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

[senseamp]

Obama's recovery is so strong that a record number of people are on foodstamps. Poverty in the US is so widespread that roughly half of kids attending public school live in poverty.
http://www.theguardian.com/money/us-money-blog/2015/jan/17/public-school-students-poverty-report

They are getting foodstamps and they are getting subsidized lunches. Better than if they and their kids were malnourished, and stores going out of business, which is the Republican solution (unless of course you count promises of magical jobs materializing for everyone if we just make being poor suck a little bit more as a solution).

 

[fskimospy]

Obama's recovery is so strong that a record number of people are on foodstamps. Poverty in the US is so widespread that roughly half of kids attending public school live in poverty.
http://www.theguardian.com/money/us-money-blog/2015/jan/17/public-school-students-poverty-report

Food stamp recipients went up bith due to the recession and due to deliberate policy changes by Congress.

Is there a reason why you are using number of people on food stamps vs. food stamps recipients as a percentage of the population?

 

[TreVader]

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.

Honestly I think it will have a lot more to do with who proposed it. If Obama suggests it, it's bad, even if before it was awesome. I think the GOP has no love for the middle class, but if they could shoehorn some cuts for the rich along with it they'd be cool with it.



Just look at net neutrality. You had people on this forum who clearly knew net neutrality was good, and decided it was suddenly an awful idea after Obama proposed it.

 

[DCal430]

Obama's recovery is so strong that a record number of people are on foodstamps. Poverty in the US is so widespread that roughly half of kids attending public school live in poverty.
http://www.theguardian.com/money/us-money-blog/2015/jan/17/public-school-students-poverty-report

That article needs to get its fact straight, the study it links to includes children who are at 185% of poverty and below.

 

[werepossum]

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.....

This, in spades.

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.

This, exactly. Besides his supermajority period, he could easily have pushed for this while he had significant if not unstoppable majorities. He did not.

None of that even accounts for the fact that he apparently thinks while they aren't voting on a piece of legislation congressmen are just sitting on their hands trying to find something to do with themselves.

In reality they are calling supporters and opponents, dealing with lobbyists, drafting amendments to the bill, crafting messaging around it, etc, etc, etc.

If it's not concern trolling it's a seriously uninformed perspective on how our legislature functions.

I'd say that is YOUR position, since you apparently believe no more than three significant bills can be crafted in one session of Congress. Obama could even have called it a stimulus, since ostensibly it puts more money into the economy's spending rather than saving or investing.

Personally I'm not comfortable calling for taxes to be raised on others so that they may be lowered on me, although I would like to see capital gains put on an equal basis with wages. I can understand the reasoning, but morally I see no ethical way that the man whose capital earns his bread should be taxed at a lower rate than the man whose labor earns his bread.

 

[Kwatt]

Anyone who does understand how the system works would know that so many major pieces of legislation in such a small time was actually a very rapid pace. In fact, I challenge you to find another legislative session in recent history that was more productive with substantive bills.

Your argument shows that it's actually you who doesn't understand how the system works. It is the system as a whole that didn't have time, not just Obama. It's not like you can just have a congressman submit a bill and then you vote on it.

1. That bill has to be drafted, first and foremost.

2. Then it has to go to each of the relevant committees and subcommittees, of which there are often several, all of which have only so much time in each session to do this kind of work. At this point the relevant subcommittees look at the bill, consult research and expert opinion on it, etc, etc. This can also take awhile.

3. The overall committee takes the bill for markup. This is a process of negotiation that can take weeks or even months for major bills.

4. Then the bill goes to the relevant chamber as a whole, where the same process of negotiation, amendments, etc, takes place again. This can also take weeks or even months for major bills.

5. While this is happening the other chamber has to do all the same things and the timetable works on the slowest chamber. (and the Senate has various procedures that can delay the uptake of a bill by weeks simply due to the minority not wanting it to pass)

6. After both pass a bill you have a conference committee, which is yet another period of amendments, negotiations, etc, etc.

7. Then it's back to each chamber yet again for more voting and more delay.

All of these steps are extremely time consuming and take huge amounts of input from large numbers of legislators and staffers. There is certainly no "magical" limit as to how many bills can pass in a session, but there is a very obvious practical limit as to how many can.

Worthless bills don't get that kind of work because there's no need to have a conference committee about renaming a post office. Major tax legislation, major economic rescue packages, financial overhauls, and health care overhauls all take a TON of work. Anyone who thinks Congress and the White House had all this extra time to pass whatever piece of legislation they wanted passed are deluding themselves.

None of that even addresses the feasibility of passing such legislation.

ARRA took ~7 weeks
Dodd-Frank and ACA took ~7 months and for ~3 months they overlaped.

A tax cut could have been included in any of them also. As far as I know there was other riders in them.
ACA from introduction into the House till House passage was 3 weeks. And was ~13,000 pages. It could have had a rider in it making "Honey BoBo" Postmaster General and nobody would have noticed.

I am not claiming the tax is more or less important. It just did not seem to be important till now. When there is little chance of getting anything done.

