home

Clinton Reversed GOP Tax Policy, Obama Did Not

I have stated many times my view of the importance of tax policy and how it impacts all aspects of government policy (spending regulation enforcement, etc.) Ronald Reagan understood this point, and his most important achievements, from his perspective, came in the area of tax policy. Most Beltway Dems and bloggers are blind to this fact. Including President Obama. A recent National Journal article restated Barack Obama's view of Ronald Reagan as his model of a transformative President:

In the past, Obama has expressed a wary admiration for President Reagan and his ability to change the narrative. In January 2008, early in the Democratic primary season, Obama stunned many of his supporters by praising Reagan as a transformational president during a meeting with the editorial board of Nevada's Reno Gazette-Journal.

That was a contrast to the eight years of President Clinton, Obama added cuttingly. “Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not,” he said.

Yet the president seems somewhat frustrated at his own ability to do something similar. Another recent invitee to the White House in the wake of the midterm election setback was none other than Clinton, who endorsed the tax compromise.

(Emphasis supplied.) Bill Clinton changed the narrative on tax policy and he changed the actual Reagan tax policy - he raised taxes on the rich and lowered them for the working class. And then the economy boomed. From that point on, Dems had something to say on tax policy.

When George W. Bush pushed through his tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, using reconciliation to do it as Reagan and Clinton did as well, he discredited the GOP mantra on taxes because the economy did not respond positively.

In 2008, Obama ran against the Bush tax cuts and in favor of the Clinton tax policies.

But as President, Obama could not, or would not, return tax policy to Democratic principles. Even though all that needed to be done to achieve this was precisely nothing. The Bush tax cuts would have expired at the end of this year.

President Obama blocked this result when he negotiated the Bush/Obama tax cuts with the GOP.

The only transformation on tax policy that Obama has achieved was to have Democrats embrace Reaganomics.

No reasonable person can refer to an Administration that has changed the narrative on tax policy in the way the Obama Administration has as the "most progressive since . . ." Not in my mind.

Speaking for me only

< Tuesday Open Thread | The Norquist Strategy: The Spending:Cuts >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    So (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 10:26:12 AM EST
    So do you still really think, there wouldn't have been a dime's worth of difference between certain candidates?

    depends on the candidates (none / 0) (#86)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 03:16:40 PM EST
    Obama and HRC, no, not even a nickel's worth.

    Corporate Dems, the both of them.


    Parent

    At first I thought (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by jbindc on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 03:45:23 PM EST
    The difference was only as wide as the Mississippi River.

    Now - my estimation has changed to the length of the US.

    Parent

    A gross lack of perspective (none / 0) (#112)
    by Rojas on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 07:41:37 PM EST
    considering their constituency is located in a small area on the Ilse of Manhattan...

    Parent
    So..... (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by robert72 on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 06:20:00 PM EST
    competence, knowledge, hard work, toughness and resiliance don't mean a thing.

    Parent
    Note in service of corporations (none / 0) (#113)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 08:02:16 PM EST
    Determined to hold on that, are you? (none / 0) (#91)
    by sj on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 03:33:25 PM EST
    it will be interesting (none / 0) (#1)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 09:55:37 AM EST
    to see what happens in two years.  

    as much as we hate the tax bill, I do hate it, I am starting to think that the people were right who said the republicans would have won that argument and that the deal Obama got was probably as good as we were going to get at this point because republicans really would have let taxes go up and not extended emp benefits.

    but in two years when the economy is picking up, I think it will pick up, THEN it will be interesting to hear the arguments for and against.

    Not a chance (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by sj on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 10:26:10 AM EST
    republicans really would have let taxes go up and not extended emp benefits
    .

    There is no way that UI benefits were not going to be extended.  Like they always have been before.  Republicans have unemployed constituents as well.  Mayhap a few too many of them to not feel some heat.

    It was all about what they would get for it.  Which should have been nothing.

    I'll say this, though.  This was absolutely the best deal Obama was going to get.  Of course, he was negotiating with himself.

    Parent

    Misleading benefits (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by PlayInPeoria on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 04:51:52 PM EST
    The benefits from that package are misleading.

    One would think that I would get my full extension but that is not true.

    The EU benefits in IL will end for Jan 7th no matter how many weeks you were to have left. Far short from the 99 weeks that people believed the unemployed woyuld be alllowed. I'm being shorted 6 weeks of benefits. Others will be shorted 19 weeks.

    The largest lay offs are hitting the end of the road in Jan, Feb and Mar.

    Parent

    Okay, this I didn't know (none / 0) (#100)
    by sj on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 05:26:50 PM EST
    The EU benefits in IL will end for Jan 7th no matter how many weeks you were to have left.

    I don't know what this means and I don't quite understand what's happening here.  I'm clear that you are being shorted, but I don't understand why.  Explain?

    Parent

    Extended Benefits (EU) (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by PlayInPeoria on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 05:41:47 PM EST
    are from the State of IL. This kicks in after all the federal benefits (EUC).

    State of IL has decided to cut EU on Jan 7th. There is no reason given. It is my understanding that the EU is only partly covered by the Federal Government.

    The amount of assistance to the unemployed is just not as incompassing as made to beleive with that deal. Really BAD deal.

    That's why there is going to be another dip in the economy.

    Parent

    just think this is wrong (none / 0) (#21)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 10:29:07 AM EST
    they had their minions for weeks preparing the right with talking points.  IMO anyone who thinks the republicans would have let those benefits die is kidding themselves.

    Parent
    obviously I meant (none / 0) (#22)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 10:32:40 AM EST
    would NOT have let those benefits die

    Parent
    I knew what you meant :) (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by sj on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 10:46:21 AM EST
    And I completely disagree, but we are both just offering our opinions.  

