Yes, yes, yes, we can! And this budget proves it.
I will not miss at all the thinly-veiled classist, racist, mysogyinst warmongering agenda the GOP has been pretending was shared by the nation as a whole in recent years.
This will be better for millions of normal folks who consider themselves conservatives, too. They will be free to be moderates, unburdened by the Boehners and Cantors and Bachmanns.
And we progressives will finally see some progress. Oh, how fine after all this time.

amen...

If we people keep pressing Obama for more, maybe he will continue to deliver.

I will expect much more on the human rights front.

I have always thought Obama is capable of amazing feats, and we can help make it happen.

Bravissimo.

Now comes the hard work. Passing the budget will be hard. Members of Congress, Republicans and Democrats alike, are going to move quickly to protect their meal ticket sacred cows.

For example, support for agribusiness is an area where the Obama administration calls for cuts. Good luck dealing with ADM. As a second, tens of thousands of military careers are dedicated to protecting the US from the old soviet union. Good luck killing those systems. No, despite the fact that Democrats have huge majorities in both the House and Senate changing directions is not going to be easy.

Note to the Right (and with a specificity most malicious and intentional as regards the pontificating Baron Von Limbaugh) --- The phrase "elections have consequences" is a severe understatement....

Only real misstep I see so far is letting the Repubs set the debate on the banking system by letting them define receivership as 'nationalization.' Egypt 'nationalized' the Suez canal, taking banks into receivership is not nationalization, it's a tried and true way to manage failing banks without destroying the economy.

And FWIW Steve, I think you've got the mix right now between focusing on what Obama's doing and calling out the Repubs for their inanities. Not that you asked...

Robert Reich added that the budget "represents the biggest redistribution of income from the wealthy to the middle class and poor this nation has seen in more than forty years."

That's a pretty low hurdle, but it's a start.

Bu-but, the mighty Loony-Con Teabagging Revolt will put a stop to this!

This is a great start.

Although the level of freaking out and lying from the GOP is going to be unprecedented. After listening to Rush Limbaugh yesterday it's pretty clear all we're going to hear from them is that the poor, put-upon rich people are going to SUFFER because their taxes are going up 3%!!!!! OMG!!!1!!! The sky is falling! The world is ending! Get ready to the squacking of the Chicken Little Republicans...

I have a feeling that this is when Obama utilizes his virtual army of supporters.

I see a few Blue Dog Democrats, determined Republicans and wavering moderates setting their minds to snarling Obama's programs and ambitions. I see Evangelicals, talk radio and an army of clever media obfuscators convincing a sufficient number of trembling citizens everything Obama wants to do is a grand series of mistakes. The electorate may have voted for change but have they the courage to follow through and stand up to those sowing doubt?

He's got a mandate, and he's not afraid to use it. We haven't seen this since Reagan, and this time it's not stupid.

The GOP mantra:"Money in the pocket of small businesses creates jobs. Raising their taxes prevents this."

Horse puckey. Consumer DEMAND creates jobs. Tax rates have nothing to do with it.

As we have been told ad infinitum over the past few months, banks lending money for inventory, capital expenditures, etc. is what drives the economy. Only a 'fool' uses his OWN money to fund their business.

What a novel idea from Pres Obama - not hiding the cost of the war, how will we ever bear it - The republicans are already having heart failure.

As one who from time to time has been an admitted Obama skeptic, I have to say that I'm very impressed with this budget proposal. We haven't seen anything this progressive in a long, long time.

Obama may well have learned a lesson from the stimulus bill proposal, jack up the initial figures so you can back off a little and still end up where you want. With this budget he has plenty of places to buy votes with small changes that do no great harm to the overall goal.

Bravissimo! Paragraph of the day so far...

Comes from David Leonhardt's NYT analysis. In explaining the trend initiated by Reagan he writes:

Before becoming Mr. Obama’s top economic adviser, Lawrence H. Summers liked to tell a hypothetical story to distill the trend. The increase in inequality, Mr. Summers would say, meant that each family in the bottom 80 percent of the income distribution was effectively sending a $10,000 check, every year, to the top 1 percent of earners.

To win this budget battle that is how the facts need to be decorated and displayed.

Give the numbers life please!

The Brown Shirts are coming, the end of freedom of speech is coming along with any other rights the new Federal Monarchy decides we do not need. Ask yourself a question, who is going to ultimately pay for the spending? It will be your children, their children, and their children's, children. The cost is now at around 30,000 dollars for every man, woman, and child in our nation (less interest).

