Skip to main content

U.S. Speaker of the House John Boehner leaves the U.S. Capitol in Washington December 29, 2012. President Barack Obama and U.S. congressional leaders agreed on Friday to make a final effort to prevent the United States from going over the
Loser.
Pew:
The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted Jan. 3-6 among 1,003 adults, finds that 57% say that Obama got more of what he wanted from the tax legislation while just 20% say Republican leaders got more of what they wanted. And while 48% approve of the way Obama handled the fiscal cliff negotiations only 19% approve of the way GOP leaders handled the negotiations.

Republicans take a particularly sour view of the outcome: just 16% approve of the final legislation, and by a 74% to 11% margin they think Obama got more of what he wanted. Only 40% of Republicans approve of how their party’s leaders handled the negotiations; by comparison, fully 81% of Democrats approve of how Obama handled the negotiations.

Republicans are so stupid that 73 percent think the higher tax rates for those over $400,000 (and limited deductions for those over $250,000) will affect them. They wish they were that wealthy. In fact, 60 percent of respondents with a high school diploma or less think the tax legislation will hurt them -- the wonders of Fox News.

Of course, these responses track pretty well the outcome of this initial round of negotiations. Democrats did get more out of the deal than Republicans, hence it's no surprise that our side is happy and their side is not. And given the White House and Democrats' public stances on the debt-ceiling and Fiscal Cliff II negotiations, we can be cautiously optimistic that we may exit this process without cuts to our most important social net programs.

On the other hand, numbers like these increase pressure on Republicans to deliver the goods the second time around. Their base is unhappy, the House GOP caucus is restless. Conservative media is apoplectic. And most are psychotic enough to push America to default to get their way.

We're not out of the woods yet.

Originally posted to kos on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 02:46 PM PST.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Not to start another flame war (11+ / 0-)

    but I see little sense of satisfaction over the deal at this site.

    •  That's because that 20% (15+ / 0-)

      who think republicans got a good deal include a lot of "progressives."  Strange bedfellows and all.

      " My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total." Barbara Jordan, 1974

      by gchaucer2 on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 02:58:09 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  my political affiliation isn't in quotation marks (15+ / 0-)

        Republicans are unhappy because they are always unhappy. I'm unhappy because we've locked in 84% of the Bush tax cuts when we could have sat on our asses and let them all go away--or chiseled quite a lot out of the Republicans in exchange  for them. We didn't.

        I'm not in bed with any Republicans. They toss and turn too much. They can't just relax and fall asleep, even when they're lying on the finest eiderdown. Princess and the Pea syndrome I guess, also known as being a whiny bitch.

        if necessary for years; if necessary, alone

        by SouthernLiberalinMD on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 03:42:07 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm all for whiny bitches :) (6+ / 0-)

          May even be one at heart, I guess :) Personally, while I believe in stopping often to celebrate Obama's numerous and real accomplishments, I believe also that relentless progressive criticism of him has its place. It's part of a healthy political discourse, and it's only the most shallow and propagandistic I tune out. The thoughtful, authoritative, and contextually savvy, I heed.

          It's here they got the range/ and the machinery for change/ and it's here they got the spiritual thirst. --Leonard Cohen

          by karmsy on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 03:57:17 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  So now our side was opposed to keeping taxes low (11+ / 0-)

          on the middle class?  

          The D who just got elected president (1) campaigned heavily on not letting those taxes go up and (2) repeatedly castigated Rs for holding those taxes hostage, as the Rs insisted they would only vote for tax cuts that included the wealthy.

          Remember how many times O said that both sides want the middle class tax cuts to stay in place, we should pass that legislation by itself and argue over the rest separately?

          Had O refused to agree to the middle class tax relief once the Rs got on board, in an effort to negotiate more things that liberals want, he would have been guilty of rank hypocrisy.  He would have been holding that tax relief hostage, just what he accused the Rs of doing.

          •  Do middle-class tax breaks help the economy? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Vote4Obamain2012, dorkenergy

            I'd argue that they do, that Bush was correct in lowering the middle-class tax rate as well as that for the wealthy.

            While we're on the subject, I also believe in tax breaks for high earners who really, in fact, create living-wage American jobs. If they don't create living-wage jobs, let 'em pay higher taxes. (Good for 'em. Like chopped liver.)

            Obama's singular genius has been in de-linking, rhetorically, tax breaks for the middle class, from tax breaks for the wealthy. They are two separate things, and for the first time, the public is talking about them that way.

            It's here they got the range/ and the machinery for change/ and it's here they got the spiritual thirst. --Leonard Cohen

            by karmsy on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 04:38:31 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  politically great, though he had some help with (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              karmsy, dorkenergy, Glenn45

              that from the outside.

              However, that de-linkage could have happened just as effectively if he had let everything expire and then reinstated the tax cuts for the middle class after the new Congress was sworn in, and dare the Republicans to vote against it.

              And it would have been better policy than leaving estate taxes and capital gains taxes at Bush levels.

              if necessary for years; if necessary, alone

              by SouthernLiberalinMD on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 04:43:02 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Hey, maybe it would've been a good gamble, (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                sharman

                for all I know. Maybe the RW was so weakened politically, it would've worked out for Obama not to have dealt with Boehner, at all, before January 1.

                Myself, I just can't muster much disappointment because Obama didn't make out in every single way he wanted.

                Look at all he DID get. This time.

                It's here they got the range/ and the machinery for change/ and it's here they got the spiritual thirst. --Leonard Cohen

                by karmsy on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 05:46:54 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Very important thing I should add (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  fumie

                  to my comment above is that going over the cliff, itself, may have been imprudent. An awful lot of Americans may have been hurt. So Obama's determination to work with Boehner and hammer out a deal, since Boehner was half-way willing to deal, may have helped the quality of life of many.

