"Job Killing" Taxes On the Wealthy? Tell It To Bill Clinton

Like Ezra Klein, I have taken to watching White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs' daily briefings. Before I wondered if his style really worked in that slot (Gibbs was very very good during the campaign.) I must admit he is really coming into his own now. Anyway, Ezra spotted this exchange:

Q On jobs, which is the big complaint up on Capitol Hill right now from Republicans, that this plan is a job killer, I mean, the $787 billion plan was all about jobs more than anything else, and now you've got a plan in place that -- how can you possibly tax people making over $250,000 something like $667 billion over the next 10 years and not have a downward effect on jobs?

MR. GIBBS: Well, Chip, how did it work in 1994 and 1995 and 1996 and 1997?

Great answer. And a great corollary would be how did cutting taxes during the Bush years work out for the economy? Yes, Bill Clinton did some good things. Glad to see Gibbs is not afraid to say so.

Speaking for me only

< Declaring "Victory" On "Residual Forces" | Bachelor Takes the Low Road Monday >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Excellent answer (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by andgarden on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 06:30:39 PM EST
    I got out of the habit of watching these long ago. I foundScott McClellan grating to watch.

    He's definitely improved (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 11:17:34 PM EST
    I still find him oily and often patronizing, but he's not as mealy-mouthed.  As BTD says, he's gaining confidence.

    Geez, you better have confidence if you're even going to try to defend the size and scope of that budget.


    More importantly he is a graduate of (none / 0) (#47)
    by BernieO on Sat Feb 28, 2009 at 07:28:24 AM EST
    NC State. GO WOLFPACK!!

    never mind Scott (none / 0) (#30)
    by themomcat on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 11:07:40 PM EST
    Ari. Ugh!

    Ari? (none / 0) (#41)
    by Radiowalla on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 11:40:00 PM EST
    You mean Mr. P*nis Head?  

    Ah, those were the days...


    The rest is good too (5.00 / 8) (#2)
    by Steve M on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 06:33:15 PM EST
    I liked the ending:

    ...I guess if I follow the logic of the Republicans on Capitol Hill, how do you explain last month's unemployment figures? Current tax rates, 550,000 jobs -- what happened?

    Q This is a unique moment. (Laughter.)

    MR. GIBBS: Apparently, it always is.

    I was having an argument with a conservative colleague today, who was upset that Obama wants to make a cut in the mortgage interest deduction for high-earners.  Apparently raising any tax at all is the end of the world.

    "But haven't I heard you admit that the mortgage deduction is bad policy and should be eliminated altogether?" I said.  "That it artificially subsidizes homeownership way beyond natural levels and that's a bad thing?"

    "Right, right," he replied, "but now is not the time!"

    There's something to what he says, of course.  But the problem is, when the time IS right, there never seems to be the political will to do the right thing.  Look at the 2000 election, where we could have made a fiscally responsible choice and continued working on the national debt.  No, no, said the electorate (well, roughly half of it), we'd rather just have a tax cut!

    Somewhere along the line they suddenly acquired the ability to worry about the debt we're leaving for the next generation.  Well, I'm touched by their concern, but unfortunately we're no longer in a good position to fix the problem right now.  Maybe they should have been more sensible back when they were.

    I had the same discussion about mortgage interest (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by imhotep on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 06:40:45 PM EST
    deduction with a right-wing relative who is hysterical because there may be some help for the jobless who are in foreclosure.

    The right haves will take as much as they can get, but don't give the have-nots anything.


    Because (none / 0) (#23)
    by cal1942 on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 10:47:43 PM EST
    it interferes with their plans to take from the have-nots.

    They don't even think it (none / 0) (#35)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 11:21:39 PM EST
    through enough for that.  It's even simpler, it's "I've got mine, Jack."

    Stephen Moore, the insane right-winger WSJ "reporter" who's just co-authored a book with Laffer about how taxes, especially on the wealthy, are destroying the country, was on Fox tonight fuming about this tonight and inadvertently spoke the truth.

    He said, "This country used to be the survival of the fittest, and now it's the survival of the unifittest!"


    I always thought (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by BernieO on Sat Feb 28, 2009 at 07:45:44 AM EST
    "Laffer" was the appropriate name.

    I think the reason so many on the right object to helping the have-nots is that they firmly believe people are poor because they chose to be. These people view themselves as inherently superior, self-made people. They don't need to think consciously about it, because this is a deeply ingrained, rarely-challenged part of their worldview.

