He isn't leveling the playing field. He's just slowing the rate at which the very rich are taking over everything.

Well, I'm in that $100k-$200k range and did Obama canvassing with lots of people who were in that range and the higher range. Granted this is not a random sample as we were a highly-motivated subsample. However, it was clear that the Obama supporters knew darn well what the tax situation would be if his policies were enacted and were cool with that.

Hey, all of us also have solid health insurance and don't have waits or problems with our local health care outlets -- being in an affluent neighborhood can do that. And yet all of us still put a high priority on getting the same kind of health care for everybody.

We Democrats are funny that way. Empathetic. In favor of a just society. You know.

Exactly, O/S/e. And isn't it funny that when any discussion of "rich" in this country appears in print, that the figure of $200,000 or $250,000 a year salary gets trotted out. That's not rich, my reporter friends, which is why they voted for Obama. Folks making $200,000 a year are just as likely to be afraid of losing more ground to the very rich as someone making $90,000 a year.

Just a guess here. Maybe a lot of people in this income group are more interested in a sustainable economy than a small marginal tax rate increase.

Only a right wing disinformation operation like the "Politico" would quote Mark Penn and say they were talking to a "Democrat."

A Mark Penn rhetorical question? How can that possibly go wrong?

aimai

Obama is not going to raise taxes on anyone. He is going to let the Bush tax cuts expire. Bush could not get 60 votes to end debate in the senate so he and his republican allies used the budget reconciliation process. If you use the budget reconciliation process, the law expires in 10 years.

If the democratic party uses the budget reconciliation process to a pass health care law, it will expire in 10 years.

why is there a sarah palin cartoon character -- holding a vibrator up to her check under a banner about an Obama 31 billion dollar higher education program -- at the top of the page?

"senator, have you no shame?"

My thought is this: a lot of poorer people vote Republican even though it's against their economic self-interest. Why? I guess the larger social problems they want dealt with are more important to them. Is there something wrong with someone voting for a pro-life candidate even if it hurts his personal well-being? If not, then why can't rich people do the same- think of society first and themselves second?

Is it just my imagination or are the 2008 losers getting an inordinate amount of attention? Mark Penn? Are you kidding me? Six months after the election and he's still trying to beat Obama.

I am in the category Penn plays games about and I will be very disappointed if Obama does NOT carry through on his campaign promises to tax the rich more and use the resources to broaden opportunity and security for all Americans. We all have a stake in a healthier society. That is what I want for my son!

Politico is playing games and not fooling anyone.

Theda Skocpol

It seems pretty clear that during the campaign a large number of people were asked if they'd be willing to pay a little more in exchange for calm, pragmatic leadership and a move toward a less stratified, more equitable society. Would they rather be paying taxes for a healthy economy and public investments instead of bullets in Iraq and torture chambers? Would they rather have a President who was respected in the world, instead of a laughing stock bully?

The questions were asked, and they said yes in November.

Silly Politico.

If "Mark Penn" is the answer, than the question must be, "Whose ignorance of election law and hubris helped tank Hillary Clinton's campaign and pave the path to victory for President Obama?"

Or perhaps, "Can you name a pig-fucking douche-nozzle?"

I smell some new loop holes for the wealthy people. Or are 52% just jazzed about letting go of more of their money?

So does this mean that 52% of the evil people support Obama? I think that would be a majority of the evil.

If Mark Penn thinks it's a problem, should we really be worrried? With his track record, I'd guess we're in pretty good shape with the rich people. Everybody who was paying the slightest bit of attention knew what Obama's plans were. I'm guessing that even the "rich" did better in the 90's when the top tax bracket was 39%.

Politico, to be blunt, has an axe to grind with Obama. They frame everything in the worst possible light. A week or so ago, they had video up of O shooting hoops with the UConn women's basketball team, and the piece was so thick with snark it was difficult to read - and it was only about 3 grafs long.

Ben Smith and his boys won't come out and say it, but they're firmly in the Limbaugh 'I hope he fails' camp if you ask me.

Is it just my imagination or are the 2008 losers getting an inordinate amount of attention?