.

 

[fskimospy]

I'd say that is YOUR position, since you apparently believe no more than three significant bills can be crafted in one session of Congress. Obama could even have called it a stimulus, since ostensibly it puts more money into the economy's spending rather than saving or investing.

Personally I'm not comfortable calling for taxes to be raised on others so that they may be lowered on me, although I would like to see capital gains put on an equal basis with wages. I can understand the reasoning, but morally I see no ethical way that the man whose capital earns his bread should be taxed at a lower rate than the man whose labor earns his bread.

Of course that isn't my position, but I guess it wouldn't be a werepossum post if you were attempting to discuss things honestly, would it? Not really your style.

So please, start telling is about all the congresses that accomplished more significant legislation than the 111th and then use that to show why they could have passed more if they had wanted to. I'm sure your analysis will be very insightful. Quick hint: it was the most productive in terms of major legislation in about 40 years.

 

[fskimospy]

ARRA took ~7 weeks
Dodd-Frank and ACA took ~7 months and for ~3 months they overlaped.

A tax cut could have been included in any of them also. As far as I know there was other riders in them.
ACA from introduction into the House till House passage was 3 weeks. And was ~13,000 pages. It could have had a rider in it making "Honey BoBo" Postmaster General and nobody would have noticed.

I am not claiming the tax is more or less important. It just did not seem to be important till now. When there is little chance of getting anything done.

.

Tax cuts were included in the ARRA and numerous tax provisions were present in the ACA.

So they did exactly what you are saying. Now you're saying that you wanted them to have included even more tax provisions? At what point do you stop for one piece of legislation? This is particularly odd when the general argument has been that we should be UN-bundling legislation, not adding in more unrelated items, no?

 

[fskimospy]

ARRA took ~7 weeks
Dodd-Frank and ACA took ~7 months and for ~3 months they overlaped.

A tax cut could have been included in any of them also. As far as I know there was other riders in them.
ACA from introduction into the House till House passage was 3 weeks. And was ~13,000 pages. It could have had a rider in it making "Honey BoBo" Postmaster General and nobody would have noticed.

I am not claiming the tax is more or less important. It just did not seem to be important till now. When there is little chance of getting anything done.

.

Also, you're referring to the introduction of the senate version of the ACA to the house, which they explicitly couldn't change. This is instructive though, even a bill you can't mark up, change, or amend in any way takes 3 weeks.

If you go look at the full timeline it's much much more than that.

 

[Jhhnn]

This, exactly. Besides his supermajority period, he could easily have pushed for this while he had significant if not unstoppable majorities. He did not.

Which merely dodges the question. Is it a good thing to do now, or not?

It is or it isn't- can't have it both ways.

 

[werepossum]

Of course that isn't my position, but I guess it wouldn't be a werepossum post if you were attempting to discuss things honestly, would it? Not really your style.

So please, start telling is about all the congresses that accomplished more significant legislation than the 111th and then use that to show why they could have passed more if they had wanted to. I'm sure your analysis will be very insightful. Quick hint: it was the most productive in terms of major legislation in about 40 years.

lol Ethics from the guy who insists that the article saying most Americans don't have views as radical as either party actually supports his view that the "average voter" is as radical as the parties? M'kay . . .

Don't think I really want to get into the proggie position that any legislation passed is an accomplishment, and the bigger and more disruptive the better. That really only works if one really dislikes America and wishes it fundamentally transformed. So I'll just note that the 104th Congress's House introduced, debated and passed ten major bills in the first 100 days. Three of those became law in whole during the 104th Congress, and significant parts of seven others soon after. (Note: you probably don't count these since they largely cut the growth and power of the government rather than individual liberty, but to those of us who don't see government's legitimate role as determining what we may order for lunch they were significant.) And all this was accomplished with the weakest House majority in decades, nowhere near a veto-proof majority in the Senate, and a Democrat President who vetoed several bills - although on some he was overridden and on others was forced to sign a very slightly modified version when he lost the PR battle to redefine it. And this was all accomplished without lying (if you like your health insurance, you can keep it; it'll save the average family $2,500) by focussing on issues showing at least 60% approval.

 

[werepossum]

Which merely dodges the question. Is it a good thing to do now, or not?

It is or it isn't- can't have it both ways.

I'm going to pass. As I mentioned, I'm not comfortable calling for other people to pay more taxes so that I can pay less. If we must increase taxes on the rich - and in principle I'm against raising taxes - let's use it to replace the money we're diverting to subsidize poor people's health insurance. That way we need to borrow less, so the portion of our future budgets wasted on loan interest will be less and we'll have more to spend without taking on new debt or raising taxes.

 

[senseamp]

I'm going to pass. As I mentioned, I'm not comfortable calling for other people to pay more taxes so that I can pay less. If we must increase taxes on the rich - and in principle I'm against raising taxes - let's use it to replace the money we're diverting to subsidize poor people's health insurance. That way we need to borrow less, so the portion of our future budgets wasted on loan interest will be less and we'll have more to spend without taking on new debt or raising taxes.