    I think that life stories like Obama's (not-quite-honest) "I had a really hard childhood, but am now president" serves to reaffirm their belief that people who are struggling have only themselves to blame. I know people like this who like to point to these kinds exceptions as proof that "anyone can succeed if they want to". Of course they don't want to deal with the fact that so many children did not get a shot at even a basic education. They did not have highly educated parents and grandparents who ensured they get a high quality education the way Obama did. In that way, he had a pretty privileged childhood. To me growing up in a family that prizes education is a bigger privilege than growing up wealthy. Being abandoned by your father is definitely a problem, but Obama had a lot of advantages growing up compared to so many children in our society.

    This is not to say that these kind of up-by-your-bootstraps stories don't inspire others to succeed, but there is a definite downside to them, too.


    There's a word for it (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Feb 28, 2009 at 10:25:44 AM EST
    "Social Darwinism."  They'll deny vehemently that they subscribe to it, but once in a while, like with Moore, it slips out completely unadorned.

    But anyone can suceed... (none / 0) (#69)
    by kdog on Sun Mar 01, 2009 at 10:39:40 AM EST
    through hard work and luck.  The right-wing argument you're talking about always leaves out the luck part...being born rich is dumb luck, being born to a solid family is dumb luck.

    On the flip, the typical left-wing argument...that we're all victims of circumstance, powerless to help ourselves...that leaves out the hard work and personal responsibility part.

    We all gotta play the hand we are dealt to the best of our ability....then hope to get lucky.  Trying to rig or fix the game of life...either with the reverse Robin Hood protection racket for the rich and powerful we have now, or the socially engineered workers paradise...I wonder if both cause more problems than they solve.  


    Not Really (none / 0) (#78)
    by cal1942 on Sun Mar 01, 2009 at 07:04:54 PM EST
    the typical left-wing argument...that we're all victims of circumstance, powerless to help ourselves...

    That's not a left argument.  It's what you've been told is a left argument.


    Actually (none / 0) (#77)
    by cal1942 on Sun Mar 01, 2009 at 07:01:37 PM EST
    He said, "This country used to be the survival of the fittest

    He's completely wrong.

    Stephen Moore is a prime example of the unfit. It's unfortunate that people like him have a public platform.


    Chump change (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by lentinel on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 07:03:21 PM EST
    "667 billion over the next 10 years..."

    Thats 66.7 billion a year.

    "... the war (in Iraq) will cost approximately $12 billion a month, ..., Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph E. Stiglitz and co-author Linda J. Bilmes report in a new book.

    A drop in the bucket.
    Where's the rest going to come from?

    The perfect response! (5.00 / 7) (#5)
    by oldpro on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 07:45:24 PM EST
    Remember the endless dire warnings and predictions of doom to the country from Republicans when Clinton raised taxes?

    They were wrong.  In spades.  And Democrats and the White House should shove it down their throats every time they bring up spending and taxes.

    Howard Dean was right about at least one thing:  "You can't trust Republicans with your money!"

    Right.  Debt piled on debt, theft and corruption and now it's up to the Democrats to pay the damn bills the Republicans ran up by charging everything they didn't privatize, including two ongoing wars.

    Clinton paid off Reagan and Bush I's debts and now Obama has to pay of Bush II's and more.  Wouldn't you think people would get damn sick and tired of this?  I know I am.

    There was only (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by cal1942 on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 11:09:26 PM EST
    one year of total budget surplus during the Clinton Administration.

    But that was incredible by any standard over the last few decades.


    And Gore proposed (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by BernieO on Sat Feb 28, 2009 at 07:52:00 AM EST
    using the surplus to pay down the debt in order to meet the coming expenses of the retirement of the baby boomers. Bush decided to give the money back (to the rich) leaving future presidents to deal with this problem. Of course that was not enough for him, he did a lot more so that the economy has had a disastrous meltdown.

    Did you see the interview with Laura Bush saying she had to borrow a kitchen table from a friend and borrow chairs from the Secret Service next door for a dinner party?  It sounded like she was complaining about being hard up just because she hadn't gotten around to buying new furniture.
    How stupid is that when so many are suffering because of her husband's incompetence?