    But I agree with you about talking points.  But you're talking arguments again, and strategies.  And they knew who they were dealing with.  With a real Democrat, laying out real Democratic positions, their strategy would have been different, and their concessions would have different.  But in the end, those UI benefits would have been extended.  As they have been before.  

    Parent

    The (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 12:05:22 PM EST
    GOP has already caved numerous times on unemployment extensions. Many of them remember how in '90 they took a bloodbath in the election because of NOT extending unemployment benefits.

    Parent
    There is no way (none / 0) (#109)
    by shoephone on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 06:35:21 PM EST
    Republicans would have been wiling to go home for Christmas and face their thousands of unemployed constituents. They may have been working on talking points, but any holiday media coverage of their jobless consituents would have easily outweighed their efforts.

    Parent
    Maybe (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 12:01:03 PM EST
    but there NEVER was an argument because Obama never tried to make one. He just waved the white flag and begged them not to take hostages.

    Parent
    Wish I could agree (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by waldenpond on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 12:07:35 PM EST
    I just don't see it.  Several states are in really bad shape.  The stock market may go up but so will unemployment.  Bond vigilantes and Repubs will block govt action and individuals are losing purchasing power.

    It used to be growth corps would blackmail the govt and then get back to business... the reality has changed.  The corps in control are extractors taking from the economy and not reliant on growth.  

    They could give proof to trickle down economics by hiring and dumping money into the economy and kill off the possibility of progressive taxation for another 30 years... but at least two things will prevent the possibility...  1, I don't think they can stop extracting 2.  They aren't reliant on economic growth for accumulating wealth.  There is an obvious 3...they own the govt and know they will get whatever they demand from the conservatives.

    Parent

    If it picks up, big IF (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 03:18:46 PM EST
    I don;t know why you think it will.  Where's the demand coming from?  We're mired in a demand, more accurately  lack of demand, induced slump with only less demand in the form of Govermnent spending cuts in sight.

    Parent
    If the economy improves (none / 0) (#4)
    by lilburro on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 10:02:37 AM EST
    the tax cuts are validated.

    Obama never has the argument.  Not even to the point where he can say, "OK, you can have your tax cuts for another 2 years, but only if you promise not to cut the other stimulative spending we have going on."  That didn't happen.

    "He didn't really respond,'' said one of the participants. "He said it was hard to change the narrative after 30 years" of small-government rhetoric and policies dating back to Ronald Reagan.  "He seemed to be looking for a way to reassure the base. Or maybe it was just to reassure himself." [emphasis supplied from National Journal]


    Parent
    Due respect (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 10:03:28 AM EST
    This is delusional.

    Parent
    heh (none / 0) (#6)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 10:04:57 AM EST
    more reserved than I expected.  

    but seriously, do you not think the republicans would have, forget IF they should have, won that argument?

    I do.


    Parent

    No (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 10:10:41 AM EST
    The President had all the power in the argument - no signing of tax cuts for the rich.

    You know when he is up for election? 2012.

    You know when the budget is going to be negotiated? February.

    IF Obama wanted to give ground on taxes, he should have waited to do so when negotiating the budget.

    Beyond that, how in blazes was this not on a reconciliation calendar? As I mention in my post, EVERY major change on tax policy, Reagan's, Clinton's, Bush 43's, were done through reconciliation.

    The incompetence is stunning.

    Parent

    on incompetence (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by sancho on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 04:48:21 PM EST
    at what point does one have to say that obama's actions are consistent with his beliefs? perhaps he is not a bad negotiater but is working to get the deal he in fact wants. he did endorse reagan in the primaries, he did run against clinton, and now regarding taxes he is largely validating those earlier staked positions.

    and he once said a certain senator from CT was his mentor in the senate. . .

    Parent

    I agree (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by Zorba on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 04:51:29 PM EST
    I don't think he's incompetent- I think that he's getting what he wants.  How many times do so-called progressives need to be beaten over the head before they realize that Obama is not one?

    Parent
    The incompetence is stunning. (none / 0) (#9)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 10:14:54 AM EST
    not argument there.  but that factors into my best deal we could get part.

    Parent
    also (none / 0) (#8)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 10:14:00 AM EST
    I dont agree with what seems to be CW that because 2012 is an election year the cuts will be extended again.

    I think maybe O thinks having an argument about either not exploding the debt or not giving tax cuts to millionaires (I think the 250 thou thing will be raised) is an argument he would like to have.

    the sad truth is this deal is popular with the public and absolutely wonderful to the village.  O is going to come out of this session smelling like a rose.  

    well, to many.


    Parent

    It's not a question of (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 10:22:03 AM EST
    "having the argument."

    It is a question os saying "I won't do it."

    Obama has to say he won't sign a bill with tax cuts for the rich.

    Then he has to do it.

    He has netiher said that nor do I have any confidence that he will do it.

    I guarantee you that on this issue, the GOP will not back down.

    You think it is about "arguments." So does Obama apprently. The GOP knows better.

    It is about resolve.

    The GOP has it. Obama does not.

    Parent

    It is about resolve. (none / 0) (#20)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 10:27:52 AM EST
    The GOP has it. Obama does not.

    thats it in a nutshell.  not argument at all.

    but I have to say it would have been a pretty bleak christmas if everyones paycheck had been smaller in january instead of bigger, as they now will, and having all those people lose employment benefits.

    intellectually I get it.  but O was right about one thing.  it would have really hurt a lot of people in the short term to make that point.

    Parent

    And a four year old, (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by NYShooter on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 10:50:09 AM EST
    With average I.Q, would know how to frame the issue to place the blame right where it belongs....at the Republicans' feet.

    I've read reports that the R's held back numerous issues that they were willing to cave on, but were astonished that Obama didn't press for them and just capitulated so easily.

    How do you beat a bully? You fight him, even if it means you get a bloody nose. Like Obama once said, "I'm not against all wars...."

