Susan Estrich Obama has no mandate to raise my taxes

If you make 300,000 in taxable income, raising the top rate from 35 to 39, for 250,000 and above,

is a tax increase of about $2000. That's the kind of numbers this 'big' debate is all about.
 
Estrich voted for Obama, but he doesn't have a mandate to raise her taxes?

What is a mandate then?

Is it, as I have pointed out, simply a meaningless term then?
 
Estrich voted for Obama, but he doesn't have a mandate to raise her taxes?

What is a mandate then?

Is it, as I have pointed out, simply a meaningless term then?

In 2008, there was no question that Obama had a mandate.

Did that somehow make Republicans support his policies
 
It seems not all liberals want their taxes raised..


susanestrich.jpg


I did not vote for Obama because I think I am paying too little in taxes.
Like many people I know, I am "rich" by Obama's standards. I pay more taxes, percentage wise, than Mitt Romney and Warren Buffett, because I earn virtually every penny of my income.

I work. And yes, all those deductions that allow the truly rich to not work, or at least to not work all the jobs I do, make me angry.

I am all for closing loopholes. I am all for ending deductions for things I don't even understand. But I am not for putting a low cap on deductions that would make it all but impossible for the charities I support to raise funds. I am not for putting a limit on the mortgage deduction that would mean, as a practical matter, that "middle class" (not rich) people in California would be priced out of the housing market, and the charities I support would not be able to raise what they need to survive.

And frankly, I don't think I'm alone. As a matter of fact, on this one, I don't think 51 percent of all Americans are to my "left" — if that's how you define the higher tax constituency.

Obama needs to be very careful. Yes, he was re-elected. But so were all those folks who blocked the extension of the Bush tax cuts if they excluded individuals and small businesses who make enough money to qualify as rich — but not enough to send their kids to college, or help their aging parents, or buy a home in a decent neighborhood.

We need to avoid going over the fiscal cliff. But Obama must also avoid the political cliff.
One of the amazing things about this country is that the middle class doesn't hate the rich. We are not a society divided by economic castes. Yes, there are real issues as the gap between the top and the middle, between CEOs and those in good but not great jobs, grows. But beginning a new term with what will look to many like a class war is not the way to fulfill the real mandate of this election, which is to bring us together, not turn us against each other.

(Susan Estrich is a professor of Law and Political Science at the University of Southern California Law Center. A best-selling author, lawyer and politician, as well as a teacher, she first gained national prominence as national campaign manager for Dukakis for President in 1988.)

Susan Estrich - I'm 'rich' & Obama has no mandate to raise my taxes
This is going to be a laughable 4 years at least for me. I'm going to sit back and watch all the dumb ass that voted for obama, while obama fails to deliever them to the land of hopey changey and continue to blame bush trying to defend obama
 
It seems not all liberals want their taxes raised..


susanestrich.jpg


I did not vote for Obama because I think I am paying too little in taxes.
Like many people I know, I am "rich" by Obama's standards. I pay more taxes, percentage wise, than Mitt Romney and Warren Buffett, because I earn virtually every penny of my income.

I work. And yes, all those deductions that allow the truly rich to not work, or at least to not work all the jobs I do, make me angry.

I am all for closing loopholes. I am all for ending deductions for things I don't even understand. But I am not for putting a low cap on deductions that would make it all but impossible for the charities I support to raise funds. I am not for putting a limit on the mortgage deduction that would mean, as a practical matter, that "middle class" (not rich) people in California would be priced out of the housing market, and the charities I support would not be able to raise what they need to survive.

And frankly, I don't think I'm alone. As a matter of fact, on this one, I don't think 51 percent of all Americans are to my "left" — if that's how you define the higher tax constituency.

Obama needs to be very careful. Yes, he was re-elected. But so were all those folks who blocked the extension of the Bush tax cuts if they excluded individuals and small businesses who make enough money to qualify as rich — but not enough to send their kids to college, or help their aging parents, or buy a home in a decent neighborhood.