                  It's here they got the range/ and the machinery for change/ and it's here they got the spiritual thirst. --Leonard Cohen

                  by karmsy on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 06:26:50 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  the "cliff" was invented by legislation (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    karmsy

                    it could have been uninvented by legislation as soon as the new Congress was seated. And if Boehner refused, fry him. Go on TV every day the "cliff" takes effect telling Americans that he's holding their middle-class tax cuts hostage. Go on TV every day telling them that he's holding their unemployment insurance hostage. Instead of accepting this crap as inevitable, fight. You're dealing with people who want to crash the debt ceiling of the U.S., who hold the American economy hostage every fucking year. Turn the tables on them for a change, and make them accountable.

                    if necessary for years; if necessary, alone

                    by SouthernLiberalinMD on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 08:34:15 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

            •  Agree specifically with (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              karmsy, fumie, Yoshimi
              Obama's singular genius has been in de-linking, rhetorically, tax breaks for the middle class, from tax breaks for the wealthy. They are two separate things, and for the first time, the public is talking about them that way.
              I do think that was a significant step forward in the reframing.

              ambiguity is okay ... if you know what I mean

              by dorkenergy on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 06:37:26 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  A close relative of mine is good-hearted, (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                dorkenergy

                well-intentioned, a church-goer, and a devoted Fox News watcher. Until very recently, I heard her make vehement noises against "raising taxes," because she automatically lumped middle-class and upper-class tax increases together, as Bush II had. Soon, people like this lady won't be making this automatic association anymore. The new rhetoric about taxes, the new distinction, will have infiltrated the public consciousness to that degree.

                Perhaps this was Obama's biggest victory, this round.

                It's here they got the range/ and the machinery for change/ and it's here they got the spiritual thirst. --Leonard Cohen

                by karmsy on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 06:46:57 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  er...to begin with (6+ / 0-)

            if "the middle class" includes 250K-400K, that's one hell of a country you're living in, and I'd love to live there.

            secondly, the estate taxes and the capital gains taxes remain at fucked-up Bush levels. And that's where the 1% keeps most of their money.

            I think Obama should have sat there and let the damned taxes expire, then immediately upon swearing-in of the next Congress, reinstate them on the actual middle class, and dare the Republicans to vote against them. But done is done.

            if necessary for years; if necessary, alone

            by SouthernLiberalinMD on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 04:40:20 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Indeed. (5+ / 0-)

              If you were in Obama's exact position, would you have made out better? Some critics believe they would have made out better, if they'd been in Obama's exact position during the fiscal-cliff deal. And, for all I know, their reasons may be good.

              Myself, I'm noting incredulously that Obama got an old-style PROGRESSIVE tax through a gridlocked congress. He also raised capital-gains taxes--not as high as we'd hoped they'd go, certainly, but for the first time in 20 years, he sure did get them higher.

              Now, if you don't have compelling reasons why you'd have driven a better bargain than what Obama got in the fiscal cliff deal, then I'd invite you to go back to living in that place where everything has to be 100% on the very first go, or it's just not worth attempting. (Geez, it must be dark in there...)

              Myself, I am looking at Obama's track record, and I see lots of precedent. I believe we'll get further with reforms, and with progressive taxation, if we understand playing for the long term.

              It's here they got the range/ and the machinery for change/ and it's here they got the spiritual thirst. --Leonard Cohen

              by karmsy on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 05:07:31 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  Depends on how you define 'middle class'. (0+ / 0-)

            Personally, I'd tend to put the upper limit on an 'middle class' single earner around 65k/yr, not 400k, or even 250k.

            •  Were you paying attention to the campaign? (0+ / 0-)

              My point is, what's with the high dudgeon that the guy got pretty close to the deal that he said he wanted all along?

              Fer gawd sake:  the guy is a terrible negotiator because he got close to what he said he wanted, and negotiated some leeway, in exchange for other goodies like UI benefits?

              Especially after he'd railed against the Rs for refusing to agree to keep taxes low on the first $250,000, holding those tax levels hostage in order to secure other advantages.  He would have been a rank hypocrite to turn around and refuse the deal the Rs finally capitulated to, in order to demand additional concessions.

              I would also point out, I doubt he would have gotten re-elected by demanding tax hikes for all income over $65K.

              •  Sure, but I was responding to (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                SouthernLiberalinMD, blueoasis

                a comment, not an entire campaign.  The philosophical idea that Dems should want to keep middle class taxes low.  And I agree that they should, I was just pointing out that the chosen breakout points from either side were nowhere near just 'middle class', when they cover more than 85%+ of Americans.  This was 'keep taxes lower for everyone but the uberwealthy'.

              •  Oh, and of course (0+ / 0-)

                also exempting all of those taxes on the folks from the 65k-450k range means far less revenue, which also means far deeper cuts to programs people making below 25k or so depend upon for survival.

                •  Obama and Dems have validated (0+ / 0-)

                  George W. Bush's tax cuts.  Period.  In fact, Obama did this in 2010 when he extended them for two years.  Dems made 88% of them permanent, and made them permanent for 99% of taxpayers.  This means one (or all) of three things:

                  1.  The Dems were flat-out lying for 12 years when they said that Bush's tax cuts "only benefited the wealthy".

                  2.  The Dems were just innocently wrong for 12 years about who is "the wealthy", because 88% of the tax cuts have been made permanent, supposedly for the not-wealthy.  22% of anything doesn't qualify as "most" or "only".

                  3.  Liberal Dems have a view of who is wealthy that is not shared by the President and Dems in Congress.

                  Bottom line:  If Bush's tax cuts mostly, or only, benefited the wealthy, then by enshrining 88% of them into law (with no sunset), either they never did benefit "only" or "mostly" the wealthy, or Dems now agree that Bush tax policy for those making less than $450K/year is ans was good policy.  Remember, in 2001, Dems were against ALL of the Bush tax cuts.

                  How is this changing the frame, or winning the messaging on taxes?  Plus, as soon as the GOP has the White House again, they'll lower cap gains taxes back down.  It went down in 2003 with barely a wimper.  

        •  love 'they toss and turn too much' - we should (3+ / 0-)

          have gone over the cliff, we need the revenue.  We need to repair infrastructure, we need to improve education.  Higher taxes would have been quite acceptable if we were assured that the safety net wouldn't shrink but grow to match the safety nets in other civilized nations.  Why should poor Americans suffer more than poor Frenchmen and poor Germans and poor Canadians and poor Australians?  No reason but greed and corruption in high places.    

