home

Breaking! Republicans Think Tax Cuts Stimulate Economic Growth And Job Creation

Ezra Klein writes:

I listed some of the conservative critics of the tax deal in Wonkbook today (Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, the Tea Party Patriots, Charles Krauthammer), but Playbook shows their ranks are growing: Mitt Romney has an op-ed in USA Today saying the tax deal gives "President Obama ... reason to celebrate. The deal delivers short-term economic stimulus, and it does so at the very time he wants it most, before the 2012 elections."

[More...]

Well, if Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney say it, it must be true, right Ezra? No doubt they will oppose the government spending cuts they also insist will spur economic growth.

Honestly, the Beltway Dems and bloggers have swallowed the Reagan/Bush mantra on tax cuts hook line and sinker. I'm old enough to remember when Democrats pointed to Bill Clinton's 1993 tax bill that raised taxes on the rich and cut them for the working class and the economic growth and job creation of the 1990s as repudiation of Reagan/Bushism. Truly incredible.

Speaking for me only

< Tuesday Open Thread | Senate Adds Block on Guantanamo Transfers To Funding Bill >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Ezra is also pushing the idea (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 12:41:21 PM EST
    of mixing Social Security into the general fund and financing it with regular taxes - that he seems to support cutting.  The kid ain't no rocket scientist.

    Who cares about SS (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by jbindc on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 12:45:24 PM EST
    When you're young and have a great job for which you are probably being overpaid for your experience and talents?

    Parent
    At the rate Ezra is going (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 12:51:52 PM EST
    in two years he should lose his job, and scrape in the gutter with everyone else so that in ten years he will know what he is talking about when it comes to Democrats and policy that serves the real people that make up this country.

    Parent
    EZRA SANS SOCIAL SECURITY (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by norris morris on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 11:00:04 PM EST
    It won't be long before Ezra will face life without Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid,or
    food stamps.

    As you say in no time Ezra will have no job and face unemployment without compensation, and may subsequently become wiser as a result of these valuable life experiences under Republican Rule.

    Actually, we're under Republican Rule now so Ezra can look forward to these life learning experiences sooner than later.

    Parent

    well he is out of touch with young people too (none / 0) (#8)
    by CST on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 01:11:54 PM EST
    then.  A recent nytimes poll had SS listed as "very important" for something like 90% of young people.

    Parent
    Sadly (none / 0) (#80)
    by cal1942 on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 09:35:12 PM EST
    that's all too true and Ezra's not alone.

    Parent
    FDR (5.00 / 4) (#79)
    by cal1942 on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 09:33:22 PM EST
    nixed the whole idea of general fund financing.  He wanted a trust fund belonging to working people feeling that no politician would ever dare assail the fund.

    A raid on the fund would be morally reprehensible.

    How far we've degenerated in 7 decades.

    Parent

    It is incredible. (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by masslib on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 12:43:08 PM EST
    Well, words fail.  

    me too (none / 0) (#6)
    by ruffian on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 01:00:41 PM EST
    Worse yet (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 12:50:18 PM EST
    None of this will work to stimulate anything for the unwashed.  Rich people are getting highly stimulated though.  Anything the poor or middle class is "given" in this creative whitewash will be removed from their clenched fists thricefold when "big government" is slashed and they all own a weakened quickly depleting Social Security fund.

    Right now reminds me (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by SOS on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 05:10:19 PM EST
    of the 70's. Only blogging has replaced Disco as our number one form of entertainment.

    OMG! (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Zorba on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 05:34:07 PM EST
    Please don't remind us of disco.

    Parent
    Donna Summer could SING... (none / 0) (#49)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 05:41:05 PM EST
    but a lot of disco... not so much.

    Parent
    Yes, she could (none / 0) (#56)
    by Zorba on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 06:22:48 PM EST
    It's just too bad for her career that she got caught up in that whole disco thing.  A lot of disco was pure dreck.  But then, I'm a child of the 50's and 60's, and grew up with the Beatles, Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan, James Brown, Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, Chuck Berry, Elvis, Buddy Holly, and on and on.  Great, great music.

    Parent
    All good music (none / 0) (#57)
    by jbindc on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 06:29:54 PM EST
    People diss disco, but what kind of music do they play at every wedding and every ballgame and every dance club - disco.

    Specifically, I can think of a famous disco song that still gets played everywhere and is a crowd favorite.

    Parent

    True (none / 0) (#61)
    by Zorba on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 06:46:20 PM EST
    But that doesn't make it "good" music.  Just popular.  Popular doesn't necessarily a mean "good."  Just look at some of our popular TV shows, celebrities, or for that matter,  politicians.......

    Parent
    Let me reprhase (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by jbindc on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 06:47:58 PM EST
    "Fun" music.

    I like all the artists you mentioned too, plus 80's music (techno pop, bubblegum), 70s classic rock, 90's and the 00's.  Not much for rap, but I do like some hip-hop.

    Parent

    I'll agree with that (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Zorba on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 06:50:57 PM EST
    "Fun" as opposed to "good."