Meanwhile, the lower classes are still desperate, and willing to make desperate statements to that effect. URL is self-explanatory:

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/02/wal-mart-worker-immolates-self-in-parking-lot.html

It never ceases to amaze me the greed, hatred and jealousy that some have towards the rich. To be clear, I make $40,000 a year but that in no way changes my mind on the unfairness of the current tax system and the grossly unfairness of Obama's tax increases. My boss may make tons more than I do, but he also has to live 24/7 with the business (international company) and does not have a 'life' besides work. And for that, he gets to pay a higher tax rate than I. How is that fair????? I have and will always believe everyone should pay the same rate...10%...whatever....creating responsibility, accountability, stakeholder, etc. But that would require putting aside our jealousy and greed....wanting others to pay for what we want......something it appears a majority is unwilling to do. How sad, and we will all be the poorer literally because of it.

Hey boss, using your employee Faith's password to troll is pretty low.

Also, I don't think you understand how tax brackets work. Higher rates are only on the portion of income that is above X amount, not the whole thing. Have your accountant explain it to you.

I cannot afford an accountant at $40K a year. However, could I afford one, I should certainly choose one who understands that I was placed on this earth to serve the comfort of the wealthy, to whose ranks I hope one day to ascend and whose interests I shall meantime vote in a stunning denial of reality.

The troll can't even manage to spell its own troll name twice the same way. Priceless.

Steve, the second one is obviously a parody of the first one ...

Yes, that hit me right after I pressed "post". My excuse is that it's Friday...

I'm sorry, Steve, I can't help it...coffee is coming through my nose...

Actually I do understand tax brackets and NO ONE pays the tax bracket rate on ALL of their income. We all get to have our deductions, exemptions and tax credits; therefore we are all paying different rates and more often than not the more you make the more you pay unless you are mega mega rich and bury the money somewhere. That is why I believe in a flat rate.....

This is very encouraging. Let's hope it pans out. Indeed, if wealth is redistributed a bit, even the rednecks who think the Repubs are so wonderful will be helped.

I'm sorry, Steve, I can't help it...coffee is coming through my nose...

Okay, that wasn't I at 9:50. That's the real deal. Have at her, folks.

We all get to have our deductions, exemptions and tax credits

Faith: your complaint would make sense if we still had 50-70% or more top income tax rates. But think of a few things: Most important, the rich have been put on welfare due to the fraud of them paying *less* than real earners do, when the money in question comes from capital gains. Some CGs do help the economy (start-up investment) but most is just trading, and the fair thing IMHO would be same rate but index for inflation (all calculations involving money should index, actually.) Also, CEOs etc. have their pay decided by a Board, that is often appointed by the latter. Their choice of pay for the CEO is not a true market decision, both for the former reason and also: they aren't paying the salary from their own income for it (other employees, and shareholders take the dump), so there's not the same incentive to save as you or I would when buying a car, etc.

"Hate the rich" is a straw-man put up only by deliberate propagandists or the naive. We don't hate the rich, we just care about our own well-being and the public good more than helping the very top (that's the Republicans' job.) Ironically, that's the rest of us deploying our own "self-interest" - isn't that what conservative thinkers say everyone is supposed to do?

tyrannogenius

Faith: your complaint would make sense if we still had 50-70% or more top income tax rates.

Faith - Does it bother you that in 2003 Teresa Kerry and Dick Cheney both paid about 15% total Fed taxes, which is about what working people pay in payroll taxes alone? Does it bother you that Republicans continue to make the argument that as soon as social security revenue is surpassed by outlay, that the payouts should be cut back? Forgive me, but either you don't understand, or you're not being sincere.

He's got a mandate, and he's not afraid to use it. We haven't seen this since Reagan, and this time it's not stupid.

The Reagan Administration was not stupid. It was very intelligent and effective in serving the narrow interests it sought to serve.

The over-$200,000 "crowd"

Concluding paragraphs from the other major NYT front page editorial:

One new construct lies in the shape of the Obama-era electorate. For reasons that in some cases are unrelated to economics, like social issues or the Iraq war, many of those affluent taxpayers the president wants to finance his agenda enter the debate as his supporters, not opponents.

In November, exit polls showed, Mr. Obama defeated Senator John McCain among voters with incomes of $200,000 or more by 52 percent to 46 percent.

These are the people he needs to hang on to. How? By convincing them of the need to contribute more to the culture that has made their wealth possible. It is a hard sell. But Clinton was able to make that argument quite well. I expect Barack can do it too. I also expect quite a few rich folks to step up and admit to the need as well...