In other words, the same people who voted for Obama and his platform might be disappointed if he keeps his promises and does what he said he'd do.

They're never seen such a beast and it terrifies them. If politicians talk directly to voters honestly -- if voters pay attention and hold politicians to the things they say -- then why do we need a priestly caste arrayed between the two, interpreting what a pol "really" means?

"The Rich" are no more monolithic than any other sizable group. As near as I can tell, there are at least two broad species of "The Rich."

1) Those people who are happy about being rich, and think it would be great if lots of other people could be, too - their kids, siblings, counsins, friends, coworkers. After all, the party at Marthas Vineyard was fun, but it was kind of bummer when half the people invited sheepishly said they couldn't afford it. These "rich" loved the Clinton economy, and would take it back in a second over the W economy. Lets call them the "psychologically adjusted rich."

2) Those people who are rich but still never happy, who see life as a zero-sum competition and who will not be satisifed until they are the rich-est or only rich person standing. They hated Clinton and his "lifting all boats" - it doesn't make me special if everyone can do it, dammit! They prefer the insider-y-ness of the W/Cheney cronyism and think Obama is a socialist. Lets call them the "psychotic sociopathic rich."

Its a fair guess, I think, that they vote and poll very differently.

I think there is some portion of the Obama vote among the upper classes, that would generally be Republican but for the social conservatism, support for the war, denial of science and demonization of other nations, etc. The upper classes in particular are going to be indignant about the anti-intellectualism and anti-rationalism of the modern right, which drove them to vote Obama against economic interest. Essentially the Republican party lost its libertarian wing to keep its populist wing.

Whether Obama keeps this wing, then, is largely a matter of whether the right relaxes its socially conservative stances, rather than anything he does. War support will naturally fade with the end of the Iraq conflict, which might send some voters away. But others would require more relaxed stances on the part of the Republicans. Relaxing these stances would anger large numbers of the socially conservative yet not-rich base who currently vote against economic interest, perhaps sending them to the Democrats instead.

So basically, yes, Obama will lose support, but it's really the Republicans who are in a catch-22 here.

Sorry, but $250,000/year puts someone in the top 2% or so of the population income. Yes. TWO percent. Whether or not someone with that income thinks of themselves as "rich" doesn't matter -- they are richer than 98% of the rest of Americans. It is that recognition that promotes my commitment to paying a bit more, so that the folks at the bottom are paying a bit less. I have enough. They do not.

Lmao A the guy who thinks 200k a year isn't rich. That's more money than you're average American makes in an entire decade. Get some perspective.

But these voters are not being repaid for their support -- more like the other way around.

Could there possibly be a crasser view of politics than this?

You children actually believe that people tell the truth to pollsters. Precious.

No one making over $100,000 a year voted for Obama. Either they're lying about what they earn or they're lying about who they voted for.

Enjoy your gullibility.

I would hope that many of the wealthy are motivated by self-interest. As I recall everyone tends to do better when a Democrat is in the Oval Office. A tax cut does little good when the price is that income will not keep pace with inflation. Even Henry Ford realized that there was little value in making a product that consumers could not afford. Fix the economy, allow the economy to grow, the rising tide lifts all boats.

Mark Penn is the moronic jerk whose ignorance and hubris saved us from president Hillary, and Politico is asking him about Obama? Whatever he says Obama should do the opposite.

And Politico gets a stupid sticker for thinking that some undefined fraction of rich people who thought Obama was kidding about the tax thing are now going to stop supporting him.

"You children actually believe that people tell the truth to pollsters. Precious.

No one making over $100,000 a year voted for Obama. Either they're lying about what they earn or they're lying about who they voted for.

Enjoy your gullibility."

The opposite of gullibility is not cynicism. Yes, I believe there are plenty of people who voted for Obama even if his presidency would cost them a bit. If I were making $500,000 a year, I'd be happy to pay a little extra taxes (back of the napkin math says it'd be about $10,000 per year) to make the world a better place. If you don't believe such a thing is possible, that says more about you than us. I guess you'd selfishly want to keep every last penny you could.

