home

The Last Time A Dem President Raised Taxes . . .

. . . he won reelection in a landslide. Someone please inform the NYTimes' David Leonhardt:

Much of the recent commentary about the tax cuts has skipped over this political reality. Itís instead focused on how tough the Democrats should be and whether they should insist on the expiration of all the Bush tax cuts on income above $250,000 a year. But thatís no longer one of their options. Unless they believe they will benefit more than Republicans from a standoff in which taxes go up, which is hard to believe with a Democrat in the White House, their only choice now is among various versions of retreat.

(Emphasis supplied.) Yep, Bill Clinton got killed in the 1996 election because he raised taxes. Oh wait, he didn't. Sheesh. You know what's going to hurt Obama and the Dems in 2012? No job growth. Do low taxes lead to job growth? David Leonhardt (yep, the same guy) says no:

The second, more likely option is to extend all the tax cuts ó and to package them with other tax cuts and spending likely to do more to help the economy than the Bush tax cuts. (Remember, after President George W. Bush signed the cuts in 2001, the economy lost jobs for the next two years, and economic growth during his presidency was mediocre.)

Leonhardt seems to be arguing for a policy of keeping in place a policy that has proven not to work to create jobs. Yep, these are the smart guys. Sheesh.

Speaking for me only

< Supreme Court Hears California Prison Conditions Case | Karzai's Drug Pardons: Yesterday's News and a Bigger Issue >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    If low taxes led to job growth (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by kdm251 on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 08:16:35 AM EST
    If low taxes led to job growth the Bush years would have been a stunning success.  Plus, the tax cuts didn't exactly pay for themselves either, I hope they let all the Bush tax cuts expire.

    And (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 08:17:36 AM EST
    over at Kos they are arguing that Obama is Bill Clinton redux. I want to ask them where is the low unemployment? The standing up to the GOP?

    We could only hope (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by jbindc on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 08:40:41 AM EST
    Those toads... (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by masslib on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 01:26:05 PM EST
    They just can not admit how truly awful Obama is.  

    Parent
    morons (none / 0) (#7)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 08:37:54 AM EST
    Obama will compromise as follows: (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by observed on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 08:22:13 AM EST
    he will give the wealthy even steeper tax cuts in return for the Republicans making the huge concession of not making the cuts permanent.
    In fact, he will preemptively suggest this plan, to make up for being so mean to Republicans for the last 2 years. He promises not to make Boner cry again.

    Best thing that could happen is a stalemate (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Buckeye on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 08:28:47 AM EST
    where neither side agrees, and taxes go up because nothing gets passed.  The right policy is to let them all expire.  Let's hope for a miracle and see that happen.

    the only miracle will be if people (none / 0) (#6)
    by observed on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 08:33:53 AM EST
    with incomes UNDER $250,000 get something.

    Parent
    They just did. (5.00 / 0) (#14)
    by oldpro on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 12:40:37 PM EST
    At the federal level, they got a pay freeze.

    Parent
    There is such a dearth of quality (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Anne on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 09:02:12 AM EST
    information and analysis in the mainstream media that it is no wonder we seem to be going to hell in a handbasket.  It's become all about the politics of the moment, with little regard for the effects of policy decisions on the people for whom they are being made; instead, it's all about what decisions will increase someone's chances to get elected or re-elected.

    And, it's become all about wanting to stay in the good graces of the politicians and power-brokers and corporate leaders being reported on, instead of asking the kinds of questions and pursuing the kind of accountability on behalf of the public.  To do that, though, would end the con game that's being run on us, the fat cats would lose their jobs, and the media would no longer be inner-circle-worthy.

    Here's the question: When I see Katie Couric advancing the Simpson-Bowles message on Social Security and telling the public that "something has to be done...or else..." I want to rip my hair out.  Why isn't Katie, with all the resources at her disposal, able to determine the truth about Social Security, and instead of giving Alan Simpson or Erskine Bowles a  platform to spread more lies in service to their anti-entitlements agenda, confronting them with that truth?

    Or, hey - here's a handy template:

    When I see ____ advancing the _____ message on _____ and telling the public that "something has to be done...or else..." I want to rip my hair out.  Why isn't ___, with all the resources at his/her disposal, able to determine the truth about ______, and instead of giving _____ or _____ a  platform to spread more lies in service to their______ agenda, confronting them with that truth?

    The tax cuts thing is ridiculous.  Obama is blathering on about the people wanting the Congress to "come together" and find "common ground," but he is so devoid of leadership ability and underlying principles that he thinks the end game is the common ground itself instead of what we all know the endgame to be: achieving long-term economic growth and stability through good policy.

    I see no way out of this mess, I really don't.


    Well, leadership does not seem (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by KeysDan on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 09:14:45 AM EST
    to be President Obama's style.  Rather, he seems to fancy himself as the neutral mediator between the Democrats and Republicans.

    Parent
    I agree (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 09:26:57 AM EST
    could that little talk yesterday have been more bloodless?  seriously.  there are artificial intelligence systems that could have said what he said with more conviction and soul.


    Parent
    The last time... (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 09:21:04 AM EST
    we raised income taxes gasoline was cheaper than name brand bottled water, the internet was just becoming part of our lives with all the associated economic stimulus, and people had things called jobs, and even an occasional raise.  When economic times are good like that nobody is getting worked up about a couple extra bucks coming out of their paycheck (except the greedy grifting class of course, they're always worked up)...totally different ballgame right now.

    That being said, if taxes go up and people see a noticeable benefit to their increased contribution, it doesn't have to be a political death sentence...it can be spun as responsible governing serving the people.  The odds of us seeing a noticeable benefit are astronomical though.

    What are these things (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by jbindc on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 09:50:27 AM EST
    called "jobs" that you speak of?

    How about the fact that 2 million people are losing unemployment benefits today - and if they aren't extended, (because of the stimulative nature of unemployment - people who get it spend it immediately), another 1 million people could potentially lose their jobs as well?

    Parent

    It's like Voodoo!!! (none / 0) (#1)
    by observed on Wed Dec 01, 2010 at 07:51:13 AM EST