The Bush/Obama Tax Cuts

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Obama Administration
Posted on Fri Dec 17, 2010 at 09:27:55 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

The Change:

Congress at midnight Thursday approved an $801 billion package of tax cuts and $57 billion for extended unemployment insurance. The vote sealed the first major deal between President Obama and Congressional Republicans[. . .] to prevent an across-the-board tax increase that was set to occur if the rates enacted under President George W. Bush had expired, as scheduled, at the end of the month.

Booman says:

I remind you that this has been the most productive and progressive Congress since the mid-1960's and this has been the most successful and productive administration since Eisenhower was in office. [. . .] I am not disappointed. We had a great two years. It should have been a lot better, but we did well. We'll be longing to have it this good for a long, long time.

(Emphasis supplied.) Those were the days! Heh.

Speaking for me only

< Thursday Night Open Thread | Part 2 of The Deal >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

The Bush/Obama Tax Cuts | 42 comments (42 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

In too many areas of government (5.00 / 4) (#1)
by Buckeye on Fri Dec 17, 2010 at 09:31:42 AM EST

we did not get change, but continuity. If Obama was the most progressive administration since the 60s, so was Bush

Well said... (none / 0) (#9)
by kdog on Fri Dec 17, 2010 at 09:46:37 AM EST

Continuity...kick the eventual inevitable collapse down the road a ways, just keep things rolling along...as long as you aren't the president and congress that is on duty when we flatline, you're golden.

That being said, I'm glad my paycheck won't be decreasing...that woulda s*cked:) Shared sacrfice is one thing, but an across the board increase would have disproportionately stomped on the middle & working classes during tough times. And god really forbid the straights people would be in if unemployment benefits expired. All in all, this deal is probably better than the alternative of doing nothing...especially if things improve a little and we can let them expire in 2012.


Letting the taxes expire IMO was the right (5.00 / 2) (#11)
by Buckeye on Fri Dec 17, 2010 at 09:51:39 AM EST

policy choice, although I agree it carries risk. Obama was elected primarily to reverse the damage one of the worst admins in American history did to this country. Obama is better than Bush, but not by much IMO b/c he continued too many policies. His HC reform bill and Fin Reg reform bill were a giant disappointments.

If Obama loses the tax argument again in 2012, I cannot see how this Presidency can be viewed as a successful one.

A big disappointment.


Long term fiscal healthwise... (none / 0) (#17)
by kdog on Fri Dec 17, 2010 at 10:00:45 AM EST

esxpiration is the right choice...but that would require smarter spending too...that won't happen. The extra revenue does no good if the DHS/CIA/TSA/FBI/DEA/ICE/ATF get any of it...we can spend it better than they.

And ya just can't discount how many people are living check to check on a tightrope...10 bucks less a check hurts, and if Wall St. can't hurt why should we? Look at it that way and ya wonder if the mother is worth saving.


The Republicans are running this show (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 17, 2010 at 10:05:11 AM EST

kdog....and deficit spending is okay when you are funding those guys. They won't be who experiences "meaningful" cuts. The old people and the babies will be experiencing those.


I hear ya... (none / 0) (#21)
by kdog on Fri Dec 17, 2010 at 10:14:09 AM EST

which is why I'm not keen on kicking in another dime to fund a protection racket for those whose restaurant bill is more than I make in a month.


Heh....and I don't negotiate with hostage taking (none / 0) (#25)
by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 17, 2010 at 10:15:39 AM EST

terrorists :) Too bad you and I aren't running negotiations with the Republicans :)


The Republicans (5.00 / 2) (#26)
by jbindc on Fri Dec 17, 2010 at 10:17:51 AM EST

would run away scared if they came up against you Tracy!

Boehner would definitely cry.


: And I wouldn't be able to exactly (none / 0) (#29)
by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 17, 2010 at 10:23:09 AM EST

understand why he was crying :)

Of course (none / 0) (#22)
by jbindc on Fri Dec 17, 2010 at 10:14:38 AM EST

I know you like to keep saying we could rid of your favorite agencies, but some would say we could first get rid of HUD, HHS (including NIH and FDA), Labor, Education, EPA, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, FEC, SEC, Agriculture (including USDA), Commerce, US Forest Service, Transportation, Energy, Interior, etc. and use the extra revenue also.

Now I'm not saying that - but there's a lot of waste and overlap within those agencies that may be doing more harm and costing more than your list.


I'm gonna sock away (5.00 / 4) (#7)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Dec 17, 2010 at 09:45:53 AM EST

my big old chunky (ha-ha-ha) 2% payroll tax cut. I have a feeling that's all the money I'll ever see from social security -- and I have a mere 20 years to go.

The Supply Siders are firmly entrenched. There's no going back now. Reagan lives forever under Obama and his ilk. And to think my biggest concern was that Obama would be another Carter. Boy, was I wrong.

