Doesn’t sound like Obama is backing down:
“That is the wrong interpretation because I haven’t had a conversation with Democratic and Republican leaders,” Obama said of a Huffington Post article suggesting that in advance of negotiations with lawmakers next week, the White House has calculated that giving in on tax cuts for the rich is the only way to get the middle class cuts extended too.
“Here’s the right interpretation — I want to make sure that taxes don’t go up for middle class families starting on January 1st,” Obama said at a news conference at the conclusion of the G-20 Summit here. “That is my number one priority for those families and for our economy. I also believe that it would be fiscally irresponsible for us to permanently extend the high income tax cuts. I think that would be a mistake, particularly when we’ve got our Republican friends saying that their number 1 priority is making sure that we are dealing with our debt and our deficit.”
What is nice about all this is that a few months ago, all this discussion would have been about Rahm selling out liberals or some other stupid nonsense. Now that he is out of the picture, notice how we never even hear about Obama’s CoS anymore? How many of you can even name him?
Napoleon
Axelrod just misspoke, just like Sebelius mispoke when she said they were ditching the public option.
Trinity
Pete Rouse.
I like him.
TonyDogs
Good point John. I have no idea who Obama’s CoS is…
I think I’ll be like a tea bagger and instead of using Google to find out, I’ll just complain and moan that Obama hasn’t done enough to inform me of who replaced Rahm.
General Stuck
And totally ignored by the pro left, who are now in a full Obama’s gotta go rampage. Facts be damned, nor further explanations from the administration. Axelrod said some words that could be, and were misinterpreted to suit that building meme and movement, never mind he also said in the Huffpo interview that making permanent high end tax cuts were off the table. It’s all “Obama sold us out” all the time right now. Why do we even need a loyal opposition in this country, when we have a disloyal one, at least on the dem side of things?
Quiddity
This is how CBS’ Chip Reid ended his report on November 11, 2010:
Is it credible that Obama’s statement today is a result of the “liberal base erupting in anger” as Reid put it? From what I’ve read here in recent weeks, that kind of activity would get you labeled a Firebagger. In this case, it looks as if it’s gotten a favorable result.
celticdragonchick
Since Rahm was(is) a back stabbing SOB…and not shy about it…maybe Obama made a mistakee in having a high profile COS who much of his base loathed in the first place.
Never mind. It was all 11th dimensional chess, no doubt.
BR
Yeah, John, I’m not sure I buy that what Obama is saying means what we want it to mean. In that, I think that by signaling that his highest priority is making sure the middle class doesn’t get a tax raise, everything else becomes secondary. So the GOP will just refuse to allow anything through that would not extend all tax cuts for the same duration. Since Obama signaled that the wealthy tax giveaway piece is a secondary concern, what happens at that point?
(By the way, I think we should stop using the framing the GOP wants, and call it the “Bush tax giveaway for the rich” rather than tax cut. Sure, “tax cut” is accurate, but not descriptive.)
Rhoda
@Napoleon: He’s focusing on the middle class tax cuts and working to make them permanent.
I don’t know why everyone seems to forget that we just had this fight before the election; Democrats refused to vote on it. So now, we are in the lame duck and those same blue dogs aren’t willing to separate out the middle class tax cuts from the ones for the rich and likely the best we can do in the senate is a temporary extension of them all.
It’s be nice if we just recognized that the President has constantly made the progressive case; now why aren’t progressives trying to get him the votes and create pressure that way instead of blaming him for selling out?
Darius
Obama says his top priority is to extend the middle-class tax cuts. So all the Republicans need to to is to package the middle-class and upper-class tax cuts together in a single bill, and dare Obama to veto it.
He’ll cave, mark my words.
c u n d gulag
Can some reporter please ask the following question? I haven’t heard it asked yet – maybe I missed it:
If continuing these existing these tax cuts are needed to create jobs, why are they still needed? I mean, we’ve had them for 10 years, we should be drowning in jobs if that was the solution. How are they going to create jobs tomorrow when they haven’t done that for over 3,600 yesterdays?”
aimai
Obama needs better surrogates–always has. Top admin representatives frequently misspeak (or, worse, say something true that is inconvenient). Bush’s first treasury secretary (O’Neill?) got terminated, IIRC, for saying casually that the US didn’t have a “strong dollar policy” and sending the markets into a tizzy. If he didn’t get terminated he got massively scolded and publicly humiliated for it.
My complaint is the same as it ever was: the Obama white house/admin, as opposed to the campaign, is never fully on message. I realize that they are climbing a huge hill of a permanent campaign of misinformation and disinformation but that just means they have to have a permanent war room and strict message discipline.
In re the catfood commission I wish they’d had Clinton call Bowles and force him to retract his signature and leave Simpson standing with egg on his face. I wish there were enough Democrats with public standing to come out and say that the entire fake report is “unproffessional” and “scandalously inept” *because it is.* Ignore the fucking recommendations and attack Simpson and Bowles for inappropriately dumping a partial/fake/unsigned non report into the public domain before getting signatures from the other commissioners. Force Simpson off the commission by saying that he appears to be senile. Do whatever you can to make sure that crossing the President is fatal.
