Last active
1 year, 12 months ago
  • swansoncide commented on the blog post Obama “Deal Is Within Sight” But Not Done Yet

    2012-12-31 11:10:21View | Delete

    huh? This is the punt. There is no substantive agreement. This “punt” increases the deficit.

  • I love that you craszy kids are still pretending Obama wants the rich to pay higher tax rates. It’s charming. I guarantee you that by the time he leaves office they will be lower than they are now. GUARANTEED. It’s REFORM!

  • Oh, God, I can’t WAIT to hear what Biden gave away…

  • of course they will fold. they always fold. WHY?

  • swansoncide commented on the blog post “Fiscal Cliff” Deal Seems Increasingly Less Likely

    2012-12-29 17:40:05View | Delete

    ha! well, that’s the thing. deficit scolds ONLY scold spending, never tax cuts. In 2002 I HARANGUED the Concord Coalition with emails and phone calls (remember, the Bush tax cuts passed post-9/11), and I was ignored. They didn’t have a problem with that fiscal irresponsibility. They never do. Ever.

  • Forget the filibuster, the ONLY way this can pass in time is with unanimous consent and no debate. It only takes one senator.

    Having said that, I personally hope somebody (like Bernie) does just that. You KNOW that whatever deal comes out, even the “bare bones” will cut estate and investment taxes for billionaires. No, thanks.


  • swansoncide commented on the blog post Treasury: U.S. Will Hit Debt Ceiling Monday

    2012-12-27 08:24:05View | Delete

    And yet, treasury bills continue to trade at historic rates, literally sold at negative interest rates due to such high demand. Can we stop pretending that the us has bad credit? is the media ever going to point out the disconnect between the actual RATESof treasury bills and all this fear mongering?

  • swansoncide commented on the diary post Ten Reasons Why the Chained CPI Is Terrible Policy by Daniel Marans.

    2012-12-26 20:12:59View | Delete


  • swansoncide commented on the diary post Ten Reasons Why the Chained CPI Is Terrible Policy by Daniel Marans.

    2012-12-26 20:07:15View | Delete

    “Social Security does not contribute to the deficit.” This is true. BUT, cuts to Social Security (and increases in payroll taxes) are able to CUT the deficit! Isn’t that amazing? We all pat Clinton on the back for balancing the budget, but how’d he do it? Cuts to COLA and raising the cap on payroll [...]

  • swansoncide commented on the blog post Liberal Groups Whip Senate on Social Insurance Cuts

    2012-12-12 10:18:03View | Delete

    FWIW, I just called Shaheen’s office and the staffer went out of his way to tell me she is against cuts to Social Security as part of these negotiations. I was surprised.

  • Oh, and give me a break, please! America has been “reforming” the tax code for 40 years. EVERY TIME the tax code is “reformed” it means “less taxes for the rich.” The claim is always made that THE LOOPHOLES ARE FINALLY CLOSED YAY! But then there are more loopholes…so we have to reform again…and lower rates again. IT NEVER WORKS. Or should I say, it works PERFECTLY for the 1%. It ALWAYS means that the rich and corporations pay less, the middle class pays more. WHY ARE WE STILL PRETENDING THIS IS REAL?

  • “WASHINGTON — President Obama will ask Congress to scrub the corporate tax code of dozens of loopholes and subsidies to reduce the top rate to 28 percent, down from 35 percent, while giving preferences to manufacturers that would set their maximum effective rate at 25 percent, a senior administration official said on Tuesday.”


    I knew Obama was going to have to get to this, because you can’t slash corporate taxes while “cutting the deficit” unless you’re really fucking sneaky. This is so gross. Obama is going to cut estate taxes, corporate taxes, and income taxes for the rich, while raising them for everyone else, AND slashing (oh, sorry, cutting! not slashing!) my Social Security. SO GLAD THE DEMOCRAT WON YAY. I will once again point out that there is NO WAY Romney could have gotten away with this. (for example, there’s NO WAY these negotiations would be happening if Obama had lost) Sigh.