        •  Where did McConnell get his mandate? (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          SouthernLiberalinMD, karmsy, Glenn45

          Speaking of Republican unhappiness, where did Mitch McConnell get the idea that he has a mandate? He expects us to think--after the fact--that the deal closed the door on tax increases, but not on the debt.

          Why does he want to sustain the unnecessary tax cuts? He says they're job killers, but the spending cuts he demands are more job-killing.

          Republicans lost the presidency--5th time of the last 6 that a Democrat won the popular vote.

          Republicans lost the Senate--the Democrats picked up two more seats.

          Republicans only won the House because of substantial gerrymandering.

          So where does McConnell get off telling Obama what to do? It reminds me of the joke about body parts debating which one was to be in charge, and the asshole went on strike.

          The furor over Friday's [10.5] job report revealed a political movement that is rooting for American failure, so obsessed with taking down Obama that good news drives its members into a blind rage. -Paul Krugman

          by Judge Moonbox on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 05:16:22 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  We can read. (4+ / 0-)
        -- $600-billion in revenue.

        -- $15-billion in spending cuts, mostly things that Obama wanted cut anyway.

        -- Social Security out of the $160-billion operating deficit, out of reliance on cash from the general revenue pool.

        -- Debt limit and "sequester" set to the same clock.

        Tell me that's not close to perfect.

        And the Birch Society Republicans had to declare themselves, all 151 of them. They voted to wreck the Federal government.

        "Cave"/"No Cave" messaging ran the GOPers ragged. Kept them from anything getting a handle on what was going on.

        Then finally McConnell was the only GOPer up there, able to walk without needing a diaper change. He got to put his name on the deal.

        40:1 ain't good enough for you ???

        "We have done nothing to be ashamed of. We have nothing to apologize for." NRA 12/14/2012

        by bontemps2012 on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 03:59:46 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think the $600 b in revenue (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Glenn45, bontemps2012

          is shy of where we need to be.  Bush and the tax cutters dug us a DEEP hole.  Until we start REALLY filling that hole in, essential government functions are in perpetual danger.  

          Also, this is a serious question:  Why is having the debt limit and sequester on the same clock important?  I really don't know.  

          Political compass: -8.75 / -4.72

          by Mark Mywurtz on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 04:47:56 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  You Left out the Pork! (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          midwesterner, Glenn45, Capt Crunch

          Pork not on your List?

          When all is added up, $$$ spent on pork for wealthy corporations exceeds the "new revenue."

          •  You thought there wouldn't be pork ??? (0+ / 0-)

            Really ?????????????

            And this is a few billion, not anywhere near $600-billion.

            Bribery works. Use it.

            "We have done nothing to be ashamed of. We have nothing to apologize for." NRA 12/14/2012

            by bontemps2012 on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 07:52:40 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Most of net revenue (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              bontemps2012

              After deducting the Pork will be provided by the working and "middle class" (110,000$ and under).  That reflects the expiration of the payroll tax cut.  Matt Stoller has put a light on this scam.  Some folks will have more difficult time fluffing it now.  Read Stoller.  He provides the numbers which you try to brush off.  FY 2013 will get 62 billion in "new revenue" from the top end.  FY 2013 tax extenders mostly for specific plutocrats will cost 68 billion....  That 's the kind of deal we can believe in.

            •  A Shell Game Winner (0+ / 0-)

              Corporate Welfare in FC:

              The only significant increase in revenues from the “fiscal cliff” deal will come from raising the payroll tax on middle class workers.

              What a fun shell game – raising taxes on rich individuals and households while giving the corporations they work for tax breaks that are roughly the same amount you are taking in taxes from their employees. Oh, I get it, the rich individuals and households could be anyone but the corporations who are getting the tax breaks are firms that knew someone in Congress and/or the White House and know how to return a favor.

              The real losers, besides the middle class workers who just saw a tax increase, will be seniors and the poor who are now in the line of fire for cuts to entitlements and social programs. Cuts ironically justified in the beltway back and forth by the absurd notion that Congress and the White House just made progress on the revenue side of the equation by taxing the rich. Fail.

              Would you say there may possibly be "an enthusiasm gap?"
    •  It's not this deal (29+ / 0-)

      that is the source of consternation. It's what will happen when all the dealmaking is finished, in a couple months time (or later, if they keep kicking the can down the road).

      If Round 1 was the only round, we'd all be dancing in the streets. Problem is, it's just Round 1.

    •  Then you haven't been looking. (16+ / 0-)

      I saw a distinct pattern in the diaries. Right after the deal went down, we saw a lot of despair on the rec list, a lot of fury at Obama for "selling out." Slowly, over the next day or so, the tone of rec'd diaries about the deal became less despondent and more balanced (and perhaps upbeat).

      In this area, at least, I am all for moderation. I like, "Well, this, but on the other hand, that, and overall..." and find it very congenial.

      As far as DailyKos commentary goes, I felt I was much more in my element later in the aftermath of the deal, than I was earlier.

      It's here they got the range/ and the machinery for change/ and it's here they got the spiritual thirst. --Leonard Cohen

      by karmsy on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 03:11:02 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'm pretty satisfied (0+ / 0-)

      There are a LOT of more pressing issues where we are in much deeper trouble.  If those were going as well as the fiscal negotiations, I'd be thrilled.

      Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

      by Mindful Nature on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 03:42:44 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I thought it was about as good (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jbeach, Wreck Smurfy, karmsy

      as we're going to get.  Whether we like it or not, the GOP has not yet gone the way of the Whig Party,

      I was more or less satisfied.  The big issue for me is whether we are going to see significant cuts in military spending. I don't see military spending as effective stimulus and I differ in terms of being a little more nervous about the level of the national debt than many on the left.  Cuts are coming - the trick will be to cut that which offers the least stimulus to the economy, while preserving spending that is stimulative and builds infrastructure - both human and physical - over the long run. The trick will be to restrain the growth in health care spending and bring it back down toward 9% of GDP rather than 17%, hopefully by means other than cutting medicaid and medicare funding.