    This was an issue to go to war for.


    Parent

    I think that is where the error comes in (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by ruffian on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 11:30:52 AM EST
    I think many people vastly overrate the political negatives of letting the tax cuts for all expire. The beltway media would have been the loudest complainers. Come back in January and push the Repubs to only cut them for the middle class. I doubt Obama would have lost that fight.

    Parent
    Was it bleak in 1993? (none / 0) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 10:39:31 AM EST
    Look, people vote in 2012. Ido not understand the notion that you decide on policy, IN POLITCAL TERMS< on how people feel about it that day,

    They do not vote that day. They vote in November every 2 years.

    The BEST politics is policies that work.

    Parent

    true enough (none / 0) (#29)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 10:41:37 AM EST
    but I think this one is going to work.

    for Obama.  

    that is not a defense.  just an observation.

    Parent

    The Deal (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 10:45:24 AM EST
    will not work for Obama in 2012 UNLESS he fights the spending fight in February.

    No one has EVER lost an election because of the deficit.

    A lot of people have lost elections because of the economy.

    Parent

    I kinda think he might (5.00 / 0) (#34)
    by sj on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 10:55:35 AM EST
    The Deal (none / 0) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 10:45:24 AM EST

    will not work for Obama in 2012 UNLESS he fights the spending fight in February.

    I think he might put some fight into this.  Unfortunately, I fear it will be on the wrong side.

    Publicly we'll get a  milquetoast/hand-wringing "deficit, cut spending, deficit" argument which mandates that he start hacking at entitlements.  

    Which we have paid into.  And which are self-funded.  And which to do not affect the deficit until The Deal itself goes into effect.

    Parent

    Not bigger (none / 0) (#80)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 02:57:26 PM EST
    And many actually smaller.  UI benefits aside, paychecks will either stay exactly the same or get slightly smaller for folks in the $20K to $40K range.  Think they're not going to blame Obama for that?

    Parent
    I have read that they (none / 0) (#82)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 03:09:33 PM EST
    MAY increase slightly for one in three with very low incomes.  I have not seen what you just said anywhere.

    Parent
    "how hard is it" (none / 0) (#74)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 01:23:43 PM EST
    not hard.  I think I could have done it.  

    however I am not sure Obama could have.  that is my point.

    Parent

    Rich Lowry (none / 0) (#2)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 09:57:21 AM EST
    Republican opposition to New START is collapsing. One Senate source just told me the vote for ratification could go as high as 75
    .

    sorry (none / 0) (#3)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 09:57:41 AM EST
    wrong thread

    Parent
    On Reagan (none / 0) (#10)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 10:16:55 AM EST
    I completely agree that Obama seeks to model himself after Reagan, but I think you miss what that actually means.

    Clinton was spectacular but Reagan was transformative in that that he ushered the country right.  I disagree with everything that Reagan stood for by and large, but only the most grudging partisan wouldn't acknowledge his success in that regard.  That's clearly what Obama means.  I think any indication that Obama wants to be Reagan in terms of policy is  . . . respectfully, not an objective view on the man or anything he's said or written.

    What Obama did with tax policy was in essence to keep generally the status quo with some concessions for the estate tax and other matters.  But from a thousand feet, he made no real change.  I concede that you view this as a huge failure.  I disagree, but I completely see your argument and some of its many merits.

    But the shift leftward in the area of healthcare was massive. The entire discussion of that topic from here on out will start from a ground that is miles to the left of where it was before he took office and will stay that way likely forever. And healthcare is the issue most crucial for the next 50 years.  It is THE issue in many respects.  And we won the first and most important battle on it.

    The DADT change ultimately signals the beginning of full marriage rights for LGBT in this country.  Possibly not today and maybe not during his term, but with the military's concession, it accelerates the ball rolling toward the inevitable at an even faster clip.  The most conservative aspect of our society, the military, is moved leftward.

    The two supreme court justices he chose, I think ultimately, will prove to be fairly liberal, and if he is reelected, he'll have the chance to push the balance even further left.  It is a move leftward. Not as leftward as some would want, but left nontheless.

    Financial reform, although not optimal, was a further move left if taken from a thousand feet.  It was an acknowledgment of the unbalance of power, and the stage is set for real reform once the economy is in order. Probably years from now, but the path is now open.

    The bottom line is that these two years, on the whole, represent a nationwide lurch to the left.  The problem is that this drift is being masked by the masterful work of FoxNews and the GOP in marketing their wares. But fundamentally, the discussion, for example, isn't on whether we should have a universal style healthcare where everyone is covered, but how to do it.  Romney Care (which is a bad word to many liberals) has resulted in coverage of 98% of the citizens of that state. The tactic of conceding to a more moderate healthcare plan in Mass. paid off big time for the liberals there.  The end result, although it took years, is approaching what we want. 100% coverage for everyone. HCR is set to follow a similar path (low participation initially followed by a boom). That is a fundamental change that can't be written away because the rich received tax cuts.

    Even if you believe cuts are the fundamental issue of our time, arguing that it means Obama is trying to be a conservative is wrong I think and ignores what we are likely to be debating in 5 or even 10 years.

    My post was about tax policy (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 10:19:27 AM EST
    I won't debate the other issues you raise here as I have expressed my view elsewhere. Here's the bottom line:

    "What Obama did with tax policy was in essence to keep generally the status quo with some concessions for the estate tax and other matters.  But from a thousand feet, he made no real change."

    The status quo was Reagan/Bush-onomics.

    IT is the most important factor on what a government does.

    We'll talk in February when the GOP slashes government spending and then maybe you will understand.

    Parent

    slashes government spending (none / 0) (#13)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 10:22:02 AM EST
    its going to be ugly.  clearly in their minds this tax bill was part one.