    Parent
    To wit, "Little Feat: (none / 0) (#67)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 07:26:50 PM EST
    Feats don't fail me now."

    Gotta agree with James Brown and the Blue Flames, though... "Night Train." Oh, I don't want to start on music, I won't get anything done tonight!

    Parent

    Out of the past: (none / 0) (#74)
    by the capstan on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 08:16:55 PM EST
    I shall stick with the 1940's and 1950's.  Will you be hearing "White Christmas" from Holiday Inn, by any chance this month?

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#81)
    by cal1942 on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 09:40:01 PM EST
    A standard.

    Is the version from the movie "White Christmas" acceptable as well as from Holiday Inn?

    Parent

    Yes-- (none / 0) (#98)
    by the capstan on Wed Dec 15, 2010 at 09:45:29 AM EST
    but the first movie was definitely better than the second (in my humble opinion).

    Parent
    Holiday Inn was on cable a few nights ago (none / 0) (#104)
    by cal1942 on Sun Dec 26, 2010 at 12:03:12 AM EST
    I agree.  The first is the best.

    Parent
    "good" is in the ear of the listener :) (none / 0) (#101)
    by sj on Wed Dec 15, 2010 at 11:32:59 AM EST
    There should be a rule (5.00 / 5) (#59)
    by Raskolnikov on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 06:42:49 PM EST
    that if more than 4 Republicans in this senate support a piece of major legislation its obviously not a good piece of policy.

    Tax Cuts (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by cal1942 on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 10:26:14 PM EST
    just don't stimulate the economy.

    Read this.

    A little on the demand side but counterproductive at the top.

    Even with the right tax policy (much higher taxes) trade adjustment and strong regulatory reform are needed to really improve the economy.

    Politics Aside (3.25 / 4) (#7)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 01:10:04 PM EST
    Given the recession, the tax breaks probably do help to prevent slippage into a double digit recession.  Remember that a big part of it is psychological.  If the country BELIEVES that the tax increases were going to hurt everyone, that's half of the trouble.  That belief alone is enough to have a serious effect.

    Right now, who cares whether it actually stimulates growth (I think it does, just not as much as the GOP).  The more important point is that it helps to keep things from getting worse.  I think most economist (conservative or liberal) agree with this latter point short term.

    Given that this is going to happen, we should stop gawking at the GOP positioning themselves to take credit and actually figure out our angle to take credit ourselves.  We're already being outmaneuvered because of the internal battle.  This is a lost cause for opponents of the cuts.

    We should be on to START, DADT or the next battle.

    Pathetic capitulation (5.00 / 5) (#10)
    by shoephone on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 01:21:35 PM EST
    on a core Democratic principle. And your claim that all the economists --even the liberals-- agree that this load of cr*p will stimulate the economy is a hallucination. They DO NOT all agree. Do you know anything about trickle-down economics? It's a fallacy, always has been, always will be. Oh, and a closer reading of the intended effects of the legislation shows that not everyone will be benefitting: salary earners in the $20,000-$30,000 a year category will be paying more.

    If there was ever a case of someone drinking the kool-aid, you're it.

    Parent

    Proof of need for education reform (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by waldenpond on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 01:35:42 PM EST
    I was appalled at the low quality of my kids education.  Now the price is being paid.  People are unable to understand even the most basic of data.  Dem supporters are now as bad as conservative supporters.... they spout repeatedly proven false talking points.  It's all about 'belief' and 'feelings' 'it may not be factual, nonetheless it's true'

    The reality is, this society is collapsing.  The evidence is in so many little things like even discussing trickle down economics.

    Parent

    Furthermore, regarding tax policy, people (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by Buckeye on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 01:36:30 PM EST
    only consider one side of the ledger.  The fed is right now monetizing 100% of all new debt and will continue to do so.  That means the money printing is going to continue to erode consumer purchasing power, which is montrously regressive and will further depress the economy considering the large percent of the public that spends 100% of what they earn (or close to it).  Inflation is not a problem by the Fed's definition (credit availability, lending, home prices, retail merchandise, etc.).  These are legitimate bogeys for the Fed to chase considering if these things deflate, we have a contracting economy.  But if we look at consumer purchasing power, cotton is up 85%, sugar is up 75%, wheat is up 50%, copper is up 40%, heating oil is up 20%, soybeans are up, etc.  35 million people make an average of $20K per year working in vocations like housekeeping, restaurants/bars, tourism, janitorial services, etc.  The only tax relief they will get is the 2% payroll reduction for one year, or $400.  This will not be enough to offset the loss of purchasing power over the next two years when helicopter Ben prints another trillion dollars.  It also will not be enough to offset the tax increases they will absorb you mentioned above.

    If am not a deficit hawk.  But if we are not going to take that trillion dollars and do something really stimulative with it, most people would be better off not spending it at all.  Add to this problem the longer term consequences of what caving to the "starve the beast" ideology will do to what Obama has/is trying to accomplish as well as the future of the social safety net, and Obama is playing with fire.