    Can you imagine the courage (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by hairspray on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 07:59:51 PM EST
    it took for WJC to do this in the face of all of the GOP caterwalling? Recall that the GOP was still in its heyday in 1993.  In fact Clinton had to apologize to several women who lost their seats the following year (1 in Utah and 1 in PA as I recall) for asking them to jump over the cliff with him on this.  Yep, a real lion heart he was.

    Maria Cantwell...then, (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by oldpro on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 08:25:07 PM EST
    a congresswoman, now our US Senator.  We got mad AND we got even!

    And from Pennsylvania (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by andgarden on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 08:28:51 PM EST
    So glad to hear she came back. (none / 0) (#18)
    by hairspray on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 10:33:08 PM EST
    It was heartbreaking to lose those seats to new and young progressive women.  In the end it was the right thing to do but it came with a price and I was glad to see that Bill understood their sacrifice.

    Would be nice to see her (none / 0) (#43)
    by Radiowalla on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 11:46:58 PM EST
    in the Obama administration.

    It was priceless in so (none / 0) (#45)
    by oldpro on Sat Feb 28, 2009 at 12:04:25 AM EST
    many ways...

    Maria lost her House seat, went to work for Real Networks, became a millionairess and spent her own money to beat Republican (millionaire) Senator Slade Gorton.  Yes!  My kinda Democrat.

    The irony was that Senator Gorton was one Republican who voted against removing Bill Clinton from office in the impeachment trial.


    Lost her money in the tech bust and had (none / 0) (#63)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sat Feb 28, 2009 at 10:05:52 AM EST
    to ask her constituents to help her pay off her campaign debt.

    She had my support as a Rep, but this tour as a Senator, I'm afraid, is not as impressive to me.

    She's extremely smart, and can speak to crowds without a script or teleprompter while delivering a clear and intelligent speech. Great skill for a pol.


    Yes...rich or poor, Maria is still (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by oldpro on Sat Feb 28, 2009 at 01:20:30 PM EST
    the same person.  A damn fine one.

    Does she still 'live with her Mom in the other Washington,' I wonder?

    It's interesting...she's not a publicity hound, not a scene-stealer...in fact, for a pol, she's somewhat shy as a person...but not on policy!  A very sharp mind when she's questioning committee witnesses.


    ::chuckle:: (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by andgarden on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 10:55:38 PM EST
    Get it straight: he smuggled the cocaine into Mena airport. Haven't you watched your Clinton Chronicles recently?

    A little more Budget love? (none / 0) (#9)
    by samtaylor2 on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 08:42:25 PM EST
    It seems like the reaction from the left has not been as loud as the right to Obama's budget.  It seems great.  Is this because they are just really shrill or it is that we just have been quite?

    Dont like how the debate is unfolding (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by ai002h on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 09:27:07 PM EST
    on the cable channels. On one hand, notable economists from the left such as Krugman and Reich have written pieces hailing the budget and saying how, if passed, it would undo the past 40 years of Conservative, trickle down, income inequality causing economics. Furthermore, the NY Times had a great piece yesterday about how this was undoing 30 years of Reaganomics.

    However, on CNN and MSNBC pre-7 PM, there has been a lot more talk about "Tax Increase", "Budget Deficit", and "Class Warfare". Especially on CNN, which was railing on the budget all of Thursday evening on Andersoon Cooper. I personally have a theory that while Fox isn't directly relevant because their viewers are almost all wingnuts, they are, unfortunately, indirectly relevant as to the extent they control the debate in the echo chamber it shares with the rest of the MSM. Since they are far more aggressive in pushing their story lines than any other network, they do a good job in creating narratives that the other channels jump on. We saw it all throughout the campaign, we saw it with the stimulus, and we're seeing it now.


    It is hard to tell what is reall discussion (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by samtaylor2 on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 10:05:44 PM EST
    And what is just loud echo chamber opinions that don't have traction.  

    Oh No! Not class war fare!!! (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by hairspray on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 10:45:58 PM EST
    Consider how the wealth of this country has trickled upover the last 25 years I should think it about time we had some class war fare.

    You're right, but (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 11:27:19 PM EST
    to be "fair," the narrative of Obama's budget puts the country back on the right track ain't nowhere near as sexy as taxpayers rioting in the streets.  (Even if it's only one or two.)

    The news channels are interested only in eyeballs and advertising rates, and could't care less about anything other than what sells.

    Ted Turner is gone, guys.

    Aaron Brown resisted this crap and lost his job.  Anderson Cooper will do whatever he's told to do.


