home

A Firebagger At The WaPo

Surprisingly, it's Eugene Robinson:

Making the tax cuts permanent for the wealthy would increase the deficit by $700 billion over the next decade. Which party claims to be urgently, desperately concerned about the deficit? The Republicans, of course. So which party is prepared to bust the budget, if that's what it takes, to serve the interests of the rich? The GOP. And which party, to get its way, refuses to approve desperately needed tax relief for the bruised and battered middle class? Once again, the Republicans.

Now, which party holds the presidency and, until January, ample majorities in both houses of Congress? That would be the Democrats. Which party can point to public opinion polls indicating that Americans support its position that the Bush tax cuts should be extended only for the middle class? That, too, would be the Democrats. And finally, which party somehow appears to be looking for a way to lose this argument and capitulate? Incredibly, the Democrats.

(Emphasis supplied.) It's incredible that the Obama Administration and its Catfood Commission can play this dishonest game about the need to destroy the social safety net at the same exact time they are about to permanently extend the irresponsible Bush tax cuts.

Speaking for me only

< The More Tax Cuts For The Rich Commission | What Obama Can Do About The Bush Tax Cuts >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    You know what, (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by andgarden on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 07:51:30 AM EST
    I'd like to hear from Nancy Pelosi on this. She could throw a big wrench in the tax cut cave-in by simply announcing that she won't schedule a vote for an extension of the upper-income cuts.

    The war around her would be a discharge petition, but that wouldn't be so easy to arrange. In a sense, it is actually quite useful that the cuts expire this Congress.

    according to morning tv (none / 0) (#5)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 08:06:16 AM EST
    she has been browbeaten into backtracking on her earlier criticisms of the catfood commission

    Parent
    That's (none / 0) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 08:08:36 AM EST
    what I was afraid of and why I wasn't necessarily supportive of her being the minority leader. We need someone who isn't a "bush democrat" and someone who will stand up to Obama.

    Parent
    No one with the possibility of becoming (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by masslib on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 08:11:20 AM EST
    leader is going to be more forthright with this President.  That's the problem.

    Parent
    On Monday a.m. (none / 0) (#41)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 05:54:50 PM EST
    on Morning Joe, several of the regulars stated that they had been told by several members of Congress -- off the record -- that they are disenchanted with the President.  

    If this is the case, why shouldn't we expect to see more push back from this Congress?

    Parent

    Pelosi is actually the best that (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by MO Blue on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 08:18:37 AM EST
    could be elected. If not her, then it would be Hoyer or maybe even Shuler. Neither would be an improvement.

    Parent
    correct (none / 0) (#15)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 08:22:02 AM EST
    at least be betrayed SOME democratic principals by talking about it.

    Parent
    If there were a real competition (none / 0) (#16)
    by andgarden on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 08:24:50 AM EST
    it would be between some combination of Clyburn, Hoyer, and Van Hollen. The latter would be acceptable in my view. However, she is superior to all of them. And anyway, she has the job locked up.

    Parent
    This issue (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by NYShooter on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 08:08:44 AM EST
    Is such an obvious winner for Obama I can't believe he doesn't hit this grand slam into the cheap seats.

    I'll bet that if he was a Democrat he'd do it in a nano-second.


    Exactly. (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Anne on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 08:51:37 AM EST
    Problem is that Obama is willing to sell out pretty much anything if he thinks it curries favor with his ideological soul-mates: Republicans.

    Why people still don't see this is beyond my ability to understand, because if this was all about learning the lesson that Republicans are all about taking whatever Dems are willing to give them and still not signing on, we either have to conclude that he's not not as smart as people thought he was to not have figured that out before he ever got to the WH - or - he really does identify with their ideas more than any Democrat should be expected to.

    He may well believe it's worth throwing the under-$250,000 crowd the bone of extending the tax rates, but I think it might be long past time to admit that he really doesn't have a problem with doing it for the over-$250,000 sector.

    Parent

    It's a winner with his donors. (none / 0) (#17)
    by observed on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 08:25:58 AM EST
    You know.. all those little people whose money propelled him to the nomination in 2008.