      But I do worry about the debt. I think Obama got the best he could get right now on revenue.  I'm not that upset by the deal.

      “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” Charles Darwin

      by ivorybill on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 03:53:35 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Good point re (0+ / 0-)
        the trick will be to cut that which offers the least stimulus to the economy, while preserving spending that is stimulative and builds infrastructure - both human and physical - over the long run.

        ambiguity is okay ... if you know what I mean

        by dorkenergy on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 07:06:29 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  then you're reading the wrong diaries (0+ / 0-)

      some are not satisfied, more are acceptable of what went down. you see what you want to see, you believe what you want to believe.

      a lot of people here speak in generalities or act is someone anointed them spokesperson........ laughable.

      mittens=edsel. no matter how much money is spent to promote it, if the product sucks, no one will buy it.

      by wewantthetruth on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 07:05:07 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I have so little interest in what Tea Partiers (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bontemps2012, karmsy

    think about anything I find it hard to find any meaning in this.

    The only sentence in this post that actually means something in the real world:

    We're not out of the woods yet.
    Yep. We're not.
  •  A news-flash for you guys: (14+ / 0-)

    The presidential election that occurred last November? You LOST it--lost by a pretty good margin. Your House majority was significantly whittled-down, too. Maybe it's no wonder you don't have the leverage in fiscal negotiations that you're accustomed to having.

    It's here they got the range/ and the machinery for change/ and it's here they got the spiritual thirst. --Leonard Cohen

    by karmsy on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 03:03:31 PM PST

  •  I find those GOP numbers really striking--quite an (11+ / 0-)

    indication of just how loony--and irritated--that base is.  They were promised that their beloved millionaires would be protected from any tax increase, and now they've been betrayed!  

    I would really hate to have that constituency to answer to.  

    •  The irony of Boehner's problems with his (9+ / 0-)

      caucus and the problems that the Republicans in Congress have with their base is that all of this is self-inflicted.

      The Republicans have been so busy trying to open Overton's Window more and more - upping the ante more and more - radicalizing their base and feeding their frenzied world view - that they have basically set up this fracturing of their party's foundation.

      Rove cultivated the most extreme crazies in the religious community and I remember thinking that he was playing with fire.  Sure, it was going to work in his favor for a while, but those people were too nuts, too ideological to remain under his spell indefinitely.  The Tea Party was the exact same thing and that mini-movement has gotten totally out of control in even shorter order than anyone might have thought possible.

  •  Most progressive tax rates since 1979 (11+ / 0-)

    According to NYT article.

    One piece of free advice to the GOP: Drop the culture wars, explicitly.

    by Inland on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 03:20:53 PM PST

    •  According to a completely knuckledheaded (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      quill, Pluto, Willa Rogers

      NYT story. WHy is "since 1979" supposed to count for anything, even it were true? And she even uses the "by some measure" bullshit qualifier.

      Look at this fucking horseshit:

      The result is a tax code that squeezes hundreds of billions of dollars more from the very well off — about $600 billion more over 10 years — while leaving the tax burden on everyone else mostly as it was.
      Can YOU see the problem with that steatement?

      To call tax rates "most progressive" because the wealthiest pay larger total share than ever - is fucking medically stupid.

      Why do even smart - really smart - people like yourself take such weak roads?

      •  It's being smart enough to know (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        virginislandsguy, GoGoGoEverton

        someknow some questions are difficult, like an appraissal of a tax code  Notably, all you do is denounce the lack of a definitive declaration as proof it can't be true.  

        As for what about 1979, I think your lack of perspective is on exhibit.

        One piece of free advice to the GOP: Drop the culture wars, explicitly.

        by Inland on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 04:54:41 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Since 1979 because Reagan and supply side started (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DaveV, virginislandsguy

        then.

        "Speak the TRUTH, even if your voice shakes."

        by stellaluna on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 04:59:08 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Uh - (0+ / 0-)

          is this like hand grenades? Close enough?

          And why not go back to when progressive taxation began? Or at the very least post-WWII, so that changes in income inequality could be seen as part of the phenomenon?

          •  I don't really understand your question. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            virginislandsguy

            The tax code was completely revamped under Reagan. And reducing taxes on the rich became part of the supply side argument justifying just about every benefit they could come up with to help the wealthiest in the country.  So you were asking as if 1979 were some arbitrary date chosen out of the blue to compare the current cuts to. Maybe you aren't old enough to remember the philosophical economic change that took place in the mid to late seventies and mostly during Reagan which led us to the point we are at now.

            "Speak the TRUTH, even if your voice shakes."

            by stellaluna on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 05:24:18 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  The tax code was revamped a few times. Why is (0+ / 0-)

              Reagan's (which was in 1986) the one chose n here? Seems pretty clear that going back to, say, the 1950s wouldn't suit th article's clearly propagandic purposes.

              Doesn't the fact that even given the 1979 date the article is bogus for other reasons speak to this, too?

    •  And check out this treausre trove of (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      quill

      weasel words (and note that she has by this time changed her measure of what "most progressive" means which she has stuck to since the opening paragraph):

      After those changes and the new law, comparing average tax rates for poor households and wealthy households, 2013 might be the most progressive tax code since 1979. But economists cautioned that measuring progressivity is tricky. "It's not like there is some scientific measure of progressivity all economists agreed upon," said Leonard E. Burman, a professor of public affairs at Syracuse University. "People look at different numerical measures and they've changed in different ways at different income levels."

      Mr. Viard said that over time the code had become markedly more progressive for the poor compared with the middle class. But it arguably did not become much more progressive for the rich compared with the middle class, or the very rich compared with the rich, in part because of the George W. Bush-era tax cuts on investment income.

      But yes, Inland, please do share this article's headline - that's what it was intended for.
    •  Like comparing apples to kiwis. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Pluto, 3goldens, dorkenergy

      Tax rates are but a small piece of effective tax rates when taking into account all the changes in tax laws since 1979 that affect underlying net taxable income.