  • Um, Simpson-Bowles does, in fact, lower tax rates for top earners. See page 29. Obama’s plan IS Romney’s plan. :(

  • swansoncide commented on the blog post Better Off Than Four Years Ago

    2012-03-13 10:24:19View | Delete

    Corporations and rich people are certainly better off.

    And torturers can breathe a lot easier.

    Can we please elect Romney? He agrees with Obama on everything, so it will be exactly the same, but at least I won’t have to argue with my liberal friends anymore. Please?

    OK, it won’t be EXACTLY the same. We’ll have a more progressive congress, more progressive state legislatures, etc, etc…

  • swansoncide commented on the blog post Obama’s Budget Speech: Nice Rhetoric, Misplaced Focus

    2011-04-13 13:44:39View | Delete

    I’m very, very worried about this passage: “That’s why I’m calling on Congress to reform our individual tax code so that it is fair and simple – so that the amount of taxes you pay isn’t determined by what kind of accountant you can afford. I believe reform should protect the middle class, promote economic growth, and build on the Fiscal Commission’s model of reducing tax expenditures so that there is enough savings to both lower rates and lower the deficit. And as I called for in the State of the Union, we should reform our corporate tax code as well, to make our businesses and our economy more competitive.”

    Why? Well, the deficit commission recommended cutting individual tax rates for the wealthy EVEN MORE than they already are, plus getting rid of the mortgage deduction and EITC. This will basically result in tax cuts for the rich and tax increases for everyone else, ESPECIALLY the working poor. So let’s not get our hopes up…

  • swansoncide commented on the diary post Progressives Must Stand up to the President by Cenk Uygur.

    2011-04-11 10:43:31View | Delete

    Um, he’s not the “world’s worst negotiator.” He WANTS this outcome. The Republicans are just giving him political cover for HIS OWN AGENDA. Duh. Progressives need to tell Obama to fuck the fuck off forever.

  • True, but at least baby boomers will get full benefits. Our generation is screwed. Also, our generation didn’t have very good health care growing up, so we will probably all die sooner. Which should help gen Y with their deficit problems. By then income taxes will probably be gone, altogether replaced with 50% payroll taxes that are capped at $1m a year. I hope we aren’t still pretending we’re a democracy by then. Aristocracy has its problems, but at least entailed rights included some responsibility to the less fortunate.

  • Um, they do need to, but they aren’t going to. Obama and Senate Dems have their own agenda, and it is pretty much the same agenda the republicans have, except for homos.

    Read Obama’s debt commission report (once again, OBAMA put together that panel, OBAMA supported their conclusions, as did many Senate Dems). That is the blueprint. There is NO reason to believe they won’t follow it. THEY JUST NEED THE POLITICAL COVER TO DO IT.

    It will be exactly like last fall. “Gasp! We have no choice! As much as we HATE enriching the wealthy with the payroll taxes of workers…choke…sputter…”

  • Um, guise, are you sure this is good news? To me this just opens the door to Social Security cuts for generation X (you’re welcome, baby boomers! We were happy to pay extra payroll taxes our whole lives!).

    Senate Dems desperately want to do entitlement “reform.” They will act like its the only choice to save the precious programs, and this will make thge tax cuts permanent.

    Don’t you see the shell game here? It’s not just that they’re going to cut Social Security. DEMOCRATS are going to cut it, and REPUBLICANS will say that they “tried” to cut benefits for the lazy instead.

    So gross.

  • swansoncide commented on the diary post How Would a President McCain Have Responded to Egypt’s Uprising? by Jim White.

    2011-02-12 12:01:20View | Delete

    Of course this is just hypothetical because he could NEVER BE PRESIDENT BECAUSE HE WASN’T BORN IN AMERICA.

  • Load More