: I know, it's huge isn't it? (none / 0) (#18)
by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 17, 2010 at 10:02:23 AM EST

Where will we hide it while the neighbor is evicted and laid off and nobody can afford college? In the bra and panty drawer or the sewing box?

The revisionist view of the (5.00 / 3) (#31)
by masslib on Fri Dec 17, 2010 at 10:26:27 AM EST

past two years is utterly amazing to me. I mean, I'm stunned. Obama got the two most important government functions wrong. On the spending side, his stimulus was too tax heavy and not focused on jobs enough to really lift the economy. On the tax side, he just enshrined a more right wing version of Bush tax policy into law. But we are supposed to applaud the work done in the past two years? What am I missing?

{hands masslib a pair of (5.00 / 3) (#32)
by nycstray on Fri Dec 17, 2010 at 10:30:32 AM EST

rose colored glasses, a large shot of koolaide and a chess manual}


You're missing that (5.00 / 1) (#33)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Dec 17, 2010 at 10:30:58 AM EST

you are supposed to be laughing at Booman.

The opinion he expresses is not to be taken seriously. It's just good for a laugh.


Oh, like the laugh (none / 0) (#34)
by jeffinalabama on Fri Dec 17, 2010 at 10:33:29 AM EST

when you check the mail and the IRS is auditing five years' worth of returns.


: If Booman was relevant (none / 0) (#36)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Dec 17, 2010 at 10:46:57 AM EST

your analogy would hold.
He's not relevant (neither am I.)

Ok, you are right... (none / 0) (#35)
by masslib on Fri Dec 17, 2010 at 10:36:02 AM EST

I need to lighten up. He can't be taken seriously. :)


You just had to bring Booman into this, (5.00 / 3) (#37)
by Anne on Fri Dec 17, 2010 at 11:55:57 AM EST

didn't you...and he is just as predictable as ever.

I wonder what it's like to be an optimist at that level, where it doesn't matter what happens, it's all good. All good.

Okay, yeah, Congress did stuff, but progressive? Sigh. No. No way, no how. Nope. Even if my glasses had the rosiest of lenses, I can't make "progressive" out of what's happened these last two years.

And saying it is, over and over, doesn't make it so.

Booman's right about one thing, sort of: in two years, I do think we'll look back and realize that the first two years of Obama weren't as bad as the last two (and I do think they will be his last two years in office), but the difference is that Booman won't see that Years 1 and 2 laid the groundwork for the devastation of Years 3 and 4. He doesn't see that connection now, so I know he won't be able to see it in two years, either.

As for Obama, I have a feeling that his SOTU speech will finally put to rest any doubt about where he is most comfortable politically - even if the Republicans continue to paint him as some kind of uber-liberal, I think it's pretty clear that he's a Republican.

: Well stated. (none / 0) (#39)
by jeffinalabama on Fri Dec 17, 2010 at 01:04:40 PM EST

I fear the president will take the lead in cutting. Post-partisan unity means everyone's a Republican, right? Or everyone who 'matters.'

FWIW, (none / 0) (#2)
by andgarden on Fri Dec 17, 2010 at 09:35:23 AM EST

here's the House roll call.

Funny how the Speaker didn't vote--as is her privilege--even though she often does.

It's telling how much more popular this was with Republicans.

Now get me that 2012 magic pixie dust so we can realllly stop the Bush tax cuts.

Not gonna happen (none / 0) (#3)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Dec 17, 2010 at 09:36:09 AM EST

: Duh (none / 0) (#8)
by andgarden on Fri Dec 17, 2010 at 09:46:30 AM EST

MA house delegation (none / 0) (#20)
by CST on Fri Dec 17, 2010 at 10:05:36 AM EST

2 yes 8 no

only Delahunt and Tsongas voted yes. Delahunt just lost his seat to another Dem - who came closest to losing the seat to a republican. Tsongas has a weird district with some of the richest parts of the state and some of the poorer working class cities with significantly higher than average (for MA) unemployment.


Looks like my Rep. just lost my vote (none / 0) (#23)
by MO Blue on Fri Dec 17, 2010 at 10:14:38 AM EST

Sure hope there will be left leaning independent choices in 2012 otherwise I will not be voting for anyone for U.S. Senator or Representative and will cast a write in vote for president.


You still have Sweet Claire in 2012... (none / 0) (#24)
by jbindc on Fri Dec 17, 2010 at 10:15:14 AM EST

: Sweet Claire lost my vote a while (5.00 / 3) (#38)
by MO Blue on Fri Dec 17, 2010 at 12:21:43 PM EST

back and has since only reinforced my decision not to vote for her in 2012.
Like I said, unless there are left leaning independent candidates for the Representative and Senator slots, they will remain blank on my ballot for 2012. Neither Clay or McCaskill will receive mt vote.
Clay represents a lot of people whose incomes fall into the $20,000 - $40,000 range who will actually pay more in taxes so that millionaires and billionaires pay less. A special place in hell should be reserved for people who take from the poor to give to the obscenely wealthy.