      My Karma just ran over your Dogma

      by FoundingFatherDAR on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 03:55:25 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Chait: (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        quill
        Unless I'm mistaken, I think people are misinterpreting @AnnieLowrey today. Tax code most progressive since 1979 means the ratio of tax rates on the rich vs. non-rich is higher. Doesn't mean tax rate on the rich is higher. It's lower. Income tax rates same as under Clinton, and taxes on capital gains and dividends were higher before 1997. Estate tax also lower now. Basically, since 1997, the rich have gotten a tax cut, but the nonrich have gotten a bigger tax cut (as a share of their income.)
        http://ronbeas2.blogspot.com.au/...
    •  Last one - I promise: Naked Capitalism: (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Pluto
      If the media was licensed, the New York Times story, “After Fiscal Cliff Deal, Tax Code May Be the Most Progressive Since 1979,” would be grounds for disbarment. I flagged the piece as a Big Lie in comments yesterday, and figured that since anyone who was either old enough to have been paying taxes in the 1980s or had minimal Google skills could ascertain its claims were nonsense, that it would be debunked elsewhere. Instead, it was apparently tweeted actively by soi-disant liberals on Saturday.
      http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/...
  •  I missed this one: (6+ / 0-)

    Apparently the wingnutosphere went batshit because the president issued an executive order to lift the federal pay freeze. All the Fox/Drudge headlines griped about congresscritters (and Biden's) new salaries, but very few mentioned that Obama actually extended the pay freeze until 3/27/13. It still expires, and everyone gets to gripe about OMG CONGRESS MAKES MONEY FOR DOING NOTHING but the wretched pay gap between public and private gets closed. Slightly.

    I'm so bored with the lame fights over government spending. Taxes, deficit, blah blah.

  •  Source of the "hurts me" belief? (11+ / 0-)

    Likely the actual experience of a smaller pay check. We are not dealing with folks who follow the fine details and distinctions here. They aren't going to differentiate between a rate increase for the $400K+ folks and the negative impact on their own income caused by the expiration of the payroll tax holiday.

    "No one life is more important than another. No one voice is more valid than another. Each life is a treasure. Each voice deserves to be heard." Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse & Onomastic

    by Catte Nappe on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 03:27:34 PM PST

  •  well (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    3goldens, CS in AZ, dorkenergy

    Most Dems don't know a lot of things about it,  such as the deal gutting a major part of Obamacare (the nonprofit co-ops that were in there to make up for not having the public option. )

    •  Community Health Clinics are what (5+ / 0-)

      "make up for not having the public option."

      Actually, all the real experts wanted the CHCs as first option. Sanders & Co.

      Look at how Vermont works. How VA works.

      Half the overall cost. Lowest inflation rate of any sector in health care.

      "We have done nothing to be ashamed of. We have nothing to apologize for." NRA 12/14/2012

      by bontemps2012 on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 04:16:47 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  You're right. I didn't know that and it's not good (5+ / 0-)

      news at all. You sent me to Google to find out what this was about, and I found a pretty good article that explains it here:

      While You Were Sleeping, Fiscal Cliff Deal Whacked “Obamacare” Nonprofit Co-Ops

      For nonprofit insurers, the cliff bill created winners and losers. The winners, who got their plans approved in 2012, included the likes of Coordinated Health Plans of Ohio, which got a $129 million loan in October, a farmer’s union in Colorado, the Freelancers Union in New York, and a culinary health fund in Nevada. The losers—those who were still inking the final details of their plans to submit to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services—are the co-ops in the remaining 26 states whose plans were “torpedo(ed),” in the words of John Morrison, president of the National Alliance of State Heath Cooperatives. Co-ops in the application stages, such as the Kansas Health Cooperative, were “blindsided” by the fiscal cliff bill, to use Morrison’s description. Now, they’re but basically out of luck, especially in a state like Kansas, where Gov. Sam Brownback was hostile to many of the provisions of the Affordable Care Act from the get-go, leaving the cooperative without alternative funding options.

      Recall that the “public option” was to create competition for the private insurers. Due to the ignorant sentiment that the public option meant government control of health insurance, Congress replaced that with nonprofit co-ops meant to compete with the big insurers, an option largely due to the intervention of former Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D), who sought to create at least some competition for the for-profits. Now, even that prospect of cost-saving competition is virtually gone.

      The republicans are undermining the implementation of the ACA in every way they can. And just wait until 2016, when we will hear the attacks from them about how Obamacare has not worked as it was supposed to. This is a victory for them, no doubt. A detail many of us have missed due to the focus on taxes in most of the media coverage and discussion.  

      Thank you for bringing this to our attention. I hope some way can be found to restore this funding to the states that have been slow on getting nonprofit co-ops up and running.  

  •  Can we start calling them (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bontemps2012, a2nite

    the Obama tax cuts?

  •  The Republican voters will see FICA (6+ / 0-)

    . . . and it will simply confirm their beliefs about taxes.  Even though this is actually an expiration of a payroll tax holiday that should never have been authorized in the first place and was only put in there because it was the only minimally sensible form of stimulus the Republicans would agree to in order to get to a minimally sensible total package.

    There needs to be a major effort to combat the misinformation; it's not enough to smugly enjoy spectator seats at the House Republican circular firing squad.

  •  Their ponies are SO much nicer than our ponies (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Beetwasher, Superribbie, 3goldens

    And since neither of us got ponies, we win by default.

    And it doesn't matter how psychotic the GOP caucus is. We have the votes to raise the debt limit, with or without Boehner's assistance. He's already put the Hastert Rule out to pasture, so it's not like it would be unprecedented for him to do it again on something vastly more important.

    "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

    by kovie on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 03:38:16 PM PST

  •  Republicans wouldn't be happy with a deal (5+ / 0-)

    if you minted a trillion-dollar coin and handed it to them. If you minted a trillion-dollar coin and had the hottest stripper in the world hand it to them.