    Hopefully, either a recovery will happen in spite of this policy or he can someone pull a rabbit out of his hat and win this debate in an election year when republicans will have more leverage and have greater numbers in congress.  Don't hold your breath.

    Parent

    And there's no real advantage to saving (none / 0) (#20)
    by shoephone on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 01:51:37 PM EST
    If interest rates on deposits decrease any further, they will be at 0.00. Money markets, CD's, IRA's, all going down the drain.

    Parent
    I'm getting more and more interested (none / 0) (#42)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 04:07:09 PM EST
    in monetary policy, Buckeye... thanks for this post.

    Parent
    I have to (none / 0) (#45)
    by Warren Terrer on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 05:12:10 PM EST
    disagree with this. Inflation has been decreasing for the past 2 years and is approaching 0. It's at levels not seen since the great depression. All that money being 'printed' by the fed simply isn't entering the economy and isn't going to do so until employment recovers. Inflation hawkishness under today's economic conditions is a right wing talking point which you should reconsider. Read some Paul Krugman.

    Parent
    It might not matter (none / 0) (#70)
    by Pacific John on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 08:02:22 PM EST
    I seldom rely on so-called experts when I'm working out the logic of an argument, but this is one case when I threw in the towel. The smartest economist I know in real life, the CFO of a/the major electrical distributor, says the Fed trying to shore up inflation is like pushing on a rope. The fundamentals will not respond, and we're stuck, no matter what, for another 1 1/2 years, until things like excess housing unwinds.

    Mind you, we knew the basics in '08, and had the chance to address housing head on, just like we should have with adequate stimulus.

    Parent

    Bernanke recently (none / 0) (#86)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 11:05:08 PM EST
    said they are absolutely not literally printing money.  Are you suggesting he's lying about that?

    Parent
    I read Krugman daily (editorials and his blog). (none / 0) (#95)
    by Buckeye on Wed Dec 15, 2010 at 08:32:28 AM EST
    Usually I agree with him.  Sometimes I don't.  In this case I believe it all depends on how you measure inflation. Government numbers as well as the CPI underestimate inflation because 1) they don't count a lot of things that real people spend their money on, and 2) many of them are using as the base line the peak of commodity prices in the summer of 2008 (bubble economy shot up prices in the first 6 months of 2008, the crash caused commodity prices to plummet in the second half of 2008, and then they corrected by the end of 2009 to a sustainable level).  They have since shot up, but we are to believe that because they are still just barely above the peak of 2008 we are not seeing degrading purchasing power?  Look at the trend line and think about how this chart will look over the next two years.  What will arrest the increases in prices from Fed policy from current trends?  Can you think of any reason why these increases will slow, other than another collapse of the banking system (which would be worse than continued inflation)?

    Stocks are now at two-year highs, bonds are up, oil is at a two-year high, health care, child care, education are all up at much faster rates than income and employment - none of which show up in the CPI.  Add to that all the commodities I listed above and we are in a period of diminishing purchasing power for consumers.  

    Deflation says that because of declining credit, people will hold onto whatever money they have for dear life, unsure if more money will be forthcoming and the velocity of money will slow and collapse.  Housing prices show this to be the case in that industry.  Housing is also something the Fed is justifiably worried about due to its importance to the health of bank balance sheets and consumer wealth.  Credit and lending is also a concern for the same reasons.  I am not against what Bernake is doing.  But state economic policy needs to consider that while the Fed is chasing that bogey, what other impact will it have on the economy (you cannot print trillions of dollars or borrow it from China, OPEC, Brazil, hedge fund managers, etc. without any consequences somewhere else).  Government needs to understand what those consequences may be and construct policy that addresses it.

    Inflation simply involves the world's central banks printing up new money to swamp both the commodities markets and people's preferences to hold something that can be created without any effort or cost.  The fed has already publicly acknowledged that the transmission mechanism for monetary policy is now the global risk asset markets, not the traditional domestic banking system. That right there tells you the Fed is blowing up global commodity prices and the short-term trading values of equities, corporate credit, and all manner of derivative risks, not loans to Main Street.  Commodity prices are nearing their all-time peak and have been compounding at an average annual rate of slightly more than 10% over the past decade.  I am not Krugman's equal by any means, but I think he is falling into the trap of cherry-picking the 2008 topping event as his reference point.  

    I am not a deficit hawk, nor am I screaming for austerity.  Just a realization that if the currrent trend continues (which I believe it will) on the degradation of consumer purchasing power due in part to monetary policy, then we must ensure the deficits that generates such policy is more stimulative than the regressive loss of purchasing power from consumers.  If we are not going to do that (i.e. instead we are going to continue to use deficit financing to give money to millionaires and billionaires hand over fist), then Obama should just let the Bush tax cuts expire wholesale.  Our economy would be better off.  Otherwise, we are going to continue blowing up prices that hurt the savers (rich) the least, benefit the savers the most (only speculators gain from this and they are all in the top !5 to 2%), and hurt the masses the most who spend all or nearly all of their money.