They are certainly comfortable with calling on you to pay more taxes so they pay less. So if you aren't comfortable with the other way, you are a sucker.

 

[Jhhnn]

I'm going to pass. As I mentioned, I'm not comfortable calling for other people to pay more taxes so that I can pay less. If we must increase taxes on the rich - and in principle I'm against raising taxes - let's use it to replace the money we're diverting to subsidize poor people's health insurance. That way we need to borrow less, so the portion of our future budgets wasted on loan interest will be less and we'll have more to spend without taking on new debt or raising taxes.

Still dodging.

We already raised taxes at the top to pay for ACA subsidies, BTW.

How would the political will be established to raise taxes at the top if that alone were the issue? And why wouldn't we want to cut middle class taxes when middle class earnings are looking more like working class earnings every day?

It's not like the Job Creators are stepping up to provide more jobs at higher wages, is it?

 

[1prophet]

I believe if McCain had won in 2008 we would have seen mass graves by 2010, from millions of people starving to death.

McCain would have been serving the same masters as Obama, but you need to get off the partisan sauce supplied by the corporations and big business to see that.

 

[werepossum]

McCain would have been serving the same masters as Obama, but you need to get off the partisan sauce supplied by the corporations and big business to see that.

You forgot that his ideal society is North Korea, so millions of starving people would be the sign of a great government.

 

[1prophet]

So you support what Obama is proposing, but then you go on some conspiracy theory tangent and end up opposing it? Great thinking, bro!

For all those that are addicted to and can't stop drinking the partisan koolaid,

from one of the top democrats in the country who has a momentary lapse and lets the truth come out


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIlzYD4tk78

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIlzYD4tk78

 

[Jhhnn]

For all those that are addicted to and can't stop drinking the partisan koolaid,

from one of the top democrats in the country who has a momentary lapse and lets the truth come out


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIlzYD4tk78

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIlzYD4tk78

Some un-dated ancient clip from Jerry Brown? Really?

 

[nickqt]

Some un-dated ancient clip from Jerry Brown? Really?

BothSides™ do it!

Take a shot!

 

[kage69]

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.

Pretty much.

 

[Kwatt]

Also, you're referring to the introduction of the senate version of the ACA to the house, which they explicitly couldn't change. This is instructive though, even a bill you can't mark up, change, or amend in any way takes 3 weeks.

If you go look at the full timeline it's much much more than that.

Introduced in the House Sept.
Passed the House Oct.
Senate Passed With amendment Dec.
House agreed to Senate amendment March.

Time from introduction to Pres. signed into law Sept. 2009 through March 2010.

If you are talking about the timeline from conception. I don't know how long it took for someone to write it.

I was referring to the time Congress had to read it.

.

 

[Kwatt]

I think his tax talk is just a diversion anyway.

Somewhere in the speach sort of glossed over will be something about providing "Security and Safety" from a boogyman.
That will be the meat..IMO

.

 

[manimal]

http://fansided.com/2015/01/18/wife-chops-husband-penis-off/

wife chops off husbands penis TWICE

 

[fskimospy]

Introduced in the House Sept.
Passed the House Oct.
Senate Passed With amendment Dec.
House agreed to Senate amendment March.

Time from introduction to Pres. signed into law Sept. 2009 through March 2010.

If you are talking about the timeline from conception. I don't know how long it took for someone to write it.

I was referring to the time Congress had to read it.

.

You are confusing the timeline of the senate bill with the overall legislative process.

 

[fskimospy]

lol Ethics from the guy who insists that the article saying most Americans don't have views as radical as either party actually supports his view that the "average voter" is as radical as the parties? M'kay . . .

Lol. As usual when you don't like what empirical evidence says, try and pretend it doesn't exist or try and lie about it and hope nobody notices.

This has to be deliberate. Then again, you're the guy who when confronted with contrary evidence said that liberals are conspiring to edit Wikipedia to trick people and that's why you weren't wrong. Lol.

Don't think I really want to get into the proggie position that any legislation passed is an accomplishment, and the bigger and more disruptive the better. That really only works if one really dislikes America and wishes it fundamentally transformed. So I'll just note that the 104th Congress's House introduced, debated and passed ten major bills in the first 100 days. Three of those became law in whole during the 104th Congress, and significant parts of seven others soon after. (Note: you probably don't count these since they largely cut the growth and power of the government rather than individual liberty, but to those of us who don't see government's legitimate role as determining what we may order for lunch they were significant.) And all this was accomplished with the weakest House majority in decades, nowhere near a veto-proof majority in the Senate, and a Democrat President who vetoed several bills - although on some he was overridden and on others was forced to sign a very slightly modified version when he lost the PR battle to redefine it. And this was all accomplished without lying (if you like your health insurance, you can keep it; it'll save the average family $2,500) by focussing on issues showing at least 60% approval.

I have no idea what you're even trying to say here other than that there was another congress a quarter century earlier that you also think was productive. This is just babbling.