    The words "happy with a deal" don't exist in Republicanland.

    if necessary for years; if necessary, alone

    by SouthernLiberalinMD on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 03:39:12 PM PST

  •  was the same with the clinton tax law (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kj in missouri

    a lot of republicans freaked out, thinking their taxes had gone up, when for a lot of them they had actually gone down.

    The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

    by Laurence Lewis on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 03:42:40 PM PST

    •  'cept 77% of people taxes DID go up... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bryduck

      yes, it's a payroll tax and not an income tax, but most people don't differentiate the two...they saw smaller paychecks, they got screwed in the deal and it's Obama's fault.

      He miscalculated that IMO from a PR perspective

      If you took the greed out of Wall Street all you’d have left is pavement ~Robert Reich

      by k8dd8d on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 04:44:18 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  unfortunately, the rise in the payroll tax (5+ / 0-)

    will help cement these folks in their perception that their income taxes have gone up--b/c most people just think of their taxes as one big blob. One big annoyance.

    if necessary for years; if necessary, alone

    by SouthernLiberalinMD on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 03:45:08 PM PST

  •  Hilarious. The overwhelming majority of the Bush.. (0+ / 0-)

    tax policy is made permanent, and all the GOP can do is pander to its insane base and paint this as a loss.

    The President is incredibly lucky he has such a nutty opposition. The public would view this deal in completely different terms if Republicans were smart enough to describe it as the victory that it is for them.

    "The Democratic Party is not our friend: it is the only party we can negotiate with."

    by 2020adam on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 03:48:59 PM PST

    •  Yeah, That Obama Sure is One Lucky Guy! (9+ / 0-)

      Man does he always get lucky, or what?  No way a naive, caver like Obama could actually know what he's doing.  Nahhh.  He's the luckiest SOB on the planet.  It explains everything.

      This post is dedicated to myself, without whom, I'd be somebody else. Though I'd still be an asshole. My Music: [http://www.myspace.com/beetwasher]

      by Beetwasher on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 03:56:19 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The two aren't mutually exclusive. (0+ / 0-)

        It's entirely possible he knew what he was doing. His opponents may be too nutty to take credit for a great deal, and the President may have included that in charting his path to a deal.

        I don't personally see that as any better, though, given that, as I said, the deal in question was an unequivocal success for anyone who supported the Bush tax policy.

        "The Democratic Party is not our friend: it is the only party we can negotiate with."

        by 2020adam on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 04:07:03 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Obama Didnt Need Luck (5+ / 0-)

          When your opponents are entirely predictable, they are easy to manipulate.  Obama knows this and knew exactly what he was doing, IMO.

          This post is dedicated to myself, without whom, I'd be somebody else. Though I'd still be an asshole. My Music: [http://www.myspace.com/beetwasher]

          by Beetwasher on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 04:14:04 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  the baseline discussion (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Beetwasher, FiredUpInCA, dorkenergy

          wasn't about going back to Clinton era tax rates overall. Not one Democrat campaigned on that plank (as best I know; I know neither of my Congressional reps did and neither did Obama.

          Why? Because raising taxes, especially on the middle and lower classes in a weak economy is the opposite of Keynesian economics. It's what the Austerity crowd wants to do, and we saw what happened in Europe over the last few years when those policies are used in recession.

          Not raising taxes NOW is the opposite of Bushian tax policy.

          47 is the new 51!

          by nickrud on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 04:42:56 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Mr Bush's income tax cuts were made permanent, (0+ / 0-)

            not extended or linked to economic indicators. And low rates on Estate, Capital Gains and Dividend taxes were codified as well.

            "The Democratic Party is not our friend: it is the only party we can negotiate with."

            by 2020adam on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 09:42:14 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  there is no such thing (0+ / 0-)

              as a permanent tax rate. Otherwise taxes would never have changed from the original rates, back in the 'teens.

              These tax rates are 'permanent' only compared to Bush's rates, which were put in place through reconciliation with an explicit sunset clause. Most tax rates aren't sunsetted, and are technically 'permanent' until changed by Congress. Again.

              47 is the new 51!

              by nickrud on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 10:02:54 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

  •  81% Of Dems Approve?! (4+ / 0-)

    Well, obviously they're not REAL Dems, right?  Or at least not purity approved.

    This post is dedicated to myself, without whom, I'd be somebody else. Though I'd still be an asshole. My Music: [http://www.myspace.com/beetwasher]

    by Beetwasher on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 03:49:57 PM PST

    •  Perhaps they are not the "more and better" kind (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Beetwasher, stevej

      Actually, there was a lot of stress and concern as this was coming down. In addition, the deals could not have been more [deliberately] confusing, as presented by the deplorable American media.

      Confusion, stress, and kabuki can cause some pretty decisive moments among people who are striving for the very best outcome for the country.

      High-minded folks would encourage others to put it behind them and encourage community cohesiveness.



      Denial is a drug.

      by Pluto on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 04:16:44 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  *sigh* n/t (0+ / 0-)

      Political compass: -8.75 / -4.72

      by Mark Mywurtz on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 04:54:52 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Strategery: (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ericlewis0, Beetwasher, Fulgour

    Photobucket

    "Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." -Benjamin Franklin

    by hotdamn on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 03:52:56 PM PST

  •  The entire world is happier than both: (4+ / 0-)
    Democrats happier than Republican with fiscal cliff deal
    ...for averting austerity at the wrong time, causing a recession that the US would have exported to every single one of its trading partners.

    The other danger is the mandatory sequestered cuts. Those too are economic crushers that the IMF warns would infect the world economy.

    When the US economy is stabilized and growing -- then tax hikes are the order of the day -- and urgently needed to evaporate the deficit.

    As for the Debt Limit hike -- thankfully, that stupidity would only hurt Americans.

    However, I predict that we won't hear a peep out of Republicans this time. They will all get phone calls from Our Overlords -- and that will be the end of it.



    Denial is a drug.

    by Pluto on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 03:53:13 PM PST

  •  The irony is that most Republicans got a better (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Beetwasher, midwesterner

    deal that their party was pitching.
    They just don't understand tax policy.