    Parent
    By the time Obama is done, (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by MO Blue on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 08:29:00 AM EST
    all those little people won't even have 5 cents to send him in 2012.

    Parent
    Obama is a conservative (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by lambert on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 08:45:03 AM EST
    That's why we're getting conservative policies from him.

    Again, easy peasy.

    Now, that... (none / 0) (#27)
    by masslib on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 08:46:17 AM EST
    I agree with.

    Parent
    He's a DADT conservative. (none / 0) (#29)
    by observed on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 08:58:23 AM EST
    He's a RW Republican (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by DancingOpossum on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 11:16:24 AM EST
    One of my Democratic friends stormed off in a huff when I said that to her yesterday. This followed a truly surreal conversation in which she, a longtime FDR Democrat, actually said that cutting social security was a "brave move" by Obama.

    Too many liberals still see Obama as an ally to be persuaded, rather than an enemy to be opposed.
    -- A poster at Caruso's site

    OMG! Time for a nationwide Munch Scream! (none / 0) (#42)
    by jawbone on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 06:23:27 PM EST
    LINK

    DINO Prez is not our friend.

    Parent

    incredible (none / 0) (#1)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 07:47:51 AM EST
    truly it is.  it show the power of the village.

    10 years is not "permanent" (none / 0) (#3)
    by observed on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 07:59:17 AM EST
    Your irresponsible, sensationalistic coverage of this serious issue damages public trust in Obama and Congress. Shame on you.

    Obviously, this is snark... (none / 0) (#6)
    by masslib on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 08:07:30 AM EST
    But, BTD, why do you say "permanently" when surely you know that isn't on the table?  Indeed, it's clear Obama plans on dishonestly claiming victory by arguing he didn't make permanent tax cuts for the wealthy.

    Parent
    The GOP insists (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 08:09:54 AM EST
    that they be permanent.

    They will prevail.

    Parent

    Oh boy... (none / 0) (#11)
    by masslib on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 08:11:46 AM EST
    You are really helping Obama out here.  LOL.

    Parent
    to what degree (none / 0) (#12)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 08:14:42 AM EST
    of pulpitude do we think Clinton could have hammered the republicans with even a threat to block taxcuts for the middle class to get them for the richest of the rich?

    Parent
    He'd run (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by NYShooter on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 08:21:59 AM EST
    to the bully pulpit so fast his gums would bleed.

    Parent
    Obama has the same ability (none / 0) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 08:26:33 AM EST
    Does he have the nerve. Clinton stood up to Gingrich and shut down the government.

    This is one of those moments.

    Parent

    Obama obfuscates quite skillfully, (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by observed on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 08:32:14 AM EST
    which is the opposite of what Clinton did when discussing tax and economic policy.

    Parent
    I am not (none / 0) (#19)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 08:27:24 AM EST
    holding my breath

    Parent
    People are not giving Obama (none / 0) (#24)
    by MO Blue on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 08:44:01 AM EST
    enough credit for his political skill on the issue of tax cuts for the wealthy. If they are extended or made permanent, he can run on rolling them back again in 2012. Just think of how many goodies he can promise the average voter that will be paid for by those taxes.

    Heck he might even promise once again to eliminate all federal taxes on seniors making less than $50,000 a year. A promise like that will surely work to offset the damage that will be done "fixing" Social Security.  

    Parent

    Based on how Seniors voted (none / 0) (#30)
    by Politalkix on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 09:20:16 AM EST
    in 2008 and 2010, it is clear that they are more concerned about deficits and helping the rich get richer than getting an elimination of federal taxes on incomes below $50000.

    Parent
    I think that your statement contains contrary (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by MO Blue on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 09:31:30 AM EST
    objectives. It is mathematically impossible to keep giving the rich (corporate and individual) huge bail outs and tax cuts and reduce the deficit.

    Parent
    Yes it does (none / 0) (#35)
    by Politalkix on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 10:04:53 AM EST
    My statement was a snark. I did not say that the mentioned objectives did not contradict each other. However, for unknown reasons, the majority of Seniors who vote, seemingly, do not see this contradiction.