    Well, (none / 0) (#10)
    by bocajeff on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 08:49:12 PM EST
    Maybe or maybe not. The economic expansion in the 1990's actually started before any of Clinton's tax policies took hold. Also, a small recession (if it didn't effect you) was at the end of Clinton's term.

    There were also other factors at play as well: Peace Dividend, Tech Boom, Dot Com bubble, cheap labor (i.e. outsourcing) becoming more prominent as the fall of the Eastern Bloc, etc...

    In other words, the Clinton tax hikes may or may not have been the primary factor in everything that happened. Not to mention deficit reduction instead of expansion.

    I'm not saying that Clinton was bad or good, just saying that causation and correlation are different animals.

    I sure hope Obama is correct. If not, we are...

    Sure (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by Steve M on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 08:58:50 PM EST
    but if it's utterly unprovable either way, maybe people should shut up about "killing jobs" BS?

    I agree (none / 0) (#16)
    by bocajeff on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 09:49:39 PM EST
    Except if it's unprovable then you can't quote it as being a success either...

    Such as there is a law of unintended consequence there is a the law of blind luck...


    Seems to me (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by Steve M on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 10:38:11 PM EST
    that it is the Republicans who argue there is a certain link between raising taxes and "killing jobs," not the Democrats who argue there is a certain link between raising taxes and a booming economy, but I could be wrong.

    Explain (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by cal1942 on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 10:58:52 PM EST
    to all of us the more than double increase in the standard of living in the 3 decades following World War II when federal tax rates were FAR higher than they are today.

    Any other factors don't really count according to conservatives.  Their constant is that taxes always kill.

    The overwhelming evidence destroys that claim.


    Except that for decades (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 11:28:57 PM EST
    the economy and living standards have improved under Democratic presidents and declined under Republican ones.  You can't prove Clinton, but you sure can prove basic Dem. approach over Republican.

    Ha! (none / 0) (#58)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 28, 2009 at 08:28:48 AM EST
    I see you (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by eric on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 10:57:35 PM EST
    kept the talking points from 2001. Good work.

    Simplistic thinking (none / 0) (#32)
    by bocajeff on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 11:09:38 PM EST
    says that one way is right and the other is wrong. That's also a political mode of thinking.

    However, the real world means that one must understand that there are forces at work that we don't fully understand and that there are other forces at work that we are hoping we are right about.

    I don't think most people would complain about higher taxes if there lives would get much better nor would they care if taxes were eliminated if their lives got much better. I don't care which way works as long as it does work!


    How much better (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 11:31:48 PM EST
    do you want the lives of the top 2 percent of income in this country to get, hmmm?

    Ha! (none / 0) (#57)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 28, 2009 at 08:27:39 AM EST
    He may have had some economic (none / 0) (#21)
    by hairspray on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 10:41:11 PM EST
    wind at his back, but it can't all be explained that way.  After all the biggest bang was the cut in interest to the debt and the military cuts.  The fact that money was freed from debt servicing increased money for investment which fueled the capital for the tech boom.  System thinking explains most of these things as interconnected. Switch one pawn on the board and a whole lot of other things shift. And the peace dividend?  What was that?  

    interconnectivity (none / 0) (#29)
    by bocajeff on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 11:07:03 PM EST
    is the biggest unknown. The Clinton years were very well managed but most will say that the boom in the tech sector was the biggest ingredient as the amount of investments was enormous. Now, to say that without Clinton raising taxes the internet wouldn't have occurred is rather dubious. Also, by outsourcing jobs and a more automated workplace made worker productivity much higher without increasing wages which allowed for greater economic growth without inflationary pressures which allowed interest rates to lower.

    I can't understand the thought that raising taxes alone increases economic output.

    The peace dividend was the amount of capital available once spending on defense could be lowered due to the collapse of the Soviet Union.


    Nobody's suggesting that (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 11:30:31 PM EST
    here or anywhere else.  What they are saying is that raising taxes doesn't kill jobs or the economy.  Provable fact.  Nor does raising the minimum wage, which is another favorite lie of the right wing.

    Man (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by Steve M on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 11:59:08 PM EST
    Do you not get it?  No one raises taxes to stimulate the economy! Taxes are for revenue.

    Ha! (none / 0) (#56)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 28, 2009 at 08:27:29 AM EST
    great answer (none / 0) (#12)
    by dualdiagnosis on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 09:07:36 PM EST
    The late Nineties were a big tech bubble that popped.