    Take back the House in 2014!!!!!!!!!!!! (50 state strategy needed)

    by mungley on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 03:56:14 PM PST

  •  Reason why business education should be in K9-12 (5+ / 0-)
    Republicans are so stupid that 73 percent think the higher tax rates for those over $400,000 (and limited deductions for those over $250,000) will affect them. They wish they were that wealthy. In fact, 60 percent of respondents with a high school diploma or less think the tax legislation will hurt them -- the wonders of Fox News.
     If some basic financial education (from how to balance checking accounts to general tax theories) were included in high school, maybe that would enlighten some potential voters before they got brainwashed with FAUX.

    My Karma just ran over your Dogma

    by FoundingFatherDAR on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 04:01:51 PM PST

    •  Number One greatest empowerment tool (0+ / 0-)

      ...for people who have any hope of personal freedom from corporate slavery in the 21st century.

      (Although, I'd call it economics rather than business. Same thing, though.)



      Denial is a drug.

      by Pluto on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 04:20:47 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Civics first (0+ / 0-)

      how can they do or say anything constructive, if they don't know civics and rely only on a cynical paradigm.

      Cynical thinking is not critical thinking, teaching them more about data or how to process it, is only feeding the cynical mind.

      Or as my favorite quote points to, a cynic knows the price of everything, but the value of nothing.

      GOP- Fact Free since 1981!

      by KingGeorgetheTurd on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 04:30:40 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  It's not "business education" or (0+ / 0-)

      "financial education" that matters most for choosing your representatives.

      It's macroeconomics -- unlearning the macroeconomics we've been completely mistaught these last several decades.

      A short course is at Monetary Sovereignty with longer expositions at New Economic Perspectives.

      It's something we -- non-wealthy Repubs, Dems, Obama (wherever you place him), AND -most- Progressives -- all need to learn.

      We need to learn this now, so we can re-teach Obama -- who has shown he is teachable -- before he negotiates the next steps.

      From what I've seen here, most of us (me included) were mistaught.

      Now, even Krugman almost gets it. (He's coming around in the last chapter of this internecine tiff between neo-Keynesians and post/pre-Keynesians.)

      The challenge is: can we teach Obama?

      ambiguity is okay ... if you know what I mean

      by dorkenergy on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 08:57:44 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I'm scratching my head (5+ / 0-)

    what exactly DID republicans get out the deal?

  •  re; Payroll tax (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    k8dd8d
    In fact, 60 percent of respondents with a high school diploma or less think the tax legislation will hurt them -- the wonders of Fox News.
    I am concerned a lot of folks... having nothing to do with Fox News... will in fact see their taxes go up because the payroll tax was allowed to lapse (which I approve of) and will blame it on the tax raising Democrats and Obama.

    I've already had queries from people very firmly on our side but surprised (and upset) to learn that their taxes were going up and their paychecks getting smaller with the 1st of the year.

    "Do what you can with what you have where you are." - Teddy Roosevelt

    by Andrew C White on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 04:30:01 PM PST

    •  yup, I've been thinking about this too (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Andrew C White

      and I think it's a stupid PR nightmare that the White House created for themselves.

      Obama keeps saying, no one under 400K saw their income tax go up.  And while that's true, the payroll tax negates that and makes him look like a liar to anyone even partly inclined to believe that.

      If you took the greed out of Wall Street all you’d have left is pavement ~Robert Reich

      by k8dd8d on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 04:42:15 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  i did follow things closely (0+ / 0-)

        and the President said repeatedly that we shouldn't hit the middle class.  But the tax hike the wife and I are being hit with is as large as the income tax increase we would have seen.  So we did loose out.  Where did he ever say, "well, income tax will go down but other tax will go up for middle class folks"?  He didn't

  •  All Depends on How You Spin It (0+ / 0-)

    If you believe the GOP talking point, that higher taxes on "job creators" necessarily translates into fewer jobs for Joe Sixpack, then yes, this DOES affect them.  Doesn't have to be true, just a matter of belief.

  •  We live in the woods. (0+ / 0-)
  •  Of course the republics are disappointed... (0+ / 0-)

    They didn't get to fuck the poor & middle class

    Clinton/ Warren 2016

    by artr2 on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 04:50:20 PM PST

  •  Good diary, but this statement (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Capt Crunch, stevej, dorkenergy
    Democrats did get more out of the deal than Republicans
    shouldn't necessarily make democrats happy.  Getting more than republicans and getting as much as we could have are 2 different things.  

    I mean, we had a lot of leverage, higher public support, and really could have gone over the cliff and then passed legislation to erase the unpopular parts of the "cliff dive".  

    Political compass: -8.75 / -4.72

    by Mark Mywurtz on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 04:59:23 PM PST

    •  Nice parsing (0+ / 0-)

      of the situation:

      Democrats did get more out of the deal than Republicans shouldn't necessarily make democrats happy.  Getting more than republicans and getting as much as we could have are 2 different things.

      ambiguity is okay ... if you know what I mean

      by dorkenergy on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 09:18:38 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Thanks goodness (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    midwesterner, stevej, dorkenergy

    there was pressure from within his own party to push Obama to be a little tougher in negotiations.
    Seems to me it's important to keep pushing Obama in the correct direction. Given his past performance I don't think it's his natural inclination.
    I'm still concerned about him even allowing Social Security cuts to even be entertained in the negotiations. And no, I don't think it was some multi-dimensional chess move.
    And I think it's a mistake to "trust" him to do the right thing. He's not a saint. He's not a genius. He's just another guy in the White House. If you want him to do the correct thing you have to point the way and insist he do it.

  •  60% are RIGHT (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dorkenergy, Jon Says, dmfox

    Those 60% of high school educated respondents you are happy to insult?  They are right. Allowing the payroll tax cuts from the 2009 stimulous to expire affects 77% of Americans. The average income in the US is $41k. Those making that amount will take home $832 less in 2013. This is estimated to put a 0.6% hit on GDP growth for the year. Yes, Republicans were never eager to preserve the payroll tax cut since it violates their narrative of Obama being a tax hiker; but you can't pretend it didn't exist for the past two year or it's expiration won't have any impact on individual tax payers. It does and it will.

