Town Square

Post a New Topic

Anna Eshoo opposes Obama tax deal

Original post made on Dec 10, 2010

Congresswoman Anna Eshoo is not happy about a White House tax proposal, crafted with Congressional Republicans, that would, contrary to President Obama's campaign promise, extend current tax breaks for individuals who earn more than $250,000 per year.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Friday, December 10, 2010, 10:44 AM

Comments (12)

Like this comment
Posted by Peter Taylor
a resident of Shoreline West
on Dec 10, 2010 at 12:12 pm

I can't believe this opposition to President Obama! It must be racially motivated.

And to think that Anna Eshoo would deny extension of unemployment benefits at CHRISTMAS time?

Like this comment
Posted by USA
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Dec 10, 2010 at 12:34 pm

USA is a registered user.

And yet, she continues to ignore her own policies and actions in Congress that have created this situation. If she could get her spending under control, the taxation issues would go away or at least settle down to a dull roar.

Like this comment
Posted by Vince
a resident of Monta Loma
on Dec 10, 2010 at 2:31 pm

There are 3 dominant reasons for the recent rise in the deficit:
* Bush tax cuts
* 2 wars
* economic crisis

Blaming Eshoo is just dumb. Viewing everything though ideology doesn't change the facts of the real world.

Like this comment
Posted by Patient
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Dec 10, 2010 at 2:39 pm

gawd, more political bickering. Why can't we have a 10-15% flat tax for all and be done with it?

Like this comment
Posted by BrentC
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Dec 10, 2010 at 2:45 pm

Thanks for the succinct response Vince. I'm fortunate enough to fall into the $250,000+ category. Like most Americans, I don't enjoy paying taxes, but I agree with Anna Eshoo: I do not need a tax cut that further increases our huge deficit.

If a deficit boost will help get us out of this recession, let's benefit the country more directly, like fix our crumbling infrastructure.

Like this comment
Posted by Steve
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Dec 10, 2010 at 3:18 pm

Cut taxes and cut spending.

The government's role is not to provide handouts to it's citizen by taking from one group of citizens and giving it to another - that is wealth redistribution and goes against the very grain if this country's founding principles.

"A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned—this is the sum of good government.” —THOMAS JEFFERSON

To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, “to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.” —THOMAS JEFFERSON

Congresswoman Eshoo and her colleagues on both sides of the aisle are a disgrace to the republic, shame on the citizens for repeatedly voting them into office

Like this comment
Posted by riger
a resident of Monta Loma
on Dec 10, 2010 at 6:19 pm

Mrs. Eschoo needs to head home, collect her $$$$$ pension now before it increases so substantially we'll be taxed greater to pay her retirement. Don't bother writing Eshoo as you only get a general robo-reply with the same old party line which does not address the issue you write about. If she truly cared she would not have voted for all the Obama trillions in bailouts, healthcare, earmarks, union favors, etc., etc., which helped put our governments in the messes being suffered now & in the future. Those who voted for Obama, Eshoo< Pelosi--are you happy now; probably you're complaining the loudest.

Like this comment
Posted by Hardin
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Dec 10, 2010 at 8:54 pm

My initial feelings concerning Obama's tax deal were not good, but as I considered it over time, several things came to light:

1. No one likes this deal - Hardline Democrats and Republicans both have something to hate about this deal - a sure sign this is a good compromise.

2. It puts money back into the economy - The other alternative compromise would have been for the Democrats to give up the Middle Income tax cuts and unemployment support, and the Republicans to give up the Bush tax cuts. However, this option would have taken a lot of money out of the economy, and back into the federal government, not the best strategy for creating jobs.

So given the options available, I think the existing deal is one that provides some relief to most voters, while providing a needed boost to the economy, albeit at the expense of growing the deficit.

The most important thing I've noticed are the specific individual politicians who are clinging to hard line positions, like Anna Eshoo, Sarah Palin, and Ron Paul. In this era where partisan politics leaves us at a stalemate, I believe its these individuals that cause more harm than good, by placing the highest priority on ideology, at the expense of the good of the country.

I find little difference between a hardline Democrat or Republican, and that of the Taliban in their zealotry and inability to understand that people are still more important than ideals.

Like this comment
Posted by elizabeth
a resident of Shoreline West
on Dec 11, 2010 at 10:10 am

I am so tired of hearing about "tax cuts" and their extension. Tax rates have fluctuated from the time of their inception. The current rates are just that.."current". Any increase is an increase. NO one wants to pay more taxes when the government wastes money. Let's tighten the budget, stop wasting all of our hard earned money and get out of the 2 wars we are in. Our local representatives do not represent me and they do not respond in any logical or understanding way to any of my email or concerns.

Like this comment
Posted by Peter Taylor
a resident of Shoreline West
on Dec 13, 2010 at 10:18 am

BrentC - voting to keep current tax rates unchanged ISN'T a tax cut by my understanding.

Also, nobody is stopping you from writing a check to the US treasury for a little extra money, so that you can feel less guilty for making $250K. What is stopping you?

Like this comment
Posted by The Eye
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Dec 13, 2010 at 3:46 pm

Why is it that I can hear the echos of Marie Anoinette, saying:

"Let them eat cake."

I wonder how long it will take before some of our citizenry simply decide to follow France's 1789 example, and say "enough is enough"?

Like this comment
Posted by maguro_01
a resident of North Whisman
on Dec 19, 2010 at 5:52 pm

A part of the compromise that may prove unfortunate is to cut withholding temporarily as a stimulus. Doesn't this mean SS? SS is not that badly off and can stay on a more or less sound footing for many decades with a tweak here and there. As we see, cutting taxes is often not temporary at all and the Republicans want SS eliminated. It's Medicare and medical care in general that has been run up in unsustainable expense with our system.

The Republicans have been doing wealth redistribution, but upwards, for some time even using borrowed foreign money for the purpose which is dangerous. It's their constituency, but the rationalization I hear again and again is that upper income people are by definition the most productive and therefore worth more in every sense. They say that someone on unemployment - or SS for that matter - exists to turn wealth into crap but they don't say crap. That's their real view of society. The furthest right considers democracy itself to be redundant and not necessary since markets are thought sufficient. At some point it begins to sound like a spin on Feudalism without any obligations or even the "Mandate of Heaven".

The Pay To Play Washington system tempers such views but they are nevertheless how the dominant Confederate right sees the world. Our politics is scrambled partly because the center/left party is more financially conservative than the right party which has largely swept conservatives away.

It can be said that Pearl Harbor or 9/11 were possible because Americans could not imagine them. The US defaulting and spending a generation under an IMF regime of poverty, little sovereignty, and externally imposed reforms is something we can't imagine either but are risking nevertheless. It's not that many years off as the unsustainable US trade deficit continues and the US undevelops.

We read that Reagan defeated the old USSR by spending it to death and his party has turned the attack on their own country. The dominant Republican faction might actually think they would profit from that though that is not true. I think they were so hopelessly outfoxed in the economic wars because they are so primitive and made very bad bets with our future and theirs.

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Burger chain Shake Shack to open in Palo Alto
By Elena Kadvany | 5 comments | 2,629 views

Eat, Surf, Love
By Laura Stec | 3 comments | 983 views

Couples: So You Married Mom or Dad . . .
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 970 views

The Cost of Service
By Aldis Petriceks | 2 comments | 607 views