    Parent
    Or, conversely (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by jbindc on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 10:23:05 AM EST
    You could say the drop off of young people, liberals, blacks,and Latinos (since 45 million fewer people voted in 2010 than in 2008) indicates that these groups were clearly more interested in voting for what was "hip" and "cool" rather than looking at platforms, issues, and positions.

     

    Parent

    You always have more voters (none / 0) (#38)
    by Politalkix on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 10:44:27 AM EST
    in Presidential elections than in mid-terms. Doh!
    Happened even when Bill Clinton was President.

    Parent
    Incredible? Nah (none / 0) (#4)
    by BobTinKY on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 08:06:13 AM EST
    par for the course.

    That's why midterm elections are a bad deal IMO (none / 0) (#22)
    by Saul on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 08:39:11 AM EST
    Congress and President are always trying to do what is politically correct rather than trying to do the right thing but more so when there is a midterm election or one has just been done.

    IMO if the majority of the people elect a President then let him have the full four years to do fulfill his or her agenda with no interruptions on his or her congressional stronghold (i.e. no midterm elections let  house of reps have elections every four years which coincide with presidential election plus senate elections must coincide with presidential elections) Two things will happen either the current administration blows it or is love by the majority.  Then you can kick him or her out along with the congress or keep him or her along with the congress. This way you get the full scope of the accomplishments or failures of the current administration and congress.  We will never know what could have been accomplished (good or bad) by Obama if there had been no midterm elections.

    But whom am I.  I am just the 800 pound gorilla in the room

    People want instant gratification now days.  How long did the big depression during FDR take to turn around.   I know he did not do it in his first two years.  It took a long time.  We live in a different world than those times.

    What's "incredible" about it? (none / 0) (#23)
    by lambert on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 08:43:35 AM EST
    Both legacy parties form a single system, and the actual outcomes --- 10% nominal (20% real) DISemployment, the loss of millions of homes, people dying for lack of heatlh care -- are the desired outcomes.

    Analytically, all this is easy-peasy. How to fix things, not so easy.

    I don't think that is true. (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by masslib on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 08:45:56 AM EST
    I think you have to lay alot of this at Obama's feet.  I think there are plenty of elected Democrats and others who would not have followed the same course as Obama here.

    Parent
    I think that might once have been true... (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by lambert on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 09:39:17 AM EST
    ... but I think the deterioration, even since 2008, is pronounced. The outcome of the 2008 primaries meant that a great many working class, women, and older voters, who comprised a great part of the base, were thrown out of the party. The results are as we see. They have no voice now, and so naturally policy outcomes are detrimental to them. This is a feature, not a bug. It's what Obama was chosen to do, and he has done it.

    Parent
    True, but they'll (none / 0) (#33)
    by masslib on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 09:44:55 AM EST
    be back.  There's no lasting Party without the base.

    Parent
    Which would explain why... (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by lambert on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 10:29:44 AM EST
    ... the D reaction to the Catfood Commission's report was one of incredulity, horror -- and delegitimization.

    Oh, wait...

    Parent

    Once the Dems extend tax cuts (none / 0) (#34)
    by MO Blue on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 10:02:48 AM EST
    for the rich, tell everyone that we are not reducing troops in Afghanistan any time soon so please give us trillions more and cut Social Security and Medicare to pay for it, doubt that there will be much of a base left. IMO. With the addition of the "Tea Party," the country already has two Republican parties. No need for a third. No lasting party - is no big deal

    Parent
    And this is a problem...? (none / 0) (#39)
    by DancingOpossum on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 11:13:42 AM EST
    The party will last without its old base. They will always have their new base of Wall Streeters and creative classers who fancy themselves slightly hipper than the Republicans because they aren't teabaggers. Other than that, the Democratic Party has made it clear it no longer wants or needs its erstwhile "base."

    The real question is, what will the jilted base do? Keep voting in hope that this time, this time, it really really really will be different?

    Parent

    "They have no place to go" (none / 0) (#43)
    by lambert on Fri Nov 12, 2010 at 08:25:24 PM EST
    We have to fix that problem. If it's a third party, so be it. If it's a parallel voting system, so be it.

    Parent