    Parent

    Here is the link (none / 0) (#96)
    by Buckeye on Wed Dec 15, 2010 at 08:37:51 AM EST
    I tried to use above.

    Parent
    Excuse me, but (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 11:03:26 PM EST
    keeping taxes lower for the middle class and extending unemployment benefits is not now and never has been "trickle-down economics."  It's very mildly stimulative (and every economist I've heard or read, even the right-wing ones, agrees, if grudgingly, although I admit I certainly may have missed some), but more importantly it's not contractionary, which the status quo would be.

    Extending the tax cuts for the wealthy has essentially zero effect on the economy one way or the other.  It's just a waste of money and a give-away.  That's where the right and left economists disgree, not on the bulk of the tax package.

    Parent

    I want no part of the "credit" (5.00 / 9) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 01:33:21 PM EST
    for the Bush tax cuts.

    You are making my point about how incredible this all is.

    You want Dems to scramble to take credit for the Bush tax cuts.

    Amazing.

    Parent

    I read ABG's comment a bit differently (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by christinep on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 02:39:44 PM EST
    ABG makes a good point--similar to Clinton & Krugman. People may differ. Example: I strongly preferred that the issue would have been joined before the elections...apparently, the President AND both Houses of Congress viewed it otherwise. Without high-risk gambling or negotiation--depending on POV--in the area of everyday people's day-to-day life (including those unemployed), the leverage after-election shifted.

    In the overall Democratic theory sense, I very much agree with you, BTD. In this particular strategic decision, I accept the short-term/mid-term conclusion; and, in accord with ABG, favor focusing on how to make the best of it. Most lemons can be made into lemonade. At some point, we'll see what the pragmatic ramifications are, obviously.

    Parent

    personally (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by CST on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 03:09:55 PM EST
    whatever happens with this bill (passes, doesn't pass), I think it's immensely important to future discussions that the democrats in congress do not accept this.

    The "overton window" is moving further and further to the right as it is, it doesn't need any help.

    Parent

    Howard Fineman agrees with you (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by jbindc on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 03:21:05 PM EST
    In a post about how Democrats have lost their "brand image", he says this (bold is my emphasis):

    Polls show that voter-consumers are suffering from what experts call "brand confusion." They can't stand the most visible personal symbols of the congressional party -- Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid -- and voters don't trust the Democratic brand on issues (such as jobs and the economy) as strongly as they used to.

    And now comes the Obama-McConnell tax bill.

    First, some caveats about it.

    Sure, the tax bill contains an extension of unemployment benefits. But that used to be a matter beyond mere politics, and something Democrats in the old days never claimed as a major achievement. They certainly didn't make it sound like a major social achievement at a time when they controlled the Congress and the presidency and, therefore, were at least partly to blame for the fact that so many people were on the dole in the first place.

    The fact that extension is being touted by the White House as a major "get" is a sad commentary on how far to the right our politics is now moving, no matter how many times Tea Party types call Obama a socialist.

    Yes, there are some helpful tax credits for the middle class in the bill -- helpful if your household has any income to take the credit against.

    And depending on which poll you read, the overall deal is somewhat popular -- perhaps because voters are reacting according to the old Navy crisis motto: "Don't just stand there, do something!" Or the fact that almost no one in America doesn't like a tax cut.

    I get all that. But still, something doesn't compute.



    Parent
    I don't understand (none / 0) (#32)
    by Madeline on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 03:33:15 PM EST
    all the publicity on this poll.  Wasn't it one poll by Washington Post-ABC?  Has anyone read the questions to the poll and and questioned the validity?

    It seems suspect to base such a controversial public policy's wonderfulness on one poll.


    Parent

    There is an old saying in politics, (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Buckeye on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 03:44:29 PM EST
    if you conduct a poll and cannot get to at least 50% of the respondents to answer the way you want them to, fire your pollster.

    Parent
    Agreed, and I find it (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by KeysDan on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 03:48:10 PM EST
    to be curious. For example, only 11% back all four of the deal's primary tax provisions: Bush tax cut continuance; jobless benefits; payroll tax holiday; and inheritance tax threshold and rates.  Only 38% support even two of these, but all together 69% support the package.   And a majority, across party lines, oppose the 2%, one-year cut, in employee contribution to social security. Which would seem to demonstrate a general resistance to any changes in social security.  Of course, we should all focus on the 69% number since if we believe it will be.

    Parent
    It was a TERRIBLE poll (none / 0) (#88)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 11:11:36 PM EST
    Look up the way the questions were worded. It assumed a whole lot of knowledge the public simply doesn't have about the details of the deal.

    Parent
    This is delusional imo (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 03:42:46 PM EST
    The aggregate effect of The Deal will not help the economy at all.

    There will be no "credit" to clamor for. Only blame to avoid.

    Parent

    We will see which party (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by coast on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 04:44:49 PM EST
    realizes this first.  Calling this deal a stimulus package is just crazy talk.