    Ridiculous (none / 0) (#55)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 28, 2009 at 08:27:11 AM EST
    lol (none / 0) (#13)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 09:15:15 PM EST
    what morons. nice to see it thrown right back in their face.

    The idiot's reply was even funnier (none / 0) (#15)
    by ai002h on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 09:29:06 PM EST
    He smiled and said something like "who knows...maybe it would have even been better in the 90s". Pathetic.

    And Bu-bu-but... (none / 0) (#42)
    by Radiowalla on Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 11:44:24 PM EST


    Gotta lie down now.

    Every President (none / 0) (#46)
    by NYShooter on Sat Feb 28, 2009 at 01:05:03 AM EST
    Upon entering office, obviously has to deal with forces in play that are held over from the prior administration. This whole nonsense about this, or that, happened on so and so's "watch," therefore they "own it" is just so much sound bite bull crap.

    Everyone has their own theories about Bill Clinton's term as President. About the only thing we know for certain is that a snapshot of his last day in office would show that the country, at that moment, was substantially better off than a snapshot of his first day would show. Now, how much of that success should be credited directly to actions Clinton took is how he should be judged. Similarly, some of the bad things that occurred in GWB's term found their genesis during Clinton's term.

    And therein lies the problem; we like to argue our positions by pointing at snapshots. The Republicans have mastered that technique; it constitutes their  entire "philosophy. But the Democrats aren't far behind.

    Yes, Clinton had the wind of the tech-boom at his back. But, Washington, Lincoln, and Roosevelt had great wars. Would they have been "Great Presidents" sans the wars? Who knows.

    Many people like to point out that GWB inherited trade policies (Nafta, for example)that haven't worked out so great for some workers. But, since a President only gets, at most, eight years, who know what changes Clinton might have made as those policies worked themselves out.

    My point is, we don't live in a snapshot world. Things are fluid, and always in motion. The way to judge Bill Clinton, or any President, is: Did the actions he took while in office contribute, or detract, to what the "snapshot" of his last day would have been had a generic, "average" President ruled instead?

    GWB inheirted trade polciies? (none / 0) (#54)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 28, 2009 at 08:26:25 AM EST
    Wait up? Are you saying George Bush would have been against NAFTA?

    Of course, your beliuf that NAFTA was bad is simply absurd, it is the mindless populism that i abhor.


    I don't mind criticism (none / 0) (#67)
    by NYShooter on Sat Feb 28, 2009 at 04:53:59 PM EST
    For something I said....., If I said it. Please read before going into your karate stance.

    How did you jump from, GWB inheriting NAFTA, to, me stating he would have been against it? Of course Bush wasn't against it, but since Clinton was no longer in office, he wasn't in a position to change, negotiate, or improve any of the provisions as they worked themselves out.

    And: "Of course, your beliuf that NAFTA was bad is simply absurd, it is the mindless populism that i abhor."

    ......unless you're mistakenly commenting to someone other than me, that statement is unworthy of a reply.


    The implication was clear (none / 0) (#70)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 01, 2009 at 10:44:14 AM EST
    "inherited" in the political realm means something you might not have done.

    Please stop the game playing and you are wrong on NAFTA period.

    Call it a "karate stance" of you want, I call it pointing out falsehoods.


    Its just too sad (none / 0) (#74)
    by NYShooter on Sun Mar 01, 2009 at 03:20:43 PM EST
    That having completely miscomprehended, and then misrepresented, what I wrote, you haven't felt the need of common courtesy in re-evaluating your criticism.

    Every President "inherits" everything from the prior President on Day 1 of his new administration. That is just a fact; there's no implication there.

    NAFTA, and trade in general, was, and is, inevitable. Clinton was right in signing it, and I supported him 100%. As in all agreements of this kind, some people benefitted, and some, temporally, were hurt.

    Now, trade agreements are not written in stone. Once implemented, the signing parties continue discussions, and where adjustments need to made, they are made. My point was that some people, long after Clinton left office, isolate some of the dislocations in the agreement, and blame Clinton and the pact for those things. Bill Clinton only started the ball rolling, and wasn't there to try and fix some of the things that may have been open to fixing.

    Once again, my only point was that some critics pick out only the items that hurt some people, and then Blame Clinton for a "bad agreement" And that is simple bull crap.

    Nothing more, nothing less. I respect that it's your blog, but you don't own my thoughts, words, or meaning.