    Paul Ryan is going to be the man of the year

    Parent

    The new Gingrich (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 10:23:35 AM EST
    and unless Obama has a Clinton 1995 in him, the cuts will be deep and across the board on social safety net spending.

    Parent
    what do you think (none / 0) (#17)
    by lilburro on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 10:26:03 AM EST
    of some of the lame duck successes (DADT, START)?  Part of some behind the scenes bargaining or maybe a slight cooling off of GOP nuttiness?

    Parent
    IMO (none / 0) (#24)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 10:34:56 AM EST
    neither
    start was always going to pass.  and with DADT is was do it now on our own schedule or do it with a court order is a month or two.

    nuttieness is alive and well.


    Parent

    DADT is a real achievement (none / 0) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 10:35:56 AM EST
    No one should slight that.

    START would have passed next year. What do I think about START on policy? I know nothing about it frankly.

    Its political value is zero.

    Parent

    its funny (none / 0) (#26)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 10:38:36 AM EST
    I sort of always thought DADT was going to pass.  dont know if you remember but I suggested to you months ago it would pass in the lame duck.

    I really think they understood they were looking down the courts gun barrel.  

    I am happy it passed but not thrilled or shocked or even surprised.

    Parent

    And you were right (none / 0) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 10:41:05 AM EST
    I was skeptical UNTIL Obama guaranteed it would pass in the lame duck session.

    Then I knew a deal was in the works.

    I did not know that part of the deal was the Bush/Obama tax cuts.

    Parent

    Is that a good deal? (none / 0) (#35)
    by lilburro on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 11:03:31 AM EST
    A few GOP Senators don't have to look like bigots in the history books, and Obama gets to please his base.  Were the Bush tax cuts a necessary trade-off for that?  Many GOPers already see the writing on the wall when it comes to gay civil rights.  

    Parent
    Since I am not gay (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 11:10:06 AM EST
    it is easy for me to say it was a bad deal.

    If they had traded the DREAM Act instead I'd like to think I would say it was a bad deal, but you know what? I'm not sure what I would be saying.

    Parent

    Yeah (none / 0) (#105)
    by lilburro on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 06:13:06 PM EST
    I certainly respect and appreciate what you mean in terms of the gay/not gay thing.  I guess I'm not entirely convinced that there was a tax deal/DADT exchange (a DREAM Act/tax deal exchange I would buy, since DREAM seemed so much less likely to pass).  It did get a handful of GOP votes, but not too many.  Maybe he was bargaining with the Blue Dogs?  Give me the tax deal or DADT gets it?  I'm glad DADT has been repealed, but if that was how it happened, was there truly not another way to get that done?  I dunno.

    Parent
    I "Understand" (none / 0) (#37)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 11:11:18 AM EST
    I don't think it is fair to argue that disagreement reflects a lack of understanding.  It could simply reflect a different take on the same agreed upon set of facts.

    My position has always been that fighting this battle (both before and after midterms) could have ultimately led to a worse outcome if the GOP called Obama's bluff (which I firmly believe they would have).

    Where your analysis is fundamentally wrong is in the lack of any consideration of the impact of the worst case scenario which I see as this:

    The tax cuts all expire, Obama is forced by the economy and the psychic impacts of their expiration to agree to the same tax cut structure, the same estate tax structure and a shorter unemployment benefit window and those tax cuts are made permanent.

    You state: "Even though all that needed to be done to achieve this was precisely nothing. The Bush tax cuts would have expired at the end of this year."

    The fallacy of that is that letting that happen at this point would likely have been disasterous for the economy. Not because the GOP is correct about the economic theory, but because the environment was one in that the economic impact would be a self fulfilling prophecy.  In other words, I think the economy would tank because the people, in large majorities, BELIEVED that it would tank.

    Nowhere in your analysis do you address (a) the possibility of this happening or (b) what it would mean for the effectiveness of future liberal arguments if it did happened and was blamed on liberal policies.

    Although you disagree, there is the very real possibility that your position would leave the country in far worse shape and the liberal tax policy position far weakened for future fights which in essence would inevitably lead to even more spending cuts than you now fear.

    Now if you disagree with any part of that analysis, I understand. We can debate the "could
    haves" and "would haves" and we should.  We are progressives and our strength is in the diversity of our opinions.

    But accusing those on the left who disagree with your hypothesis as "not understanding" is pretty unfair. I believe the possible future consequences I laid out above are every bit as defensible as your state of facts.

    I "understand". I (and those now grudgingly supporting the compromise) simply disagree.

    Parent

    "Disatrous for the economy? (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 11:15:55 AM EST
    We are all supply siders now.

    This is utter nonsense.

    You know what is going to be "disastrous for the economy?" The massive spending cuts the GOP will demand in February because of the deficit. The deficit which has been expanded by 4 trillion dollars by The Deal.

    You have it exactly backwards.

    The disaster is unfolding. And it started with The Deal.


    Parent

    I don't (none / 0) (#54)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 11:42:43 AM EST
    think you caught the most relevant point of that long comment:

    "The fallacy of that is that letting that happen at this point would likely have been disasterous for the economy. Not because the GOP is correct about the economic theory, but because the environment was one in that the economic impact would be a self fulfilling prophecy. In other words, I think the economy would tank because the people, in large majorities, BELIEVED that it would tank."

    You can be dismiss supply side economics as silly and still believe that to be entirely true.  If people believe that the tax increases will make the economy worse, they will conserve even more, hold off on making additional investments, etc.

    That effect will likely be completely unrelated to the actual impact of the tax increases.  It goes to confidence, which is a key component of any economic recovery and something most economist agree is a real danger.

    But the good thing here is that unlike what I am arguing, you are making the absolute statement that this will be disasterous for the economy because of the inevitable spending cuts that Obama will make, crippling the economy.

    We will know relatively quickly if you are right about his cuts and their effects.  I'll hold you to your word.  Let us all hope that you are wrong.

    Parent

    pretzel time (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 12:27:46 PM EST
    Why is it ABG argues more forcefully (5.00 / 3) (#98)
    by oculus on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 05:01:44 PM EST
    in support of Pres. Obama's decisions than the President does?

    Parent
    Most of your (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by Warren Terrer on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 01:43:58 PM EST
    economic theories hinge on ideas like confidence and belief - the 'confidence fairies' as Paul Krugman calls them. 'Confidence' is economic mumbo jumbo used by bad economists to support theories that have nothing else going for them. You even admit that the theories you espouse have nothing going for them apart from 'confidence'. Time for a rethink.

    Parent
    Please, please, please (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 10:25:35 AM EST
    Please drop your employer provided health insurance (which I know you have because you don't understand what Obama has done to health insurance).  Please drop it and go on individual insurance.  And then tell me how wonderful Obama's "lefty" health insurance "reform is.

    Hint:  If you like his tax reform, you're gonna LOOOOVE his health insurance "reform".

    And if you won't do that, please stop saying how wonderful it is.  People who know, know better.

    Parent

    It is not perfect (none / 0) (#38)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 11:14:31 AM EST
    It is a vast improvement.

    And you are right. If I dropped my insurance for the Obama plans, I would be disappointed.

    But I had insurance before HCR.

    The question is better directed to those who didn't have care and now do.

    Parent

    Health Care vs Health Insurance (5.00 / 4) (#46)
    by sj on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 11:31:40 AM EST
    As long as you continue to conflate the two things you will never see what the rest of us are talking about.


    Parent
    Hard to do (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Yman on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 11:38:26 AM EST
    The question is better directed to those who didn't have care and now do.

    Like trying to survey Santa and his elves.

    OTOH, maybe we should ask some of the newly uninsured among the all-time, record-high 50.7 million people who now have no health insurance.

    Parent

    Santa (none / 0) (#52)
    by jbindc on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 11:39:27 AM EST
    Probably has an employer-sponsored plan for his elves.

    Parent
    I'm pretty sure ... (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Yman on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 11:54:35 AM EST
    ... Elves are covered under Obama's plan.

    Santa got a waiver for the reindeer.

    Parent

    It (5.00 / 4) (#63)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 12:09:26 PM EST
    is NOT an improvement. Before people knew exactly who was screwing them: the insurance companies. Now the insurance companies have the perfect fall guy: Obama. He gets to take the blame for their skyrocketing premiums etc. He is running right down there with Carter for ineptness in office.

    Parent
    Ditto Yman (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by waldenpond on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 12:13:43 PM EST
    I was going to do another surprised 'what?' to this but I see Yman pointed out the fact that record numbers are uninsured.  

    It's beginning to look more and more that the center left is adopting ideology and rejecting facts just as conservatives have done.  It appears to being done as justification for Obama but it's a toxic trend for the Dem party.

    Parent

    Dear ABG, Sir, (none / 0) (#116)
    by NYShooter on Wed Dec 22, 2010 at 07:18:17 AM EST
    You really should read up a little more as to what the Pharma Cos have been doing lately......like raising their prices....as much as 300% in some instances.

    Please don't say that's an exaggeration, or an outlier....it is not.  Cancer patients, taking oxycontin for the pain, have seen their out-of-pocket cash price rise from the mid $200's to about $750 for a one month supply. Provigil, for narcolepsy, has risen from mid $500's to over $1,500, also for a one month's supply.

    The major manufacturers have been more and more successful fighting the generics in court. Simply by changing the chemistry slightly they have prevented drugs like Plavix, for heart disease, from being made by generic companies.

    These are just a couple of examples that I'm familiar with, I'm sure there are many, many more. Make no mistake about it, it is war; The Oligarchs on one side, supported by President Obama and Congress, and the rest of us on the other.

    There is no level the new ultra-rich will not stoop to in devastating our lives; we are a diminishing resource in their eyes, and when we're totally debilitated, they'll move on to Asia, Africa, South America, etc. They are not Americans, and don't think of us as even humans, just a resource to forage. They are human-like mutants, having shucked out any vestige of humanity, citizenship, patriotism, or common ideals.

    They are.........traitors. And their champion, so very, very disappointedly, is the gentleman you seem to spend an inordinate amount of time and effort rationalizing.

    His meteoric rise out of nowhere, harvesting & harnessing the ideals and hopes of so many millions of our citizens, only to betray those poor naïve souls to a life & future even worse than we had just a couple of years ago.

    I saw him for what he was, long before the campaign. I wrote about him vociferously, and often. Please, Mr. ABG; you seem like a nice fellow, go into the future with a little more objectivity, if you can. When I wrote for Salon, "The Greatest Con-Job in History, Followed by the Greatest Betrayal since the Bible," I didn't realize it was an understatement.


    Parent

    Wrong axis dude. (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Pacific John on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 11:14:32 AM EST
    We all agree that Obama wanted to be transformational, but not on your left-right axis. If he had, he would have adopted liberal economic/class, or perhaps social policy as his own narrative, but as we see here, he's not a liberal on tax progressivity, or even much of a Democrat.

    No, the correct axis partisanship v compromise, just like he said in his only spontaneous outpouring I can recall.

    Parent

    I completely agree (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by ruffian on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 11:36:30 AM EST
    His dichotomy is not left v right, but idealists v compromisers.

    Pretty big collection of straw man arguments in that diary. Much like the passages in The Audacity of Hope that had me flinging it across the room.

    Parent

    Just when I think I could not be more (5.00 / 4) (#58)
    by Anne on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 11:56:07 AM EST
    gobsmacked by your total devotion to Obama, you manage to surprise me.

    I completely agree that Obama seeks to model himself after Reagan, but I think you miss what that actually means.

    Obama is so clearly a believer in supply-side, trickle-down economics - that belief runs through pretty much everything he's done - this statement astounds me.

    I think any indication that Obama wants to be Reagan in terms of policy is  . . . respectfully, not an objective view on the man or anything he's said or written.

    With all due respect, if you removed Obama's name from what he's done, you would be hard-pressed to identify the person responsible as any kind of Democrat - and you might even think "Reagan" when you looked it over.

    What Obama did with tax policy was in essence to keep generally the status quo with some concessions for the estate tax and other matters.  But from a thousand feet, he made no real change.  I concede that you view this as a huge failure.  I disagree, but I completely see your argument and some of its many merits.

    You completely miss probaby the most important element: was keeping the status quo on tax rates the right thing to do?  Was it the right thing for where the economy is at this point, and taking into account that Republicans will take over the House in less than a month, and they have done little else but talk about deficit reduction and spending cuts.  If, coming into the next Congress, you can point to an increase in revenue because the tax rates to the top 2% were allowed to expire, you have saved many worthwhile programs from being cut.  Was it the right thing to extend the income tax rates for the top tier, make permanent the lower rates on capital gains and dividends AND raise the estate tax exemption to $5MM AND lower the top estate tax rate to 35%?  Keep it at 2009 levels, or drop it back to 2001 levels - either way, you are not cutting revenue.

    Unemployment benefits were going to be extended - that's a bluff the Dems fall for every damn time.  Or maybe what they do is USE the unemployed to boost the fortunes of the wealthy - either way, it just ends up hurting us all.

    But the shift leftward in the area of healthcare was massive. The entire discussion of that topic from here on out will start from a ground that is miles to the left of where it was before he took office and will stay that way likely forever. And healthcare is the issue most crucial for the next 50 years.  It is THE issue in many respects.  And we won the first and most important battle on it.

    Oy.  First of all, neither Obama nor the Democratic Congress have done diddly-squat for health CARE; their efforts were on behalf of health INSURANCE.  Please explain, if you will or if you can, how leaving health insurance companies in the driver's seat, with millions more people having to buy insurance that may or may not be sufficient, that may or may not be affordable, that may or may not improve their access to CARE, is a "massive" shift to the left.  That's - to use one of BTD's signature declarations - delusional.

    The DADT change ultimately signals the beginning of full marriage rights for LGBT in this country.  Possibly not today and maybe not during his term, but with the military's concession, it accelerates the ball rolling toward the inevitable at an even faster clip.  The most conservative aspect of our society, the military, is moved leftward.

    The death of DADT occurred on Obama's watch, but he was not the driving force behind repeal; that is attributable to - believe it or not - Joe Lieberman and the relentless work by advocacy groups.  And for what it's worth, I would not expect DADT to usher in much leftward movement by the military; yes, it may help to promote full civil rights for everyone - which is no small thing - but don't look for tie-dyed unis anytime soon.

    The two supreme court justices he chose, I think ultimately, will prove to be fairly liberal, and if he is reelected, he'll have the chance to push the balance even further left.  It is a move leftward. Not as leftward as some would want, but left nontheless.

    Given that the two nominations he made were to replace unabashedly liberal justices, I would not be so sure we have secured the status quo there, but I will be delighted if future rulings prove that we have.  As for future nominations, Obama's need to appease the right, coupled with an evaporating majority, does not - for me - bode well for any major - or even minor - leftward shift on the Court.

    Financial reform, although not optimal, was a further move left if taken from a thousand feet.  It was an acknowledgment of the unbalance of power, and the stage is set for real reform once the economy is in order. Probably years from now, but the path is now open.

    If you think the balance of power is shifting toward us lowly consumers and away from the Big Money Boyz, you may already be too far gone to help.

    The bottom line is that these two years, on the whole, represent a nationwide lurch to the left.  The problem is that this drift is being masked by the masterful work of FoxNews and the GOP in marketing their wares.

    The only thing that's lurching is my stomach when I read this kind of thing - and your belief that the triumph of liberalism is being masked by conservative media is as funny as Obama still thinking he has a message problem.  Well, he does, but the problem isn't that he isn't explaining things well enough, but that his message stinks.

    But fundamentally, the discussion, for example, isn't on whether we should have a universal style healthcare where everyone is covered, but how to do it.  Romney Care (which is a bad word to many liberals) has resulted in coverage of 98% of the citizens of that state. The tactic of conceding to a more moderate healthcare plan in Mass. paid off big time for the liberals there.  The end result, although it took years, is approaching what we want. 100% coverage for everyone. HCR is set to follow a similar path (low participation initially followed by a boom). That is a fundamental change that can't be written away because the rich received tax cuts.

    Until people can get the CARE they need, having "coverage" is meaningless.  And any plan that purports to be in response to a "crisis" but which is still years from implementation is nothing more than a huge gift to the insurance industry.  

    Even if you believe cuts are the fundamental issue of our time, arguing that it means Obama is trying to be a conservative is wrong I think and ignores what we are likely to be debating in 5 or even 10 years.

    Obama isn't trying to be a conservative; he is a conservative who is allowing his true self to be revealed.  The Deficit Commission was not and is not the creation of a liberal, or a progressive.  Putting Social Security on the table - when he refused to put single-payer there - is not a liberal or progressive action.  Extending the Bush rates, further lowering the estate tax rates, cutting the payroll tax when he knows the knives are being sharpened to cut spending and negate whatever stimulative effect the Deal might be capable of producing - these are not the actions of a liberal.  They are the actions of someone who believes in the economic policies espoused by Reagan.

    That Bill Clinton came out and shilled for some of the worst tax policy ever only means that I have even less respect for him than I used to; it will be hard for me to take seriously anything he's likely to say in the future because I know he is too smart not to know he went all in on a bad, bad deal for the country.