    Parent
    Republicans already realize it (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by ruffian on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 07:05:56 PM EST
    That's why they are tying it to Obama. I don't hear any of them out there taking 'credit', but then I have stopped listening.

    Parent
    Indeed, but (none / 0) (#89)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 11:12:35 PM EST
    we're in a situation right now where avoiding blame is about all we got at this point.

    Parent
    This is indeed (2.00 / 1) (#50)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 05:48:47 PM EST
    my point, made in a much more clear and much less abrasive way than is my habit.

    Obama's strength is not, and was not ever, his fierce belief in all things liberal.  It was his pragmatism, which is defined here as (1) the presence of mind to keep the war in mind, instead of just the battle and (2) the strength to make such decisions in the face of unbelievable pressure.

    Now say what you will about him, if Obama were really a pushover or a "wimp", which is the new attack, he'd have caved to the democrats, not the GOP.  I mean that is obviously his path of least resistance. He gives us what we want and the GOP hates him as much as they do right now, but he's got our support.

    But that's giving me exactly what I, a progressive, want.  As an American, I want a POTUS who says that the fight is not worth it. That there are bigger issues at stake.

    I think that's what has happened. I think Clinton came along because he looked at all of the levers and potential results and came to the same conclusion:

    The GOP was willing to drop the hammer on all of us January 15 and when we cried for uncle, the last thing we were going to get was an extension of unemployment or anything else we wanted.

    I don't trust any one politician, but as a general matter if Bill Clinton and Obama come out and say "we know you are angry, but we've got to do this" I am at least listening to the argument and giving them a chance. And what they are saying ("the GOP is insane and will nuke everything")isn't some huge revelation. It's what all of us know to be true.  I mean these people have everything they want and EVEN THAT may not pass because of the extremists. That's how insane they are.

    Game Theory (and the rules of putting up a good fight, playing chicken, etc.) assumes that your opponent reacts rationally.  The GOP does not.

    Parent

    You know your President (5.00 / 4) (#65)
    by observed on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 06:58:20 PM EST
    is a leader of Churchillian resolve after reading his ardent supporter explaining that Obama's actions are restricted to choosing a direction to "cave".

    Parent
    It's pragmatism (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by Warren Terrer on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 07:57:22 PM EST
    when it's not your ox that's being gored.

    Parent
    Bill Clinton very pointedly (none / 0) (#90)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 11:17:08 PM EST
    did not say this was the best deal they could get, only that the deal as made was preferable to no deal at all.  Just sayin'.

    I admire Obama's ideals as you lay them out, I think fairly accurately, but I think such a person in the White House at this point with this political climate is an largely unmitigated disaster.

    And I think you're totally wrong that Obama would ever have "caved" to the Democrats.  That doesn't even fit your analysis of his ideals.  It's just nonsense.  He sees himself as the Great Reconciler, and therefore by definition won't identify himself in any way with liberal Democrats.  My opinion, of course.


    Parent

    "wimp" (none / 0) (#99)
    by sj on Wed Dec 15, 2010 at 11:32:27 AM EST
    if Obama were really a pushover or a "wimp" which is the new attack

    Just an FYI:   That's the old attack. The new attack is that he is acting on his own views.

    Thought you should know.

    Parent

    It's a political emergency (none / 0) (#87)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 11:07:53 PM EST
    I think, and therefore I largely agree with you.  However, one point-- according to a couple articles I read recently, Obama was repeatedly pushing the congressional leadership to take up the tax cut issue for the year before the election and they wouldn't do it because they were afraid of being branded tax-raisers in their campaigns.  So I'm not sure Obama should get the blame on that one, FWIW.

    Parent
    Ha! (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by masslib on Wed Dec 15, 2010 at 04:19:39 AM EST
    Yeah, that is the spin coming out of the WH NOW.  Honestly, if you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.

    Parent
    BTD: I want (3.50 / 2) (#46)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 05:32:08 PM EST
    Dems to take credit for fulfilling the primary part of his tax slogan throughout the primaries. He said he was not going to raise taxes on 95% of the population and he did not. I don't care if yu call that a Bush tax cut or an Obama tax cut. What's important is that the public sees it as the fulfillment of a campaign promise.

    Now here is reality:

    People like low taxes.  Those that provide low taxes to those people are generally popular with them.  The worst scenario is that the 95% of the population that expected and wanted tax breaks believe that the GOP gave those breaks to them.  In fact, the way I'd frame this is that those breaks for poorer 95% were Obama's tax breaks and the breaks for the rich 5% were Boehner's.

    Dems have to pound that concept as hard as possible because the GOP is sure as heck going to tell us repeatedly that they guaranteed a tax break for all americans (when in reality they seemed to only care about the rich).