    •  Clear exposition. (0+ / 0-)

      Thanks for the numbers.

      Also, can anyone proffer a reason why this, from WaPo -- President Obama’s unspoken payroll tax increases -- last July isn't a fair representation:

      … the White House Web site continues to brag that the president last year fought for “middle class tax cuts to prevent a typical working family from losing an average of $40 per paycheck, enabling them to keep about $1,000 of their hard-earned money.” That sentence is referring to the payroll tax cut.

       A White House official argues that a) the debate currently is about income taxes and no one is trying to solve all outstanding tax issues and b) the payroll taxes were always known to be temporary. In contrast, this official argued, the Bush tax cuts — at least for the middle class — were always supported as being permanent, even though Congress did not write the law that way. (Got that?)[emphasis added]

      ambiguity is okay ... if you know what I mean

      by dorkenergy on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 10:03:31 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Everyone at work was (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dorkenergy

    going into their w-2 last Thursday when they saw the 2% FICA hit (plus the state taxes that accrue on the first few checks of the year) to increase their deductions.

    Knocked me for just over $100 too!

  •  ah....good times (0+ / 0-)
    On the other hand, numbers like these increase pressure on Republicans to deliver the goods the second time around. Their base is unhappy, the House GOP caucus is restless. Conservative media is apoplectic. And most are psychotic enough to push America to default to get their way.

    “If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.” - Dalai Lama XIV (-9.50; -7.03)‽ Warning - some snark above‽

    by annieli on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 06:23:46 PM PST

  •  Democrats happier than Republicans ? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dorkenergy

    That's because Democrats have for decades been a compromised party.

    It's hard to even imagine it these days as the party of the New Deal, Fair Deal and Great Society. Now it is the party that wants to dismantle them only more slowly than the GOP.

  •  I don't have a lot of confidence in polls (0+ / 0-)

    such as this.
    Do I approve/disapprove of the outcome?  Compared to what???
    Compared to last year's tax rates?  or Compared to what we would have if nothing had passed?  or Compared to my ideal outcome?  
    Will it help or hurt people like me?  Again, compared to what? (Please summarize in a one-word answer.)
    Chances are, the people being polled interpreted the questions a dozen different ways, so the aggregate poll results are just a big mish-mash.

  •  Kos, unfortunately, you're exactly wrong (0+ / 0-)
    Democrats did get more out of the deal than Republicans
    If by that you mean that Democrats got tax increases and Republicans got some spending cuts, and the former were more than the latter, then unfortunately, your metric points in the wrong direction.

    Both tax increases and spending cuts hurt the economy -- because they both take money out of the economy.

    And that's true even when you tax the rich. (Yes, it doesn't lose as many jobs as taxing the non-rich, but it generally loses jobs.)

    But Obama and the Dems didn't just tax the rich. They allowed the payroll tax reduction to expire. That tax increase is going to lose upwards of 1/2-million jobs.

    No, our side did not get more. We (Obama, Dems, and most Progressives) were fooled (through decades of backwards macroeconomic instruction) to supporting a line hoisted on us by the likes of Peterson, Koch, the Waltons, Wall St. and all the neolib and neoclassical economists. (Even Krugman has been -- and is even with today's move -- somewhat blinded.)

    It's not just trying to

    be cautiously optimistic that we may exit this process without cuts to our most important social net programs.
    O, DEMS, and (most) PROGRESSIVES have all accepted the Repub's/Tea Party's, … "we need to cut the deficit" line. That sickness has paved the road to ruin.

    I've only recently started down this path to re-education -- but I've seen enough to know, with great certainty, that It's time for all of us to WAKE UP.

    As I point to in this comment,

    A short course is at Monetary Sovereignty with longer expositions at New Economic Perspectives.
    To understand it well enough to parlay it will require some work, but it's undoubtedly worth it.

    I'd also invite you to read my other comments above and also in this diary where I've tried to sketch things out, as I understand it, a bit more.

    ambiguity is okay ... if you know what I mean

    by dorkenergy on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 01:32:12 AM PST

  •  Overheard someone complain about their paycheck... (0+ / 0-)

    saying Obama's tax hikes docked them 50 bucks a paycheck. Dolt was conflating Social Security tax restoration with the highest tax rate going up.
    Wow, I just shook my head.

    •  Yeah, but I bet that guy votes. (0+ / 0-)

      And now s/he will vote against Dems, if s/he hadn't before.

      "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

      by bryduck on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 09:09:28 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Actually, the 60% are right (0+ / 0-)
    In fact, 60 percent of respondents with a high school diploma or less think the tax legislation will hurt them -- the wonders of Fox News.
    The lapse of the payroll tax holiday hurts just about everyone.  I've come around to Obama's thinking on the deal, so long as he stays strong on the debt ceiling and sequester.  That said, the failure to extend the payroll tax holiday hurts everyone at a time when a lot of workers are still struggling to emerge from the recession.
  •  frustrated (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bryduck

    "Republicans are so stupid that 73 percent think the higher tax rates for those over $400,000 (and limited deductions for those over $250,000) will affect them."

    that's just dishonest.  Our payroll taxes are going back up.  There's reason for me not to be happy.  We were told - what - a thousand times that no one's taxes for those making under 250K would go up.  And now they are.  Just not the specific taxes the President was talking about.

    I know, I know.  This was temporary and needed to be raised again.  But Christ.  My insurance is going up a third in CT after years of supporting the President's health care laws; and now my taxes are going up after repeated statements saying they wouldn't go up on anyone but the wealthy.  I feel like a jack ass supporting Progressive causes when the end result is making it harder for me to pay my bills. And we're married without kids.  So we get punished for not having kids by not getting the deductions "real" families have.

  •  Top rates (0+ / 0-)

    Amazing that the "high" incomes are now seen as $400,000 or above.  Though it would never get passed they should have made the top number $100k not many people I know earn anywhere near that type of money.  If you earn $100k you too can afford to pay more too.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site