We need to avoid going over the fiscal cliff. But Obama must also avoid the political cliff.
One of the amazing things about this country is that the middle class doesn't hate the rich. We are not a society divided by economic castes. Yes, there are real issues as the gap between the top and the middle, between CEOs and those in good but not great jobs, grows. But beginning a new term with what will look to many like a class war is not the way to fulfill the real mandate of this election, which is to bring us together, not turn us against each other.

(Susan Estrich is a professor of Law and Political Science at the University of Southern California Law Center. A best-selling author, lawyer and politician, as well as a teacher, she first gained national prominence as national campaign manager for Dukakis for President in 1988.)

Susan Estrich - I'm 'rich' & Obama has no mandate to raise my taxes
This is going to be a laughable 4 years at least for me. I'm going to sit back and watch all the dumb ass that voted for obama, while obama fails to deliever them to the land of hopey changey and continue to blame bush trying to defend obama


No, what is funny is watching you right wing whack jobs fighting for the right to suck the cock of real real rich people. You think they will give you a raise if you "do" them right?
 
It seems not all liberals want their taxes raised..


susanestrich.jpg


I did not vote for Obama because I think I am paying too little in taxes.
Like many people I know, I am "rich" by Obama's standards. I pay more taxes, percentage wise, than Mitt Romney and Warren Buffett, because I earn virtually every penny of my income.

I work. And yes, all those deductions that allow the truly rich to not work, or at least to not work all the jobs I do, make me angry.

I am all for closing loopholes. I am all for ending deductions for things I don't even understand. But I am not for putting a low cap on deductions that would make it all but impossible for the charities I support to raise funds. I am not for putting a limit on the mortgage deduction that would mean, as a practical matter, that "middle class" (not rich) people in California would be priced out of the housing market, and the charities I support would not be able to raise what they need to survive.

And frankly, I don't think I'm alone. As a matter of fact, on this one, I don't think 51 percent of all Americans are to my "left" — if that's how you define the higher tax constituency.

Obama needs to be very careful. Yes, he was re-elected. But so were all those folks who blocked the extension of the Bush tax cuts if they excluded individuals and small businesses who make enough money to qualify as rich — but not enough to send their kids to college, or help their aging parents, or buy a home in a decent neighborhood.

We need to avoid going over the fiscal cliff. But Obama must also avoid the political cliff.
One of the amazing things about this country is that the middle class doesn't hate the rich. We are not a society divided by economic castes. Yes, there are real issues as the gap between the top and the middle, between CEOs and those in good but not great jobs, grows. But beginning a new term with what will look to many like a class war is not the way to fulfill the real mandate of this election, which is to bring us together, not turn us against each other.

(Susan Estrich is a professor of Law and Political Science at the University of Southern California Law Center. A best-selling author, lawyer and politician, as well as a teacher, she first gained national prominence as national campaign manager for Dukakis for President in 1988.)

Susan Estrich - I'm 'rich' & Obama has no mandate to raise my taxes
This is going to be a laughable 4 years at least for me. I'm going to sit back and watch all the dumb ass that voted for obama, while obama fails to deliever them to the land of hopey changey and continue to blame bush trying to defend obama

What is going to be funny is watch all the repulicans sell out the rich fucks who put them in office

"Bend over Grover"
 
Last edited:
Gallup - October - 55 to 39 in favor of raising taxes on rich.

CBS - September - 62 to 30 in favor of raising taxes on rich.

Wash. Post - July - 65 to 33 in favor of raising taxes on rich.

Nat Journal poll - October - 55 to 36 in favor of raising taxes on rich.

PollingReport.com

Really? Whats rich?

Whatever you want to say is rich. The above numbers include the richest Americans.

How was the question asked? Did they just use "the rich" as a general statment or did they define it? did they get a cross section of people or just lower income people? without that info your polls are meaningless
 
If you make 300,000 in taxable income, raising the top rate from 35 to 39, for 250,000 and above,

is a tax increase of about $2000. That's the kind of numbers this 'big' debate is all about.

