Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 12 of 12

Thread: I have never heard so much BS............

  1. #11
    Senior Member Qtec's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    the Netherlands
    Posts
    13,962
    Your disconnect is that you don't understand the difference between being in the top two percent at earning taxable income and being in the top two to percent of retained wealth.

    Your disconnect is that,

    1. He never mentioned taxing wealth and neither did anyone else.
    2.YOU made that up and its got nothing to do with the topic.

    Obama Has Successfully Created ‘An Internal Civil War’ Within The GOP
    Do you REALLY want to know what the problem is? Do you really want to know why this Congress can't work together?

    Just watch this and you will see that its NOT BOTH SIDES!

    Watch it if you dare.


    you can't handle the truth!

    Q
    Remarkable.You leak a story, and then you quote the story. I mean,that's a remarkable thing to do



  2. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Soflasnapper View Post
    It really is all about the art of the possible, and without better insight into what was possible, and needing something, it is hard to say what money was left on the table, so to speak, what prospects there may have been to get it with a bit more negotiating (with economic terrorists, remember), or the pros and cons of not getting any deal, in the interests of ideological purity.

    However, Lawrence O'Donnell made the point that the Democrats set the $200 to $250k income point for the top bracket to kick in, as of 20 years ago. Putting this point into 2012 US dollars, that threshold would be, he says, $396k (approx. $400k). This has been a common sense objection to the rate increases starting at $250k for a lot of otherwise sensible people. Because even in 1990, people earning that amount of money were not necessarily rich at all. Now, that's even less true, and people know it. That was the reason for the Plan B's set point of $1 million a year in income-- EVERYONE basically agreed that was a level of income that was indeed synonymous with being rich.

    Negotiations require a trade-off-- you cannot get everything you wanted. Obama also wanted an extension of the UE compensation, which he got for another year (or two?). He wanted to avoid the contractionary effects of spending cuts. Those were staved off, with no particular extra cuts. The sequester got put off, if only for some months.

    Obviously, compared to a perfect negotiation, he fell short. In the realm of the practical and possible, it's far from obvious what more could have been gotten.
    Good post Sofla,

    All in all, I think the president is doing pretty well, given he has to deal with a bunch of irrational, corrupt obstructionist one trick ponies to get anything done.

    Also, his approvals are far, far better than the Repiglicans, which are the lowest ever recorded in history.

    I fully support President Obama. I can't think of a president since Roosevelt, who has faced so many obsticles and disasters, all at one time. That said, it doesn't mean that I approve of every single decision, either.

    G.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •