When "Tax Enthusiasts" Endorse The Bush/Obama Tax Cuts

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Fri Dec 17, 2010 at 10:25:29 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

A few days ago, Matt Yglesias wrote:

I’m surprised so many liberals are being so stinty in their praise of the recent tax deal.

I explained why in this post. Today, Yglesias writes:

I’m a tax enthusiast, [. . .] you help the poor by raising taxes and handing money over to poor people[.]

Perhaps Yglesias is just a "tax enthusiast" in the abstract, because it is hard to square the claim that one is a tax enthusiast while at the same time strongly supporting the Bush/Obama tax cuts and the spending cuts in programs for the poor that this will almost certainly entail.

Then again, maybe Yglesias believes that the Bush/Obama tax cuts will expire in 2012 and not be extended further. I do not.

From Obama's perspective, the Bush/Obama tax cuts may be defensible, There is an argument that this helps his 2012 reelection chances. I do not agree but the argument is not unreasonable. (Remember that the most important policy consideration for any pol is what effect does a policy have on their reelection chances.)

But as a matter of policy, for a "tax enthusiast," the Bush/Obama tax cuts are indefensible.

Speaking for me only

< The Zombie Lie: Raising Taxes Impedes Growth | The Norquist Strategy: Part 2 Starts In February >

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.

When "Tax Enthusiasts" Endorse The Bush/Obama Tax Cuts | 33 comments (33 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Championing the Bush Tax Cuts is not reasonable (5.00 / 4) (#1)
by BobTinKY on Fri Dec 17, 2010 at 10:33:01 AM EST

avenue to re-election. Not a single Republican or indie will vote for Obama becuase of this. Millions of Democrats & former Democrats like myself will not vote for Obama, certainly no money or time like in 2008.

It is not a reasonable electoral strategy. Among which group does it strengthen Obama?

The theory goes like this: (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by Faust on Fri Dec 17, 2010 at 10:42:52 AM EST

The "tax holiday" is stimulative (never mind HOW stimulative)
The economy is on the verge of kicking back into high gear (lots of money on the sidelines)
It will only take a small ammount of stimulus to get that money on the sidelines back into the system and kickstart the economic engine.
Once the economy gets back in gear and starts strongly trending positive then people won't want to mess with a good thing and will re-elect Obama.

I'm pretty sure that's the way they view it in Oland.

Personally I think they are wrong, but frankly I hope they are right, because if they ARE wrong, then Obama will wind up doing some pretty spectacular damage in the long term with this "compromise."


100% correct (5.00 / 3) (#23)
by shoephone on Fri Dec 17, 2010 at 07:11:47 PM EST

Throughout the Obama presidency, I keep hearing Truman's words ringing in my ears: If the choice is between a Republican and a Democrat who acts like a Republican, people will vote for the Republican every time.


BILLIONAIRES. n/t (none / 0) (#3)
by inclusiveheart on Fri Dec 17, 2010 at 10:41:29 AM EST

No it won't (none / 0) (#7)
by BobTinKY on Fri Dec 17, 2010 at 10:47:07 AM EST

they'll take what he gives them and still vote for GOP.


: We aren't talking about a (none / 0) (#8)
by inclusiveheart on Fri Dec 17, 2010 at 10:52:18 AM EST

significant portion of the population. It doesn't matter either way.
I was being sarcastic.
In terms of electoral strategy, trying to win the votes of American Billionaires is tantamount to seeking the support of all of the two headed people in the US.
In terms of money, OTOH, it may have merit, but as you rightly point out, there's no reason for those people to support Republicans pretending to be Democrats when they could have the real thing and support a Republican.

Enthusiasts in name only... (5.00 / 5) (#2)
by masslib on Fri Dec 17, 2010 at 10:39:52 AM EST

This seems to be the new thing. Being for something progressive in the abstract, but for the complete opposite when Obama and his cohorts propose it.

What ? (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by ScottW714 on Fri Dec 17, 2010 at 02:18:06 PM EST

And all this time I thought republicans picked the republican nominee, who knew the 'left blogs' had/have so much influence over republicans.

Good to know.

Just wait (none / 0) (#20)
by jbindc on Fri Dec 17, 2010 at 04:27:49 PM EST

Until they start encouraging their readers to go and vote in the Republican primaries in their state for Sarah Palin.

I mean - it's not like it's unprecendented for left bloggers to encourage people to mess around in primaries or anything, where they have no business being.


I don't understand that (none / 0) (#21)
by CST on Fri Dec 17, 2010 at 04:45:09 PM EST

"no business" business.

I mean, if a state has an open primary, I assume they did it on purpose, so people could choose where and how to vote. If they wanted it closed, they would keep it closed.

I don't see a problem with someone crossing over in a primary. Vote early, vote often, and make sure your voice is heard as much as possible.


You have no business (5.00 / 2) (#22)
by jbindc on Fri Dec 17, 2010 at 04:59:41 PM EST

if your only intent is to cause havoc.

Personally, I think all primaries should be closed. If you want to pick a party's nominee - you should be a member of that party.


That would mean (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 06:59:39 AM EST

people like me who believe that partisanship is just teamsports would never be able to vote in a primary. I don't belong to a party. I don't believe in "belonging to a party." The idea of our two party is sytem is to divide the little people while the upper eschelons reap the rewards of this division.

At the same time, organized campaigns to spoil a primary should be illegal. The idea is to get the best candidates into an office, not to simply make the situation better for your own lame candidate. Rigging primaries through voting for the candidate you feel can be beaten is horrifyingly bad for the country.


: Technically (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by jbindc on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 10:46:49 AM EST

The RNC and DNC are "private" organizations who should be able to choose their own leaders. If you want to participate in choosing those leaders, then you should be a member.
Then they can say "We put the best person up, in terms of policy positions and electability against your best person." It also might allow for third parties to enter the fray, since many of them are right now handicapped by state election rules and having to gain so many signatures to gt on ballots and to get into debates.
Each party could have as many debates as they wanted to showcase their candidates. I say get rid of primaries all together - pick your candidates, have a convention, then have a 3 month general election campaign.

Large Estates taxed at lowest rate in decades: (5.00 / 2) (#24)
by Mr Natural on Fri Dec 17, 2010 at 09:04:28 PM EST

Income Inequality on Course to Hit Record Levels Thanks to Tax Compromise

See full article from DailyFinance:

http://srph.it/eeEtTp

: Short memory (none / 0) (#25)
by CoralGables on Fri Dec 17, 2010 at 09:53:06 PM EST

It will be the second lowest rate

Running on 2012 increase (none / 0) (#5)
by waldenpond on Fri Dec 17, 2010 at 10:45:14 AM EST

could work if it's Palin. She's that unpopular.

Not that Obama would allow tax increases for the wealthy corporatists that will re-elect him.

Who would believe him? (5.00 / 5) (#6)
by masslib on Fri Dec 17, 2010 at 10:46:23 AM EST

That's his biggest problem, imo (5.00 / 4) (#9)
by inclusiveheart on Fri Dec 17, 2010 at 10:56:36 AM EST

A credibility gap that is ever widening - and that's the kind of thing that I think really triggers the independents' suspicion more than it engages them. It also suppresses base enthusiasm which has a lot of influence on independents - in my experience that crowd generally likes to go where the enthusiasm is - and I expect that the GOP will have some pretty happy campers come the Fall of 2012 vs. the Dems who will likely be fairly unhappy.


: Good points... (5.00 / 2) (#10)
by masslib on Fri Dec 17, 2010 at 11:00:43 AM EST

What Obama has going for him is no one on the Right is going to call him out on it. Indeed, they'll be dragging out the ole "tax man cometh", which is beyond comical. It really depends if this mess sinks in with the base. I think it will.