Never in my sixty seven years did I think I would see so many people looking for a handout. What ever happen to personal accountability. The degree to which people want to blame everyone else for their situation is astounding. Sometimes you have to look at yourself and realize, no matter how much money you take from the rich your still going to be a loser. the difference is now you'll be a loser using someone else's money

tatertodder - At 67, I suspect you would consider people who bought only AAA bonds and preferred shares with hard earned money to be relatively responsible. My question is why you blame the lowlife snookers instead of the ones who designed the system and handed over the money to those who wouldn't pay it back. Hopefully your financial guru isn't the next Bernie Madoff.

Anothergeezer-That is exactly what I'm talking about. Who made them hand them hand their money over to Bernie Madoff, nobody.They made a personal decision, because of greed , to go for the big returns he was producing. I don't no how you were raised, but up here in the backwoods of Norhern Michigan my Pa told us if something looks to good to be true, you know the rest of that quote.

Goodness, the reactionaries on their La-Z-Boys seem to have awakened with a jerk. And they're exhibiting a lot of post-nap crankiness today.

The problem with people who want free handouts is that they don't know any other way to get money except to put out their hand.

You hear that, Vikram Pandit?

They made a personal decision, because of greed , to go for the big returns he was producing.

So we should all avoid the funds with the best returns because they might be fraudulent? Yet we have to invest for our retirement since pension plans are a thing of the past - so we should, what: invest in crappy funds?

Madoff's clients were defrauded: period. Victims of fraud have right to redress. Your incoherent ejaculations about freeloaders who don't deserve nuttin' are just that.

Trex,
I know sitting on the couch watching tv all day blurs your vision, because you didn't read what i've written. I agree with you on the Madoff situation...fraud is fraud... but they shouldn't recieve taxpayer money..that's why an investment is has 'risk'...
I wish you had read my statements before puking up a response out of anger...
"doing a whole lot of nuttin' " is different than what you wrote...get it right....

btw...i'll send you a t shirt as well...

also...any response to the actual tax numbers that I stated?....i thought not

Billy

tatertodder - You're missing my point. AAA bonds and preferred shares aren't supposed to be risky. But now they are, and I may need that handout before it's all over.

And bill clinton imposter, I don't need to be told to get off my Lazy Boy. You may be in the same position someday.

I love it...they've removed my information on who actually pays taxes and on the distribution...

lovely and pathetic,

Bill

I know sitting on the couch watching tv all day blurs your vision, because you didn't read what i've written.

Well, dipshit, I was responding to "tatertodder" whose remarks I cut and pasted into my comment. Is it that you are posting under more than one handle??? I don't think I'm the one needing glasses.

Trex,

ouch...'dipshit'...that hurts...almost as bad as your hand poking me in the eye looking for more of a handout...sorry that i don't see his use of the word 'nuttin'...or anything similar, but that i used that exact word.......

now...respond to my tax numbers if you would...where is the personal accountability in the following...:

top 1% of AGI earners pay 40%...yes 40% of the total income tax while the BOTTOM 50% of AGI earners pay a whopping 2.99%....while at the same time the bottom 25% of same recieve $8 for every tax dollar...

bill

billy, perhaps if the top 1% wanted the bottom 50% to pay more taxes they would pay them more?

now...respond to my tax numbers if you would...where is the personal accountability in the following...:

Sure, I'd love to dickweed.

Firstly, historically the income tax was implemented as a tax ONLY ON THE WEALTHIEST AMERICANS:

By 1913, 36 States had ratified the 16th Amendment to the Constitution. In October, Congress passed a new income tax law with rates beginning at 1 percent and rising to 7 percent for taxpayers with income in excess of $500,000. Less than 1 percent of the population paid income tax at the time.

The income tax was never intended to tax everyone equally and is progressive for a reason. It's so the guy actually busting his ass working all day who makes a pittance has enough fucking money to live on -- while the guys spending a few months a year in sunning in France living off the labor of others and the growth in his portfolios gives back to the infrastructure and resources of this country that he has taken advantage of.

Let's hear what a famous rich guy who's NOT an oxycontin-addict has to say about this. Warren Buffet, speaking to other rich people:

“The 400 of us [here] pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter. If you’re in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent.�

Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent. Mr Buffett told his audience

Rants on "personal responsibility" that are divorced from 1) the realities of families trying to make ends meet while working multiple jobs and/or suffering from job and food insecurity, and 2) ignore not only the massive corporate welfare that takes place in the country (orders of magnitude higher than personal welfare) or the tens of billions of dollars of bailout money that has gone into the pockets of Wall Street executives and their workers -- are not to be taken seriously.