    Parent

    It is hard (2.00 / 1) (#64)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 12:10:01 PM EST
    to respond when you argue things like HCR did nothing and only helped to promote conservative causes.

    We aren't operating with the same set of fundamental assumptions.

    Parent

    It is the conservative HIP (5.00 / 5) (#68)
    by waldenpond on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 12:20:05 PM EST
    The health insurance plan was a regurgitation of a 20 year old conservative plan.  The thing was written by the Heritage foundation.

    It was specifically designed as conservative corporate welfare.  The insurance industry gets to suck billions from the middle class with this conservative bill.  The pharma industry gets to transfer billions from the middle class.

    It props up a completely irrelevant industry that does nothing more than privatize what should be a human rights issue.  It's only purpose is profit seeking.

    Everything conservatives do focus on rent seeking with the goal to economically and politically weaken the middle class and expand the oligarchy.
    This was a step in the deconstruction of democracy.

    Parent

    Anyone still have the HIP link? (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Pacific John on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 12:53:41 PM EST
    from Fall 2008?

    Reading the industry plan, it's like the Administration didn't even try to disguise their plan as anything else.

    Parent

    Not sure which one you're looking for (none / 0) (#77)
    by Yman on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 01:37:42 PM EST
    But here's Kaiser's comparison, ...

    ... or an article by Jonathan Chait.

    Parent

    Got it!!! (none / 0) (#88)
    by Pacific John on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 03:21:10 PM EST
    Here's the press release.

    Here's the pdf plan.

    Obamacare: brought to you by the same old crooks.

    Parent

    I'm just looking at (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by Anne on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 12:42:02 PM EST
    what actually happened, and who made it happen, and I'm looking at it from my perspective as a liberal-to-the-bone Democrat who (1) believes deeply that everyone is entitled to health care, and (2) that it was fundamentally wrong to structure "reform" in any way that left insurance companies - which are largely responsible for this "crisis" we're in - in charge and rewarded them for their behavior by guaranteeing them millions more customers and giving them years to ratchet up premiums and co-pays while reducing coverage.

    He took single payer off the table - wouldn't even allow discussion of it, made sure his Senate buddy Baucus enforced that ban.  So, who was he looking out for, ABG?  Whose interests was he advocating for?  The uninsured?  The millions already paying so much for insurance they can't afford actual care?

    A progressive, a liberal, would not have convened that odious Deficit Commission, stacked it with entitlement-haters, would not be talking about incorporating much of its majority report in legislation in the coming Congress.  The man is singing from the Republican songbook on this, ABG - there simply is no way to refute that.

    Is this what progressives do?  Do they take long-held, bedrock principles and offer them up as sacrifices to bipartisanship?  I think not.

    I can hardly wait to hear how you will characterize his coming calls to cut SS benefits as marking more of this massive leftward shift...

    Parent

    Ha! (none / 0) (#90)
    by sj on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 03:32:30 PM EST
    We aren't operating with the same set of fundamental assumptions.

    You got that right, for sure :)

    Parent

    question, ABG (none / 0) (#92)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 03:40:23 PM EST
    are you Barack Obama?

    don't you have a diary to writer over at the Cheeto?

    Parent

    "Obama isn't trying to be a conservative (2.00 / 1) (#67)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 12:19:04 PM EST
    he is a conservative."

    I appreciate your comment and the detailed response to my points.

    But I think my most effective response is to restate your quote, which is, I think, by any objective measure, not true.

    Parent

    "Any objective measure"?!?! (5.00 / 7) (#76)
    by Yman on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 01:32:50 PM EST
    From someone who claims Obama's health insurance reform plan is "downright magical" and would "put his accomplishments up against anyone's"?

    Now you're claiming to seek an objective assessment of Obama's tenure?

    This is snark, ..... right???

    Parent

    True Statement (2.00 / 1) (#94)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 04:37:42 PM EST
    I am as objective as anyone else who posts on a liberal blog.

    Parent
    In other words... (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by sj on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 05:41:39 PM EST
    ...Completely biased.  In your case biased in favor of Obama.

    In my case, biased in favor of liberal principles.  Clearly those are not the same things.

    hoo boy.  "By any objective measure" indeed.  As if by saying so, you can make it so.  Well why not, I guess. The Republican Party has been "changing" reality by that means for years.  Or at least how reality is reported.

    Parent

    It's well past the point where (2.33 / 3) (#110)
    by shoephone on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 06:47:55 PM EST
    I can believe that ABG isn't being paid to post this nonsense.

    Parent
    Horsesh*t (none / 0) (#111)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 07:39:36 PM EST
    People disagree.

    TYhat was a ridiculous comment from you.


    Parent

    You are as entitled as anyone who (5.00 / 3) (#115)
    by Anne on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 09:36:51 PM EST
    posts comments on this or any other blog to post your own comments, but that doesn't make what you write "objective" - except perhaps, in your own mind.

    I think you have allowed rhetoric to obscure the meaning of action; I wish I could convince you that what Obama does is a far better indicator of who he is and what he intends than anything he ever says.  You have allowed the "accomplishment" of passing legislation to obscure the poor quality of that legislation, and have created success out of thin air where that legislation has yet to even be implemented.

    If you do a little role reversal and sub-in a Republican president and a Republican-majority Congress for the actions, policies and legislation of the last two years, I cannot imagine you regarding them as major successes.

    Bad policy is bad policy; it's harder to fathom and harder to take when the bad policy is coming from one's own party - and Job One would seem to be finding a way to set things in the direction they need to go, instead of deluding ourselves that what's happening is just wonderful when, by most objective measures, it's not.

    Parent

    "True statement"? (none / 0) (#114)
    by Yman on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 09:36:14 PM EST
    No.  

    Illogical/non sequitur?

    Yep.