    You are completely right on the facts.  These are technically an extension of Bush's tax cuts. But you are ignoring the marketing machine that the GOP has become. Either we get more creative with our spin or we're going to get crushed. That's what this election cycle told me.  I deeply believe that no amount of fighting or maneuvering or speech giving was going to make a difference.  The Tea Party and GOP spun everything better. And I mean every single issue.  That wasn't just Obama's fault. That was the fault of every single progressive with a public voice.  We didn't make the sound bite argument that was a winner and we got killed. Just expecting to get votes because we have the correct position is 30 year old political thinking.

    Leave the knife at home. This is a gun fight.  

    Parent

    Did not raise taxes on 95% of Americans (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by jbindc on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 06:07:16 PM EST
    I guess those poor schleps who are going to have their taxes raised because of this bill don't count.

    Nor the people who will be taxed vis a vis the health care bill.

    Or the raise in tobacco tax.

    Oh, and by the way, what he actually said was:

    I will cut taxes -- cut taxes -- for 95 percent of all working families. Because in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle class.


    Parent
    as BTD might say (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 06:14:25 PM EST
    "sheesh"

    James Kwak at Baseline Scenario (my emphasis):

    So if you're Grover Norquist and what you want more than anything else is lower tax revenue, you should be celebrating like it's Christmas and your birthday at the same time. We had an argument where one side wanted tax cuts A, the other side wanted tax cuts B, and they compromised by adding tax cuts C? . . . And the Democratic argument -- trying to get support from the base -- is "we got more tax cuts than they did"?


    Parent
    So... forget good policies and just focus on (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by shoephone on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 06:44:04 PM EST
    getting more creative with the spin? Laughable. If you think Obama has won the spin war with this disaster, I've got a bridge to sell you. But, just keep on  whining about those mean Republicans, and how wonderfuly pragmatic Obama is. That's sure to win him back the Demcratic base by 2012.

    Parent
    speaking of pragmatism (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 06:57:05 PM EST
    Christopher Lydon of Radio Open Source recently interviewed Professor James Kloppenberg of Harvard, who says the key to understanding Obama is that the president is a philosophical pragmatist in the mold of William James

    online comments on the interview include this one

    President Obama was not elected as a pragmatist. . . . He was elected by voters who believed that he would take action to advance the moderately progressive policies he espoused during the campaign. But not only has the president failed to advance those policies, he has actually opposed and obstructed them. James Kloppenberg's thesis begs the question of the difference between true pragmatism and an inflexible attachment to the philosophical doctrines of pragmatism. If we grant Professor Kloppenberg's overarching point regarding President Obama, the explanation for the president's behavior in office is the president's unwavering espousal of a set of philosophical doctrines. As a practical matter, then, the president is not a pragmatist. He is an ideologue. One can understand [liberal & progressive] voters' dismay and impatience, especially after eight long years of Bush/Cheney. . . .


    Parent
    That's a great commentq (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 11:19:24 PM EST
    Hits the nail on the head, as far as I'm concerned.

    Parent
    Exactly (none / 0) (#100)
    by sj on Wed Dec 15, 2010 at 11:32:50 AM EST
    As a practical matter, then, the president is not a pragmatist. He is an ideologue.


    Parent
    Save the Fredonian orphans. (none / 0) (#68)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 07:31:43 PM EST
    Everyone agrees we should save the Fredonian orphans.

    At the end of the day, polls and Pols tell us, to paraphrase Bob Dylan, "what we want, not what we need."

    Oh mama, this must be the end...

    Parent

    Hail, Hail, Fredonia (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by shoephone on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 08:27:53 PM EST
    my home, sweet home.

    It occurs to me that the insults Obama flung at Democrats last week were a hunrdred times worse than the seven-letter word that Rufus T. Firefly flung at Trentino!

    Parent

    Wrong (none / 0) (#103)
    by Yman on Thu Dec 16, 2010 at 09:28:34 AM EST
    This tax bill raises taxes on the working class, but I do enjoy the tough-guy, knife/gun fight analogy from someone who lauds Obama's infinite ability to cave as "pragmatism".

    Parent
    The numbers I have seen (5.00 / 8) (#12)
    by ruffian on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 01:34:19 PM EST
    about how much this will help the economy say it might help prevent .5-1% increase in unemployment and provide less than 1% growth in GDP.  Something that could have easily been achieved by stopping the tax cuts and using the tax money for another stimulus. This would have helped the economy and preserved the more progressive tax policy.

    I don't want to take 'credit' for the wrong policy. In case you haven't notices, the Republicans are already pivoting into calling it another stimulus, which they will proceed to tear Obama apart with when it does not work.

    Parent

    Since you don't care if Obama' policies (5.00 / 6) (#13)
    by MO Blue on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 01:35:29 PM EST
    actually stimulates growth, it is no wonder that you are thrilled with Obama's tax and economic policies. They may help Obama get further in bed with Wall Street but they definitely won't stimulates growth. Just wait until Obama slashes the budget for domestic services for regular folks, you can be twice as pleased.    