Me too (none / 0) (#42)
by Raskolnikov on Sun Dec 19, 2010 at 11:07:24 AM EST

Loebsack, really?


Atrios: Economy was better under Bush than Obama (none / 0) (#4)
by Dan the Man on Fri Dec 17, 2010 at 09:37:30 AM EST

Why Did People Hate George Bush So Much?

Thinking back to the era of Holden's ponies, when the country's opinion of George Bush finally was in sync with the opinions of the people who read this blog, I'm actually kind of curious about why people hated Bush so much. Was obvious to me at the time, I'm sure, but it's less obvious to me now. Given that the economy was pretty decent at the time his approval rating was really really low.

Maybe it's not (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Dec 17, 2010 at 09:49:35 AM EST

necessarily "the economy, stupid"...

Bush was portrayed as an idiot, and our world became a mess and so we blamed him, thus people hated him. Obama is portrayed as brilliant and anything that goes wrong is despite his brilliance.

I really think Obama could have gone into Iraq and suffered less politically for it....because you see, it wouldn't have been his fault....he'd have been doing his best with what he had and the result was just bad luck.


iraq (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by CST on Fri Dec 17, 2010 at 10:19:05 AM EST

by all accounts we could've actually accomplished something in afghanistan if we hadn't abandoned it for iraq early on

the culture wars

the fact that the economy was only really good for some people

the fact that he drove the economy head first off a cliff

Roberts, who will be hurting us for years to come

dismantling the EPA

as far as I am aware we aren't waterboarding people anymore or arguing for it's legality

I could go on... he really was THAT bad


Don't you think (none / 0) (#28)
by jbindc on Fri Dec 17, 2010 at 10:21:38 AM EST

We are still having culture wars?

The economy is only good for some people (even fewer than 2 years ago)?

Do you actually know if we aren't waterboarding or torturing people anymore?

I can't believe it - but I think it's gotten worse. I didn't think that was possible.


I don't think the president (5.00 / 1) (#30)
by CST on Fri Dec 17, 2010 at 10:25:50 AM EST

is encouraging the culture war from the bully pulpit. I think we might even be winning it.

The economy - yes - and Obama holds blame for that. Bush holds more.

No I don't know, but I do know that we don't have the justice department arguing for the legalization of torture. So that's something.

Things have gotten worse in the economy. But things have not gotten worse on a presidential level. They should have been so much better though.


: The economy (5.00 / 1) (#41)
by Ga6thDem on Fri Dec 17, 2010 at 02:44:49 PM EST

is winning the culture war. No one wants to hear that crap when they don't have a job. It only makes people mad when conservatives crank up that junk.

Why did I hate George Bush so much? (none / 0) (#5)
by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 17, 2010 at 09:41:24 AM EST

He lied like a rug about Iraq and killed and maimed how many human beings? I'm so done with that loser....FOREVER!


Iraq (none / 0) (#6)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Dec 17, 2010 at 09:43:27 AM EST

I am not thrilled with Obama right now (none / 0) (#12)
by Buckeye on Fri Dec 17, 2010 at 09:54:06 AM EST

but there is a big difference between the economy Bush was handed vs. the economy Obama was handed.

Regardless of our opinions of Obama's capitulations, we cannot allow history to be rewritten.


: There WAS a big difference (5.00 / 4) (#16)
by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 17, 2010 at 10:00:06 AM EST

until Obama chose to not acknowledge the differences and to only look forward and not back. If he would have held Republicans accountable from day one, imagine the political capital that the people would have invested in him! It was what the majority of the country wanted. But he chose to not make anyone accountable, advanced much of the same solutions and agenda, lost all advantage to make true changes that would advance anything meaningful for the middle class or poor.

: And I am not saying that you or the link (none / 0) (#15)
by Buckeye on Fri Dec 17, 2010 at 09:57:57 AM EST

is saying that. Just pointing out that the performance of the economy under Obama needs to be properly understood so history is not rewritten as Krugman writes.

I wanted to talk back at atrios when I read that (none / 0) (#40)
by ruffian on Fri Dec 17, 2010 at 01:34:25 PM EST

but I hate his comment section.

Anyway,around 2005-2006 which I think is when he is referring to the economy may have looked good, but it was actually pretty bad for a lot of people. Job growth was stagnant at best - we were starting the job losses. The mortgage crisis was just starting. the leading edge of the recession hurt many people.


Capitulating on one of the core Dem issues (none / 0) (#13)
by lilburro on Fri Dec 17, 2010 at 09:54:35 AM EST

it's everything I could've hoped and dreamed.

: These are the salad days (5.00 / 3) (#14)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Dec 17, 2010 at 09:55:19 AM EST

for Democrats. Enjoy.