4% of 300,000 is 2,000?

You might want to double check your math
 
Last edited:
Progressive buyers remorse begins when the useful idiots first feel the effects of outliving their usefulness.

Think of the Progressives who supported Stalin, Mao, Hitler and Fidel. How did that work out for them?
 
Progressive buyers remorse begins when the useful idiots first feel the effects of outliving their usefulness.

Think of the Progressives who supported Stalin, Mao, Hitler and Fidel. How did that work out for them?

There are lots of new taxes coming with Obamacare, these higher gas prices are in effect a tax on everyone. The pain of a second Obama term will be felt by everyone "buyers remorse" indeed.
 
I can't wait for taxes to go up. Because anyone who believes middle class folks won't get hit too is living in la la land. Then layer in what's gonna happen to healthcare costs and God knows what else and lots of Barry voters will have to deal with the new reality.

Because elections do have consequences.
 
If you make 300,000 in taxable income, raising the top rate from 35 to 39, for 250,000 and above,

is a tax increase of about $2000. That's the kind of numbers this 'big' debate is all about.

4% of 300,000 is 2,000?

You might want to double check your math

Why do conservatives have such a problem with the tax code?

You pay the same tax rate on the first $250,000 you make. The 4% only kicks in on money made above $250,000
 
If you make 300,000 in taxable income, raising the top rate from 35 to 39, for 250,000 and above,

is a tax increase of about $2000. That's the kind of numbers this 'big' debate is all about.

4% of 300,000 is 2,000?

You might want to double check your math

Why do conservatives have such a problem with the tax code?

You pay the same tax rate on the first $250,000 you make. The 4% only kicks in on money made above $250,000

Really? the deals done? If you pay 35% you pay 35% on the $250,000, if it is raised to 39% you pay 39% on the whole $250,000 minus deductions of course. There are not two tax rates for the same person idiot. Where did you get that idea?
 
If you make 300,000 in taxable income, raising the top rate from 35 to 39, for 250,000 and above,

is a tax increase of about $2000. That's the kind of numbers this 'big' debate is all about.

4% of 300,000 is 2,000?

You might want to double check your math

The bracket starts at 250,000. 300,000 - 250,000 = 50,000.

The tax on 50,000 at 35% is $17500. The tax on 50,000 at 39% is $19500.

The difference is $2000.

This is the problem with this tax debate. Half the people arguing about it have no idea what the numbers are.
 
I think not hater

Then you tell us how you want to define 'rich'.

It’s not up the federal government to decide how much people are allowed to make before they are punish for it. A flat tax would really be the only fair way to go, all these stupid crony deals for this group or that group are just that, special deals to buy votes

Do you want me to repeat the question?
 
If you make 300,000 in taxable income, raising the top rate from 35 to 39, for 250,000 and above,

is a tax increase of about $2000. That's the kind of numbers this 'big' debate is all about.

4% of 300,000 is 2,000?

You might want to double check your math

The bracket starts at 250,000. 300,000 - 250,000 = 50,000.

The tax on 50,000 at 35% is $17500. The tax on 50,000 at 39% is $19500.

The difference is $2000.

This is the problem with this tax debate. Half the people arguing about it have no idea what the numbers are.


:rolleyes:
right so, why is it the dems and the media told us for 8 years that the bush tax cuts were for the rich, yet now if they all expire its Armageddon?

and, why didn't they trash him for signing on to an extension in 2010?
 
4% of 300,000 is 2,000?

You might want to double check your math

Why do conservatives have such a problem with the tax code?

You pay the same tax rate on the first $250,000 you make. The 4% only kicks in on money made above $250,000

Really? the deals done? If you pay 35% you pay 35% on the $250,000, if it is raised to 39% you pay 39% on the whole $250,000 minus deductions of course. There are not two tax rates for the same person idiot. Where did you get that idea?

That is absolutely wrong. You need to read up on tax brackets.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top