    Parent
    Two concepts (3.50 / 2) (#48)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 05:37:08 PM EST

    1. Stimulate Above-normal growth

    2. Help to prevent additional economic slowdown

    These are two different concepts and both can be used to justify an action. I believe that the tax cuts accomplish 2 but do not accomplish 1.  There is disagreement among economist of both sides about 1, and pretty clear consensus among economists about 2 being true.

    Parent
    One concept - taking away from the poor (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by MO Blue on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 08:04:12 PM EST
    and middle class to give to the rich.

    Increasing taxes for people earning $20,000 - $40,000 and reducing spending on domestic programs and services is going to further stagnate economic growth. Lack of job creation is creating real hardship for folks not in the top 2% right now. But hey, as long as †he corporation are making record profits and millionaires and billionaires are happy and willing to contribute for the 2012 campaign, Obama is awesome.

    Parent

    Credit for what? (5.00 / 6) (#17)
    by smott on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 01:38:56 PM EST
    Continuation of our 30 year fiasco of expecting tax cuts to stimulate the economy?

    Credit for double dip? Credit for descent into 3rd world wealth-dichotomy ?

    Title of the Dem president who accomplished what Bush couldn't - dismantling SS?

    Face it - the Messiah is the 2nd coming of Reagan.  

    Parent

    Paging Mr. Romney. (none / 0) (#22)
    by Yes2Truth on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 01:59:02 PM EST

    "Face it - the Messiah is the 2nd coming of Reagan."

    Parent

    By the way, the double dip recession (5.00 / 5) (#18)
    by ruffian on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 01:46:07 PM EST
    is highly likely even with the tax cuts extended. Nothing is happening to increase demand for goods and services. The 2% payroll tax holiday? Please. People wilh expendable income will use that to keep paying down their credit card debt, as they did with their last non-stimulative tax credit.

    Parent
    The most bone-chilling thing (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by sj on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 04:03:46 PM EST
    is that 2%.  Cutting FICA contributions, right?  To say it most simply?  That is the wedge in the door to ultimate elimination of SS.  First the "holiday".  Then:

    The revenue Social Security would lose from the payroll tax cut would be paid back from general revenues by the U.S. Treasury.

    Once the funding comes from general revenue, it's finally got the target the R's have been looking for.  Withhold the general revenue funding and suddenly Social Security really IS in trouble that O says (falsely) that it currently is.

    Parent

    Dude the states are broke (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 01:51:00 PM EST
    We are looking at large scale middle class job destruction again in almost every state for those employed by the state....a brand new wave of destruction of the engine that actually drives this economy.  Your double dip is coming from there.  This crap, this extra couple of thousand dollars you are giving me to try to catch up on my inflated credit card rates will not bring back my nextdoor neighbor's 60,000 a year job.  Nor will it put his kid through college particularly after the federal slash comes and college assistance is gutted.  This isn't going to help jack$hit when compared to what we are losing and will weaken social security too, shafting the poor and middle class even more.

    Parent
    It's all about jobs. Still. (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by ruffian on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 01:54:39 PM EST
    6 years after we started hemorrhaging them at an alarming rate, the wound has barely clotted.

    Parent
    Your thinking that we need to (5.00 / 6) (#24)
    by Anne on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 02:03:23 PM EST
    find a way to take credit for this terrible deal is a lot like offering to knot the rope and build the platform for your own hanging...

    I have to say, you are on some kind of roll today...in one thread you say that the only way you can judge Hillary is on her husband's record, and here you are essentially telling people about to be financially screwed to just lie back and accept it.

    But, hey - if it helps Obama and he can get elected again and given four more years to send even more people over the cliff, it's all good, right?

    Parent

    President Palin (1.00 / 1) (#51)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 05:53:34 PM EST
    Nuff Said.

    Parent
    Ah, there it is (5.00 / 4) (#53)
    by jbindc on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 06:02:24 PM EST
    When one cannot argue for the Democratic position, we must bring out the "Palin card" as a way of diverting attention.

    Ooh!  The boogeyman!  

    Parent

    Proof of the utter emptiness of your argument (5.00 / 5) (#58)
    by shoephone on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 06:38:46 PM EST
    b-b-butt... Palin!

    Parent
    More to the rich than Bush (5.00 / 3) (#72)
    by MO Blue on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 08:10:39 PM EST
    Obama's "Deal"- the tax cuts are even more generous to the extremely wealthy than even the ones passed by Bush.

    Nuff Said.

    Parent

    You're predicting that (none / 0) (#75)
    by observed on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 08:21:32 PM EST
    already?

    Parent
    When ya got ... (none / 0) (#102)
    by Yman on Thu Dec 16, 2010 at 09:09:10 AM EST
    ... nuthin' else ...

    Parent
    It's (none / 0) (#25)
    by jbindc on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 02:07:19 PM EST
    the Clayton Williams philosophy*

    *Not that I actually equate a tax deal to rape, but I'm playing off Anne's comment.

    Parent

    With all due respect, the bigger point I think (none / 0) (#9)
    by Buckeye on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 01:20:49 PM EST
    you are missing is that Obama badly lost this debate.  If he loses it again in 2012, this will have been a failed Presidency.

