Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Showing Original Post only (View all)Krugman: Obama and the One Percent [View all]
Obama and the One Percent
Another week, another outburst by a one-percenter comparing progressive taxation to Nazi atrocities. I particularly liked the end:
<...>
You do wonder why the WSJ published this screed. Do billionaires have the right to get their views aired, regardless? Did the Journal think that it was doing a public service by letting the rest of us see the loose screws in this guys head? Or what I suspect, to be frank did the relevant editors actually think he was making a useful point?
Anyway, thinking about this sort of thing makes me realize that theres a danger, especially for progressives, of confusing the proposition that Obamas billionaire haters are stark raving mad which is true with the proposition that Obama has done nothing that hurts the plutocrats interests, which is false. Actually, Obama has been tougher on the one percent than most progressives give him credit for.
Start with taxes. The Bush tax cuts havent gone completely away, but at the very high end they have been pretty much reversed; plus there are additional high-end taxes associated with Obamacare. The result is that taxes on wealthy Americans have basically been rolled back to pre-Reagan levels:

- more -
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/26/obama-and-the-one-percent
Another week, another outburst by a one-percenter comparing progressive taxation to Nazi atrocities. I particularly liked the end:
Kristallnacht was unthinkable in 1930; is its descendent progressive radicalism unthinkable now?
<...>
You do wonder why the WSJ published this screed. Do billionaires have the right to get their views aired, regardless? Did the Journal think that it was doing a public service by letting the rest of us see the loose screws in this guys head? Or what I suspect, to be frank did the relevant editors actually think he was making a useful point?
Anyway, thinking about this sort of thing makes me realize that theres a danger, especially for progressives, of confusing the proposition that Obamas billionaire haters are stark raving mad which is true with the proposition that Obama has done nothing that hurts the plutocrats interests, which is false. Actually, Obama has been tougher on the one percent than most progressives give him credit for.
Start with taxes. The Bush tax cuts havent gone completely away, but at the very high end they have been pretty much reversed; plus there are additional high-end taxes associated with Obamacare. The result is that taxes on wealthy Americans have basically been rolled back to pre-Reagan levels:

- more -
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/26/obama-and-the-one-percent
103 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
tax rates apply to adjusted dollars. The tax loop holes greatly impact actual taxed dollars
Herself
Jan 2014
#1
Uh oh, I suspect Krugman is now going to get thrown under the bus for praising Obama.
stevenleser
Jan 2014
#3
Snarks, and boojums, come from Lewis Carroll's 'The Hunting of the Snark'
muriel_volestrangler
Jan 2014
#50
so, anyone who doesn't declare class war on the upper middle class is a fraud in your estimation nt
geek tragedy
Jan 2014
#48
I guess you could have cut a better deal by waving your Internet magic stick
geek tragedy
Jan 2014
#97
Sadly, Kraugman has become a full time cheerleader for this administration. Bummer. nt
Demo_Chris
Jan 2014
#32
Ouch! Shoot that messenger! Times are tough when Nobel-prize winning liberal economist has to
pampango
Jan 2014
#39
rule of practice: when one person argues with numbers, and the other responds
geek tragedy
Jan 2014
#47
FDR was a millionaire. It seems possible to be a millionaire and a liberal at the same time. n/t
pampango
Jan 2014
#75
So liberal economists are judged by different rules than liberal politicians. Got it.
pampango
Jan 2014
#78
No, it simply supports my contention that it would have to have roughly doubled. nt
MannyGoldstein
Jan 2014
#57