Progressives (5.00 / 3) (#11)
by waldenpond on Fri Dec 17, 2010 at 11:52:37 AM EST

Look around the web today..... there are some apologies for him 'we can't get everything we want!!!!!' and focusing on the 12 election. It's like they think his Presidency is over at this point (duh) and they have to come up with something new to sell him (duh).

I keep saying, they are going to support him and it's going to have to be nastily personal because the guy is a disaster on policy.


example ... ugh (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by waldenpond on Fri Dec 17, 2010 at 12:06:56 PM EST

Here's FDL... oh the emo of it all... swoon.

death and dying, the same stages apply to the death of relationships... I fell a little bit in love with Barack Obama ...our collective heady infatuation with Barack Obama ...unwilling to hear anything disparaging about their chosen candidate...he never picks up his socks and has to be reminded to take out the trash (yeah, bombing the sh!t out of people is just like that, wev)...If nothing else, the Supreme Court - the most powerful branch of government - is on the line.... (be afraid, be very afraid)...It really is counterproductive to wail...WE are not the whole country....let's get to a place of acceptance.....

This is supposed to be from a site that pretends to care about policy but really, many progressives are becoming as toxic as the right because, in the end, it is about nothing more than winning.


: Bleh (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by jbindc on Fri Dec 17, 2010 at 12:14:27 PM EST

I think I just threw up a little in my mouth.

: These people have no sense of (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by masslib on Fri Dec 17, 2010 at 12:45:01 PM EST

their role in a democracy. Whatever happened to question authority?

: correction: C&L not FDL (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by waldenpond on Fri Dec 17, 2010 at 01:23:06 PM EST

Looks like Karoli is getting some competition for worst writer over there.

Which is why (4.00 / 3) (#12)
by jbindc on Fri Dec 17, 2010 at 12:04:33 PM EST

Left blogs do everything they can to focus on her every movement and utterance. They have to help keep her in the spotlight and relevant.


Sure (5.00 / 2) (#17)
by ScottW714 on Fri Dec 17, 2010 at 01:24:53 PM EST

And I am sure those blogs finagled a deal to get her and her daughter on TV, they definitely keep her touring the country, and of course they pay Fox News to keep her on as a 'consultant'.

And next week, 'left blogs' are going to buy 100 moose and let her put brown skin masks over there heads right before she beheads them on Geraldo, all for the sake of keeping her relevant.

It's an elaborate conspiracy to make her look like a complete buffoon for her legions of idiots. Problem is that it's not working, no matter how completely and utterly stupid we make her look, her legions of idiots don't mind, if anything, their devotion only multiplies as her stupidity increases.


: Sure (4.25 / 4) (#18)
by jbindc on Fri Dec 17, 2010 at 01:35:32 PM EST

Who keeps talking about her and her daughter? Look over at HuffPo, dKos, or even here for many posts on the Palin family.
It's not a conspiracy, but they keep they fires burning by jumping on her every move - she only gets more powerful when her supporters think she's being "dissed" by those they consider elitist.
And left-blogs have a very reason to prop her up - it's Obama's easiest chance to re-election if she's the nominee. They definitely have a vested interest to make sure she's always in the news.

If the income has been taxed (none / 0) (#27)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 10:30:54 AM EST

one time.

Why does the government have the right to tax it again?

