried interest :
Joe : You can be taxed up to 35% on interest earned in your savings account.
Rich guy : Hedge Fund Managers get a percentage of the net gains as a management fee. This payment is known as carried interest. It is taxed at 15%.

Some other examples include tax breaks for buying a Yacht or a private Jet.

And if you think it's all Republican, then you are just another of the mindless masses that the Democrats have fooled. Both parties do exactly the same thing. And Ironically, it was under Regan and Tip ONeil that the last rollback of "corporate welfare" occurred.


Right after Obama and the Democrats nixed the Social Security tax rollback, we get this :

http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/poli...5YK/story.html

"The Senate approved tax benefits for Whirlpool and a host of other corporations early on New Year’s Day, a couple of hours after the ball dropped over Times Square and champagne corks began popping. A smorgasbord of 43 business and energy tax breaks, collectively worth $67 billion this year, was packed into the emergency tax legislation that avoided the so-called “fiscal cliff.’’

Whirlpool officials said the tax breaks help the company retain jobs, but in recent years, it has closed refrigerator manufacturing plants in Indiana (above) and Arkansas.

In the days that followed, the tax handouts for business were barely mentioned as President Obama and members of Congress hailed the broader effects of the dramatic legislation, which prevented income tax increases on the middle class and raised top marginal tax rates for the wealthy.

...
Congress reduced the number of tax breaks in 1986 as part of the broader reform package. The breaks steadily crept back, particularly in the last decade, as lawmakers heeded requests from advocacy groups and business lobbyists to lower taxes as a way of subsidizing particular industries."


As I already pointed out - the wealthy arent much affected by that increase in the payroll tax.


What this really comes down to is that the masses of people are just stone cold stupid, and both Dems and Repubs take advantage of that every single year.
__________________"
 

nickqt

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2015
8,086
8,952
136
After all, you DIDN'T get to keep your plan if you liked your plan.

No one got to keep their insurance plans? You better inform the millions of people who did!

Also: because Obamacare wasn't an "governmental takeover of insurance", there was nothing stopping an insurance company from canceling a policy...especially if it didn't comply with Obamacare provisions.

But hey, Obama is just as bad as Republicans, and BothSides™ do it. Hence, just stay home and let the fascists win by lowering the election turnout. The fascists depend on it!
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
There is one, and only one reason that this stuff is finally being proposed. For instance - increasing taxes on upper wages earners. Lowering taxes on middle class.

Obama doesn't want this to pass. But he knows he can propose it and the GOP will have to vote against it. As a result, the dems will be able to point to it during the next election cycle to make cheap political points.

Had they wanted this to pass it could have been put up SIX FUCKING YEARS AGO. You know.... when he was in office and his party had majority. But he doesn't really want these laws to pass - he just wants to score cheap points.

This has everything to do with the GOP majorities and nothing to do with him finally doing something that should have been done a long time ago.

Hee-hee. Let the Obama hate flow through you...

To pass, Repubs would have to repudiate their own failed trickle down ideology of the last 35 years. Well, except it hasn't failed the true Bush constituency at all but rather the vast majority of Americans instead. They need to keep blaming big gubmint & the welfare state as the cause of our malaise rather than the predatory nature of big money allowed to run amok.

As you say, that can't happen. OTOH, it forces them to reveal who they truly care about.

If it should pass, through some miracle, then it's a victory for the middle class & Democrats in general.

Either way, Repubs lose, rightfully so.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
You realize that shit like "stimulus spending" and "quantitative easing" is "trickle down" too, right? It just has a different source.

Dancin' fool, huh?

There is no trickle down in trickle down, only trickle up, which has become a torrent. That's because American capitalists just use the money for more offshoring, more automation, more asset inflation.

QE actually puts loanable funds in the hands of bankers. Private investors would apparently rather put it in the stock market atm. It's what the FRB can do to stimulate demand.

Stimulus spending puts money in the hands of American companies to do what private investment shies away from- create American jobs.
 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
You realize that shit like "stimulus spending" and "quantitative easing" is "trickle down" too, right? It just has a different source.

Depends on which parts of stimulus. Unemployment extension was not trickle down. QE was trickle down, because that's all the Federal Reserve can really do. That's why stimulus should be done by Congress, so the Fed doesn't have to do QE.
 

Pipeline 1010

Golden Member
Dec 2, 2005
1,973
794
136
But hey, Obama is just as bad as Republicans, and BothSides™ do it. Hence, just stay home and let the fascists win by lowering the election turnout. The fascists depend on it!

This kind of thinking will keep evil in power forever. No concept of voting 3rd or 4th party. Simply either vote for the less evil person or stay home and don't vote.
 

drebo

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2006
7,034
1
81
Dancin' fool, huh?

There is no trickle down in trickle down, only trickle up, which has become a torrent. That's because American capitalists just use the money for more offshoring, more automation, more asset inflation.

QE actually puts loanable funds in the hands of bankers. Private investors would apparently rather put it in the stock market atm. It's what the FRB can do to stimulate demand.

Stimulus spending puts money in the hands of American companies to do what private investment shies away from- create American jobs.

And who are the overwhelming beneficiaries of these policies?

Oh, right, the same big businesses that you rail against.

You really do have a mental block on logical thinking, don't you? I mean, seriously, how do you not see that it's the same fucking thing?

The ONLY way it would be different is if the government cut a check directly to the taxpayers. They didn't do that. They gave it to businesses, with the idea that the businesses would use it to generate economic activity that would increase job growth and decrease unemployment. That's fucking trickledown and you know it.

Same shit, different name. And, yes, it is shit.
 

trenchfoot

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
15,644
8,184
136
So I guess no one's arguing that a tax cut for the middle class is a bad thing in principle, it's just a bad thing because it makes the Repubs look bad when they insist the rich needs to get a bigger tax cut than anybody else or everybody else gets nothing.

OK, we've seen this ploy before, so what's there to deny or bitch about? It's what the Repubs have done and will continue to do ad nauseam.
 

nickqt

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2015
8,086
8,952
136
This kind of thinking will keep evil in power forever. No concept of voting 3rd or 4th party. Simply either vote for the less evil person or stay home and don't vote.

You're exactly right.

Just sit at home and don't vote for everyone, and all of our problems will just go away!
 

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,645
0
76
www.facebook.com
a good idea for a tax cut might be to make all shelter expenses tax-deductible; most people (like my mom) who are addicted to debt and who still have the money to waste on interest still wouldn't ever pay off their mortgage, but govt revenues could only go down... so it would certainly be a tax cut for most people.
 

Kwatt

Golden Member
Jan 3, 2000
1,602
12
81
Six years ago he passed the largest economic stimulus package in US history, the largest overhaul to the nation's health care in US history and one of the larger financial regulation packages in US history.

And he did all of that in the first ~18 months.

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 Signed into law on February 17, 2009

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Signed into law on March 23, 2010

Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act Signed into law on July 21, 2010

.