    I'm sorry you feel the way you do.


    Speaking of Krugman, I see that he (none / 0) (#51)
    by Green26 on Sat Feb 28, 2009 at 07:55:59 AM EST
    expects middle class tax increases in the future.

    From his latest column in the NY Times:

    "And even if fundamental health care reform brings costs under control, I at least find it hard to see how the federal government can meet its long-term obligations without some tax increases on the middle class. Whatever politicians may say now, there's probably a value-added tax in our future."

    Unless we have not been paying attention (none / 0) (#52)
    by azdude on Sat Feb 28, 2009 at 08:09:36 AM EST
    since 1991
         --- property and sales taxes have increased almost everywhere... and state income taxes have increased as well

    that is one difference from 1991.

    also--- don't forget that after 1993, the Republicans controlled Congress and actually put the appropriations bills together for Clinton to sign...

    so, to be fair--- a Republican Congress with a Democrat President got a balanced budget...
                                              one big vote for divided government
    that little separation of powers thing does help...

    Spendign cuts led to job creation? (none / 0) (#53)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 28, 2009 at 08:24:15 AM EST

    Let's use our heads people.


    You need to look deeper BTD (none / 0) (#60)
    by Slado on Sat Feb 28, 2009 at 09:59:07 AM EST
    1. mixed party presidency and house as feelow poster points out
    2. Tech boom
    3. Expansions of productivity due to advancements in IT (computer)

    All those things allowed Clinton to ride the boom and raise taxes balancing the budget.  However he also reformed welfare and passed NAFTA.

    Obama doesn't have a new tech or property boom, no expansion in productiviy and a much higher deficit.

    Raising taxes will repress growth.   Simple as that


    I expect you to believe (none / 0) (#64)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 28, 2009 at 10:06:27 AM EST
    these silly GOP bromides. I epect better from others.

    No facts (none / 0) (#71)
    by Slado on Sun Mar 01, 2009 at 01:28:01 PM EST
    just name calling.

    Obama is going to spend us into a 5 year recession.

    Enjoy the ride.


    Simple being the operative word (none / 0) (#76)
    by jondee on Sun Mar 01, 2009 at 04:29:41 PM EST
    here, perusual.

    Example of Obama policies (none / 0) (#61)
    by Slado on Sat Feb 28, 2009 at 10:03:58 AM EST
    CA in shambles

    Say no more.

    Ha! (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 28, 2009 at 10:05:40 AM EST
    Obama did all that in 37 days?

    How absurd.


    CA is a perfect (none / 0) (#72)
    by Slado on Sun Mar 01, 2009 at 01:31:33 PM EST
    example of big spending gone bad.

    Obama is rasing spending and taxes.  he is not addressing medicaid, Social Security, continuing the war in IRaq and Afghanistan, passing stimulus bills, spending bills, bailouts and now he's going to takle climate change and healthcare.

    Did I miss anything?   How's he going to do all this during a recession he inherited?  The only way is he's going to pile up the debt and "hope" it goes away though high taxes on growth.

    I'm afraid the economy will stall, the debt will rise and he'll have to print money to pay the bills because he'll be out of options.  That will lead to inflation and well see Jimmy Carter and California... the rest is predictable.

    Let's hope I'm wrong.


    Hard to turn off the r.w (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by jondee on Sun Mar 01, 2009 at 03:25:32 PM EST
    talk radio speak once you get started, but at the bare minimum you should keep in mind that most here know the difference between raising SOME taxes and "raising taxes"; know the difference between increasing spending in SOME areas -- while decreasing it in others -- and "increasing spending".

    Gotta give ya credit though Slado, "tax and spend,Jimmy Carter etc": obviously theres no danger of you ever deviating from the script and going off message once it's come down from Rush, Hannity & Co.


    It's easy to keep (none / 0) (#79)
    by Slado on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 09:44:44 AM EST
    it simple when democrats keep trying the same tired ideas again and again.

    Obama's only skill is calling cap and trade anything other then a middle class tax hike.  

    Same song different verse.

    Larry Kudlow says it best.


    By the way it's hard to (none / 0) (#73)
    by Slado on Sun Mar 01, 2009 at 01:33:13 PM EST
    deny Obama is hard on stocks.

    Everytie he's on TV the market tanks.   The buisness community is not betting on Obama.

    Lets hope he can pull a rabit out of the hat.