It belongs to the individual. Not the government.

an inheritance is not taxed as income (5.00 / 3) (#29)
by The Addams Family on Sat Dec 18, 2010 at 12:22:30 PM EST

but if you want to complain that this "income" is being taxed twice, then you are saying that an inheritance is income

following that logic, this "income" is NEW income for the person to whom the "income" has passed, & that person is now being taxed on his/her new "income" - as you say, "it belongs to the individual"

& if an inheritance is "income," then that "income" should be subject to taxation at the same rates as ordinary income

but of course an inheritance is NOT ordinary income - it may have been acquired thru derivatives, or it may take the form of a house, a farm, a business or other property - in any case, it has passed to "the individual" w/o the need for that "individual" to lift a finger

the founding fathers thought there should be a 100 percent inheritance tax, to prevent the accumulation of intergenerational wealth thru primogeniture & other forms of inheritance - they knew how concentration of wealth could destroy the new democracy

as we are seeing now


Yes, the person being taxed (none / 0) (#30)
by Harry Saxon on Sun Dec 19, 2010 at 10:01:22 AM EST

is the person who receives the income, and any other form of income(prizes, business income, etc.) is taxed at a much higher rate.

TAF, PPJ is just pleading the interest of a minority group in our society, even if he or any of his family never have to worry about paying an inheritance tax whenever one of them goes to the great beyond.

It's just like marching with Martin Luther King Jr., even if you weren't an African-American :-)


The issue is this (none / 0) (#31)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 19, 2010 at 12:14:44 PM EST

Should the person who earned the income and has paid the taxes on the income and thus all that has been purchased with that income........

have the right to control/spend that income as he sees fit??

Inheritance taxes are just another property grab.

No country can remain free if private property is not protected.


: no, the issue is this (5.00 / 1) (#32)
by The Addams Family on Sun Dec 19, 2010 at 01:37:47 PM EST

a person earns income and pays taxes on the income and on all that is purchased with the income
but when that person dies, s/he is no longer a person who has income, and so the question of a dead person's right to "spend" or "control" this non-income is moot
dead people don't spend or control anything, and what had been their income now becomes ASSETS
income and assets (wealth) are two different things
i agree that the sanctity of private property is fundamental to the founders' idea of the nation
but the founders also thought there should be no inherited wealth, a fact that you conveniently ignore

: Question (5.00 / 1) (#33)
by Harry Saxon on Sun Dec 19, 2010 at 01:43:40 PM EST

Should the person who earned the income and has paid the taxes on the income and thus all that has been purchased with that income........
have the right to control/spend that income as he sees fit?
Like buy guns for a terrorist organization, or fund people to go to TN and hide under the beds of loyal Americans living there until the time is right for jihad?
To quote one of my granduncles to a brother regarding a land dispute the latter was involved in, "Dead people can't own property."
Now, while they are alive, they can set up trusts and the like and see that except for what they need for living expenses, that it's all gone and accounted for before Mr. Death and the IRS man come on the scene.
Let's get some things clear, since there is some confusion on your part.
Inherited money isn't earned, it's given.
Inheritance taxes are just another property grab.
As Rex Stout has his character say about a similar subject, from the Wikiquote(dot)com:

A man condemning the income tax because of the annoyance it gives him or the expense it puts him to is merely a dog baring its teeth, and he forfeits the privileges of civilized discourse. But it is possible to criticize it on other and impersonal grounds. A government, like an individual, spends money for any or all of three reasons: because it needs to, because it wants to, or simply because it has it to spend. The last is much the shabbiest. It is arguable, if not manifest, that a substantial portion of the great spring flood of billions pouring into the Treasury will in effect get spent for the last shabby reason.
Click Me
From the Wiki, not for academic research, small children, or the faint of heart:

Proponents also note that the arguments of estate tax opponents are occasionally disingenuous. For example, while opponents point to family farmers and small business owners in an effort to demonstrate the unfairness or overreach of the tax, proponents note that nearly all family farmers and small business owners are exempt from or are not subject to the estate tax.[24]
One of the world's wealthiest men, Warren Buffett, CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, and the father of another of the world's wealthiest men (Microsoft founder Bill Gates), William H. Gates, Sr., favor the estate tax[28].
Click Me
No country can remain free if private property is not protected.
We've remained free for 90 years since the estate tax was passed in this country, can you tell me why I expect your next sentence to be about how the estate tax will be leading to Communism in the near future?