You are a loon.

bill - You cite:

Top 1% pays 40% of total income tax
Bottom 50% pays 2.99%

Power in America cites the following for distribution of financial wealth for 2001:
Top 1% owns 39.7% of total financial wealth.
Bottom 80% 8.8%

If that strikes you as unfair taxation, you can throw me into that briar patch.

trex,

get your facts straight...taxes began in 1861 by lincoln to pay for the war expenses...3% on people with income over $600/yr...

the tax on the wealthy was not begun to act as entitlements to those less fortunate...with a translation to equal handouts.

bill

Translation:

"oh...

bill"

the tax on the wealthy was not begun to act as entitlements to those less fortunate

Well according to the father of modern economics in his book Wealth of Nations, the richest members of society are in fact obligated to pay more:

The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.

Yeah, I think you're done now.

Same old borrow-and-spend of the last 30 years. Undertaxing and overspending are the same thing--borrow and spend.

The meme, the meme. Note carefully how I have modified Robert Reich's quote so that it carries rhetorical ammunition.

the budget "represents the biggest redistribution of income from the wealthy back to the middle class and poor this nation has seen in more than forty years."

Mr Day,
The GOP mantra:"Money in the pocket of small businesses creates jobs. Raising their taxes prevents this."

Horse puckey. Consumer DEMAND creates jobs. Tax rates have nothing to do with it.

You think this is true well you are dead wrong Taxes do create business. The local town here raised the tax rate on businesses and we lost 9 companies in 6 months afterwards. All they did was move just outside of the jurisdiction of the tax raise and reopened. .. Then one the other side of town they annexed and 2 out of the 6 businesses they annexed left and went into another county. So now we have 11 empty business properties that were producing revenue for the town. The businesses that were in them are all still in operation and doing good. The income revenue for the town dropped by a little over a million dollars in one year. So don't tell me raising taxes helps anything.

AntiCliche has it right.

Twenty-five years ago the government raised taxes on the middle class and working poor, in order to save money for their Social Security retirement. This huge pool of money was used to fund tax cuts for the upper class. The upper class tax cuts weren't a gift, they were a loan. They were financed by borrowing from Social Security, and that money needs to be paid back. The first step is to allow the upper class tax cuts to expire. The next is to put them in reverse, and have a temporary upper class tax surcharge. When the money borrowed from Social Security is paid back, the surcharge should be allowed to expire. This can be done with a fairly small surcharge that phases in over the next few years and then takes twenty or twenty-five years to pay back Social Security as the notes in the trust fund become due.

Even at the expense of the nation the republicans are poised to do everything possible to makes sure Obama fails. The Blue dogs will join them. Conservatism has proven to have been a complete failure and disaster, progressing the wealthy few at the expense of everyone else.

For years the profiteers have been sending tons and thousands of trucks over the roads of progress while the poor and middle class send their one or two trucks over the same road. When the road breaks down the profiteers expect to pay no more for upkeep for using up the road than the poor sending only 2trucks over the road. The billions they would be paying if the Reagan/Bush tax cuts were removed would rebuild infrastructure and keep the economy running smoothly.

"...Ask yourself a question, who is going to ultimately pay for the spending? It will be your children, their children, and their children's, children. The cost is now at around 30,000 dollars for every man, woman, and child in our nation (less interest)...."-Eugene Hoffman.

Hey Hoffy...Taking away the Reagan tax cuts on the very wealthy nets the treasury $500 billion...billion in 2yrs. Add to the $600 billion from the estate tax on the richest 400 families...wella. Now what does that do to your (republican talking point) how do we pay for it.???

btw...that 30,000 is estimated after all the money has been borrowed for 'one year'. That's like saying raising a child to age 18 costs $250,000...so unless you have $250k don't have a child 'cause you can't afford it, you can't pay for it without having $250k up front. But look at all the children born to parents without $250k who make it to 18 in comfort. Starting to see how meaningless that $30,000/each citizen to pay for it becomes. Most people pay close to that in taxes over a lifetime without problem. DUH

"...This can be done with a fairly small surcharge that phases in over the next few years and then takes twenty or twenty-five years to pay back Social Security as the notes in the trust fund become due..."-TomB

Also, TomB...we should make the wealthy pay social security withholding on earned income to the fund the same way the rest of us do. Right now, if you earn over a certain amount you don't have to pay that tax but you can still take SS at retirement or if disabled I believe. Hey, we may die and never get to use the SS we paid into so just because the wealthy 'may' not use it shouldn't exclude them from paying it...at the same rate the rest of us have to.