Skip to main content

View Diary: Krugman On The Proposed Deal (341 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The first priority is to protect the vulnerable. (3+ / 0-)

    People on Social Security cannot eat your schadenfreude.

    "Furthermore, if you think this would be the very very last cut ever if we let it happen, you are a very confused little rabbit." cai

    by JesseCW on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 11:51:19 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Whose schadenfreude? (0+ / 0-)

      "Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation..."--David St. Hubbins

      by Old Left Good Left on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 12:03:02 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Taxing the rich does not benefit the poor (2+ / 0-)

        when you cut services to the poor.

        "Furthermore, if you think this would be the very very last cut ever if we let it happen, you are a very confused little rabbit." cai

        by JesseCW on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 01:03:54 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Huh? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Aquarius40

          Whereas that may be true, it neither is an example of schadenfreude nor part of my comment.

          "Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation..."--David St. Hubbins

          by Old Left Good Left on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 01:20:16 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  If you don't intend to benefit anyone (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            thegood thebad thedumb

            there's no reason to tax the rich, unless it's just some raw desire to "stick it to them".

            Now, I think we should head right back to an effective rate of 60% on income over 1 million dollars - but not just to say "Hey, we taxed the rich" while cutting benefits people need to survive.

            "Furthermore, if you think this would be the very very last cut ever if we let it happen, you are a very confused little rabbit." cai

            by JesseCW on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 03:06:14 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  It benefits everyone else (0+ / 0-)

              to tax the rich because, all things being equal, everyone else's taxes have to increase.

              AND...even if I did want to tax the rich out of a "raw desire" to stick it to them...that still is not an example of schadenfreude.

              "Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation..."--David St. Hubbins

              by Old Left Good Left on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 03:28:29 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Also (0+ / 0-)

              Can you pinpoint a time in which the effective rate of taxation on the rich was 60%?  For purposes of such comparison, let's assume that "rich" is a taxable income of $250,000 (in current dollars), since that is the focus of current discussion regarding top rates.

              "Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation..."--David St. Hubbins

              by Old Left Good Left on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 03:32:45 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  My understanding (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Aquarius40, sewaneepat

      Is that Nabors told House Dems today that the CPI formula they are proposing is designed to protect and possibly even increase benefits slightly for the poorest seniors. That's also what they were looking to do in 2011.

      I don't like this deal but it's a LOT better than what we would have gotten in July 2011.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site