    Parent

    Thanks (none / 0) (#89)
    by sj on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 03:32:19 PM EST
    Thanks for continuing to take this on.  This time, like many times, I got stuck at "oy".

    Parent
    And yet Obama himself disagrees with you (none / 0) (#12)
    by lilburro on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 10:19:53 AM EST
    "He said it was hard to change the narrative after 30 years" of small-government rhetoric and policies dating back to Ronald Reagan.


    Parent
    Clinton signed special low rate for capital gains (none / 0) (#23)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 10:33:47 AM EST
    hardly reversing Reagan.

    He raised taxes on (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 10:43:06 AM EST
    the wealthy and corporations.

    Was there some "incentivizing" capital gains nonsense for certain "investments?" Absolutely.

    Let me put it this way, how many Republican and Blue Dogs voted for the Clinton tax plan in 1993?

    Parent

    None, they did in 1997 though (none / 0) (#83)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 03:11:53 PM EST
    Reagan tax policy (none / 0) (#41)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 11:20:35 AM EST

    was a 65% increase in tax revenue over his time in office.  That is a very healthy tax increase.

    Year 1981 Federal Tax revenue $599 billion
    Year 1989 Federal Tax revenue $991 billion

    He closed most of the deductions (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by ruffian on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 11:38:52 AM EST
    available to the middle class. That way he could raise revenue without increasing rates much, if at all.

    I'm old enough to remember being able to deduct all of my credit card interest.

    Parent

    I speak of Reagan (none / 0) (#53)
    by ruffian on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 11:39:53 AM EST
    And Clinton? (none / 0) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 11:23:47 AM EST
    Heh ... 19% real, per-capita growth ... (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Yman on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 12:08:51 PM EST
    ... during Reagan's administration, versus 41% during Clinton's administration.

    Parent
    Chack out Carter's it beat Reagan's (none / 0) (#85)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 03:13:38 PM EST
    So you're in FAVOR of tax increases? (none / 0) (#56)
    by Yman on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 11:49:41 AM EST
    Because even conservatives acknowledge that taxes were increased every year during Reagan's administration, including the Reagan's proposal of the largest peacetime tax increase in US history (TEFRA, 1982).

    Guess that, along with inflation, increased population, stimulus caused by deficit spending, etc., explain the increase in tax revenue.

    Parent

    Reagan raised them on many people (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by ruffian on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 02:58:44 PM EST
    while convincing others that he was actually cutting them across the board. So they believed his 'low taxes' rhetoric that was not exactly the way he was governing.

    Now that's a Great Communicator for ya.

    Parent

    Reagan (none / 0) (#65)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 12:12:07 PM EST
    also raised taxes 7 times during his tenure. That's where the increase comes from. Nobody seems to talk about that for some reason. I guess it doesn't support their supply side voodoo belief system.

    Parent
    And the FICA increase was astounding (none / 0) (#84)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 03:12:56 PM EST
    I remember Ronnie's tax "reform" well.

    Parent
    To reverse today's inequality of wealth... (none / 0) (#43)
    by Dadler on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 11:23:55 AM EST
    ...and bring the change we need would require taxing the wealthy and corporations at a rate we haven't seen in half a century or more -- it would require going much further than Clinton ever would have considered, being the corporate lamprey that he is. This kind of increase in taxation on the wealthy and corporations will never happen in our brainwashed state.  Sadly, even during the great progressive Clinton era, we tend to forget that the inequality in wealth increased more than at any time previously.  How is that possibly?  Figure it out.  Economic sleight of hand is the defacto state of being in this nation. Griftopia is right.

    That said, I'd take some of Bubba's political gamesmanship right now in a heartbeat. Obama doesn't even want to play the game, he thinks its beneath all of us. Because he's more of a fool than Clinton ever was, bottom line.

    Honestly (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by jbindc on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 11:38:49 AM EST
    I don't think it's a matter of "he doesn't want to," it's "he doesn't have a clue how they do it in the big leagues."

    Parent
    Well that's what happens (5.00 / 4) (#55)
    by oldpro on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 11:49:16 AM EST
    when you drag up somebody from the farm team to pitch in the World Series.

    What are the odds?

    Parent

    But experience doesn't matter (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by jbindc on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 12:24:17 PM EST
    Especially when there's "not a dime's worth of difference" between any of the candidates.

    Parent
    "On issues I care about." (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by oculus on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 05:06:42 PM EST
    And let's be honest (none / 0) (#44)
    by Dadler on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 11:27:10 AM EST
    It's a bit much to say Clinton REVERSED Reagan's tax policy. He tweaked it, fairly decently in some places, but the overall regressive framework remained.  That it resulted in gov't coffer getting fatter should only have led us to the logical conclusion -- that GENUINELY progressive and equitable tax policy would work even more wonders.

    Parent
    He reversed the direction (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 11:31:45 AM EST
    Should it be reversed even more? Certainly.

    Obama endorsed it.

    Parent

    I wonder what Obama would (none / 0) (#107)
    by lilburro on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 06:16:47 PM EST
    say to that.  I think he clearly believes Clinton is part of the right wing narrative that he believes is stymieing him.  If he's aware he's up against it, I think he is ambitious enough to know he must change it...does he really think 2012 is the time to do it?

    Parent
    Transformative President (none / 0) (#103)
    by Politalkix on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 05:50:01 PM EST
    BHO actually meant that he would himself transform from a Democrat to a Republican during his Presidency :-).

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by lilburro on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 06:15:02 PM EST
    knowing your comment histor, I think you are snarking... ;)  I don't think he's made a Dem to GOP transformation, but I would personally say I'm frustrated...

    Parent
    He was always (none / 0) (#104)
    by Zorba on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 06:10:42 PM EST
    a Republican, anyway.  He just could never have been nominated if he ran as one.  

    Parent