Our annual household income is comfortably north of $400,000, thanks to a combination of good fortune and hard work. Both my wife and I not only voted for Obama but donated money to his campaign, knowing full well that our taxes would likely go up.

Why? In any discussion of why we might vote against our "self interests", it's important to realize that our self interests are much broader than just minimizing the amount we send to the IRS every April. Our own "self interests" include cleaner air, mass transit, better schools, universal health care, etc. Not that we don't appreciate tax cuts - it's just that these self interests rank higher than taxes for us and we're willing to help pay for them.

My wife and I are in the over $250,000 category. We supported Obama strongly during the campaign and support him even more strongly as we experience what a great job of leadership he is performing. I believe that Obama supporters in this group support him for the greater good and not just what he might mean for their individual tax situation.

Wow! All good responses! Particularly David and Bernard HP Gilroy.

When I asked my corporate-lawyer brother-in-law four years ago WHY he was voting for Bush, he said, "taxes". I told him I thought that taxes were the price we pay for being Americans.

He voted for Obama this time (or he says he did, not that it matters because he's from Chicago!)

Basic fairness. Not wanting others who already have little to continue to needlessly suffer. The ability and desire to pitch in a little so that others may benefit. To do good even if it DOESN'T directly benefit me economically. To care about the basic humanity in others. To know that the life circumstances of each person are unique, and a great many of us humans have had to cope with unbelievable difficulty and pain in our economic, social and personal/family lives that have contributed to our current difficulties. To know that the rules heavily favor the affluent and well connected, and to want make the rules more helpful to all, even though that means that I may have less of personal economic advantage over others. To want everyone to have access to the opportunities that we have enjoyed, to competent medical care, to quality schools, to clean air and water. Yes, these cost money, but people and the planet are worth investing in. These are Democratic values. Republicans will never get it.

To do good even if it DOESN'T directly benefit me economically.

The thing is, as icing on the cake of being able to see the greater good, supporting Democrats DOES benefit us economically. Bush engineered a $600 tax rebate which didn't even cover how much my husband's and my health premiums went up that year -- and we have pretty good insurance, relatively speaking.

If you look at stagnant wages, poor education, environmental cleanup, spiraling fossil fuel costs, needless wars and numerous other nasty things that fall firmly in the Republican column, all but the very, very, very wealthiest -- not the people Politico's referring to -- suffer economically under the GOP.

The thing is, as icing on the cake of being able to see the greater good, supporting Democrats DOES benefit us economically. If you look at stagnant wages, poor education, environmental cleanup, spiraling fossil fuel costs, needless wars and numerous other nasty things that fall firmly in the Republican column, all but the very, very, very wealthiest -- not the people Politico's referring to -- suffer economically under the GOP.
Posted by: shortstop on May 6, 2009 at 11:31 AM | PERMALINK**************************************

How true. And the thing is, most progressives and Democrats I know would say that they would still strive to live out their basic values, "even IF it doesn't directly benefit me economically". The fact is, there often is a financial benefit, but that is not a prerequisite to supporting a candidate or policy position to most of us. To most wingers though, based on observed behavior, if there is no financial benefit in the next fiscal quarter and preferably beyond, then no support. Therein lies a basic and distinct difference. They use people to help themselves get money and power, we use money and power to help people.

Could it be that a fair percentage of the affluent acknowledge how well they have been treated by society and have no objection to contributing? I would surmise that a large number think as I do: the problem isn't too much government, it is incompetent government. And to fix it, you have to believe in it.

Politico's still looking through the eyes of rich republicans who are unconcerned about fairness and selfishly want all they can get for nothing.

Wealthy Obama donors tend to agree with Obama's tax proposals. So the right people are not disappointed. Try again Politico and thanks for playing.

All Obama's so-called "leveling" policies reflect the interests of one wing of organized capital. It's the same wing, represented by Gerald Swope, that supported FDR.

The Democrats are like a kindly farmer who figures he'll make more profit out of his livestock in the long run by giving them comfortable pens and good food and working them in moderation. The Republicans are like a farmer who hopes to come out ahead by working them to death and replacing them. But they both view us as their livestock.