    Parent
    The Entire Presidency (1.00 / 1) (#52)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 05:56:57 PM EST
    is about the tax question?

    Wars, Healthcare, Abortion, Gay Rights, Education, Foreign Policy, Supreme Court nominees, et al are irrelevant.

    If he doesn't win the tax fight, he's a complete failure?

    C'mon. That can't even sound like the right answer when you type it.  

    Now I know your come back is "but he's not doing well on that other stuff" which is a supportable position to hold, but that's different than arguing that everything comes down to this tax question.

    Parent

    Um, are you sure... (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by Pacific John on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 08:16:40 PM EST
    ... you want to go to the likely record on those issues?

    Like I keep saying, wait until BHO's ed plans - referred to by the NEA as Bush III - hit the public.

    You are right upthread that he doesn't "cave." Some of us said years ago that this is who he is. For a blast from the past, read through the orange comment thread on "Tone, Truth and the Democratic Party."

    Parent

    roflol (none / 0) (#77)
    by Pacific John on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 08:44:34 PM EST
    I just went cruising through that comment thread and choked when I saw that one of the most civil, moderate comments was from RonK, who later wrote searing, prescient posts on, well, now:

    The Audiology of Hope: DLC Dogwhistle Economics

    The Audiology of Hope: Dogwhistle Economics 102

    Audiology of Hope 360: Special Topics in Health Care Reform

    None of what we see now has been a surprise. Many of the rational, clear-eyed traditional Democrats knew this guy would damage the economy as only Republicans usually can.

    Parent

    To keep history tidy (none / 0) (#78)
    by Pacific John on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 08:53:44 PM EST
    Here's BTD's Aug '07 take on, "Tone, Truth,...."

    Parent
    The takeaway (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Dec 15, 2010 at 06:19:14 AM EST
    line from that post is:

    He argues for a politics that I believe is bad for Democrats and bad for progressivism.

    Parent

    To begin, (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Buckeye on Wed Dec 15, 2010 at 09:08:38 AM EST
    do I think Obama is better than McCain would have been? Yes.  Will I support him again in 2012?  Yes.

    I think you are failing to see the relationship between tax policy and fiscal policy.  If he loses the tax argument...again...everything he has accomplished will be gutted as well as the social safety net the Dem party has stood for.

    Obama was elected to reverse the policies of the Bush administration.  Obama has so far provided in many areas of governance a seamless continuity.  If he loses the tax argument to the GOP in 2012, we are going to see regressive austerity on the backs of the elderly, poor, sick, and working classes in the years ahead.

    In other words, a failed Presidency.  

    Parent

    For the record (none / 0) (#16)
    by jbindc on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 01:38:37 PM EST
    The House has moved on and given up on the tax fight - but Rep. Patrick Murphy plans to introduce a stand alone bill to repeal DADT today.

    Feel better?

    Parent

    Really, I have no patience with this guy's (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by ruffian on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 02:00:28 PM EST
    attitude:
    Welch said he would not support allowing all of the tax rates to expire just to stop the tax break for wealthier households. But he blames Obama for negotiating a bad deal with Republicans.

    That pre-caving in to the Republicans int he game of chicken. I agree with ABG and others - with attitudes like that among congressmembers, this probably IS the best deal Obama could have got. I blame all of the Dems, not just Obama.

    Parent

    Yep. (none / 0) (#28)
    by tworivers on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 02:50:06 PM EST
    Obama bears a large share of the blame, but Senate and House Dems also contributed in a big way.  In the lead-up to the 2010 election, Obama encouraged Congress to hold a vote on the Bush tax cuts.  For whatever reason, Congressional Dems balked at doing that, even though it was a populist issue that would have allowed Dems to take a strong, unambiguous stand against tax breaks for the wealthiest 2 %.  There's plenty of blame to go around

    Parent
    Welch, my congressman (none / 0) (#92)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 11:21:59 PM EST
    has been literally incoherent on this whole subject.  He saw an opening to get on TV by braying loudly, and he took it.  I'm embarrassed for him.

    Parent
    "politics aside" - heh (none / 0) (#29)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 02:51:15 PM EST
    For once (none / 0) (#83)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 10:57:18 PM EST
    I think you're largely right on this point.  (Btw, the phrase is "double dip recession," not "double digit.")

    Parent
    Right (none / 0) (#33)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 03:36:51 PM EST
    now I'm seeing a bloodbath in 2010. I hope I'm wrong.

    You don't need 20/10 vision (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by observed on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 03:42:19 PM EST
    to see that one!

    Parent
    All in all I would like to erase (none / 0) (#40)
    by ruffian on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 03:52:20 PM EST
    my 2010 visions from the memory chip

    Parent
    Oh, my. (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 03:45:29 PM EST
    I meant 2012.

    Parent
    It was a bloodbath in 2010 (none / 0) (#34)
    by jbindc on Tue Dec 14, 2010 at 03:38:29 PM EST