Bush never had to do his own dirty work. Why do the Dems keep leaving Obama hanging out to dry?
aimai
General Stuck
@Quiddity:
No, moron. Obama has been saying the same thing well before Axelrod spoke.
harlana
@Quiddity: yes, thank you
Ugh
Oh, Obama will back down, you watch. There will be at least a temporary extension of high income tax cuts, through 2012, just in time for it to be an issue in that Presidential election.
He’s got too much invested in not raising taxes on the middle class, and the GOP knows it.
Rhoda
@Quiddity: What is the favorable result? How has Congress changed on this? Where are the votes? Which members basically killed this vote from happening before the election and where are they now?
From where I’m sitting, this just got more liberals hate Obama too stories and he’s being attacked from both sides in the press. That’s the kind of dynamic that pushes independents away and if that’s the way we’re going to spend the next two years we’re going to have bigger problems than I thought.
Rhoda
@Ugh: That’s not a bad thing to run on: he gets to be fiscally responsible while also having stood by his promises. It’s like the gas tax debate he had with Hillary in the primaries that he won; this would be the second best outcome IMO. The best being permanent extension of the middle class tax cuts and the expiration of the ones for the rich.
dp
I have never seen a more incompetent Whitehouse wrt messaging. It’s hard to believe that Axelrod and Gibbs played such an integral role in getting Obama elected. He really needs a messaging makeover as the Repubs beat him every time. They always seem to be back-pedalling, caught off guard, mixed messages, on the defense, and whatever other description applies. They just make it to easy for an already hostile media to beat them down a little more.
GR
Sounds like Obama is positioning capitulation on a temporary extension of both tax cuts as victory. I’m missing the “refreshing change” there.
There’s nothing inconsistent with “I want to make sure that taxes don’t go up for middle class families starting on January 1st” + “it would be fiscally irresponsible for us to permanently extend the high income tax cuts” = “temporary extension of the Bush tax cuts”, which is a huge step back from his previous position of decoupling the middle and high income class tax cuts.
The political reality may be that this is the only way to extend the middle class tax cuts. However, this plays right into the GOP’s plan to campaign on “vote for us if you want to make the tax cuts permanent”; i.e., pairing the middle and high income tax cuts as inexorably tied.
Meanwhile, both parties’ hand-wringing about reducing the deficit, with no serious proposals to raise taxes or reduce military spending, is revealed to be a cover story for cutting entitlements.
Rhoda
@General Stuck: I wanna know why they didn’t quote Axelrod completely. That was such bullshit to basically summarize his comments and their interpretation of them; no quote. But since his name is attached; obviously he said it that way.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
Like it was said in one of the better GOS diaries, the fight right now is not with the President, it is with Congress. The best deal is to have the bill on the President’s desk be the one that extends the cuts on less than $250K, and let’s the others expire. For everyone who seems to think that spending your energy going after Obama or each other is productive, direct it at your congresscritters instead.
Ugh
@Rhoda: If it’s going to be a winning issue for him he better hope the economy has turned around by 2012, otherwise we’ll get another round of the GOP “why are you raising taxes in the middle of a recession” chorus.
Best thing to do would be just to let all of the Bush tax cuts expire, then ask the House GOP to re-enact the ones for the middle class retroactive to 1/1/2011 and dare them to refuse.
Quiddity
@General Stuck: So, getting Obama to reiterate, and firm up a position, is not useful? You would prefer no statement from the president on this? And that everyone – the press, the public – is supposed to remember a policy position from the past? That’s not effective tactics.
General Stuck
@Rhoda:
Should be obvious. Huffpo, and much of the nutroot nation have decided Obama has to go. They are opposing his reelection just like the repubs are.
Hal
The only thing that made me doubt this story was that it started in Huffpo BIG BLOCK LETTERS!!!
and that’s always a sign to be cautious about what you believe.
If Obama can uncouple Bushes cuts from his middle class tax cuts, he can let congress do what it wants. If Republicans vote to extend tax cuts for the wealthiest, then there’s your issue.
From a strictly political stand point, wouldn’t it be far more useful to Dems to be able to say, hey, were for tax cuts, just not for the wealthy only? We passed taxed cuts for you people?
Of course, their is the effect on the economy, but that could only theoretically be for the next two years.
Comrade Javamanphil
@c u n d gulag:
Well, they could but they won’t. Maybe if you threw something in there about feelings or 2012 or a Palin tweet it would stand a chance but as it stands, your question is much to factual for our presidential press corps.
Rhoda
@GR: DEMS basically did this when they refused to hold a vote before the election. Their numbers where rising; people liked this plan and they could have gotten a sustained boost going into the final campaigns.
They didn’t.
And Republicans attacked them for letting the tax cuts expire.
The cowardice of those democrats put us to this place and POTUS is making the best of bad situation; which is punting this to after the 2012 election and running on permanent middle class tax cuts and and an end to the ones for the rich in 2013.
That sounds like a plan to me. Hopefully we’ll have a democratic house again to get it done.
Jim C
@TonyDogs:
It’s Hamiton Jordan, right?
No? Al Haig? James Baker? Leon Panetta?
anon
Absolutely he has caved. Extension of tax cuts for all will be the bill and who cares if the ones for the rich are temporary because they will be extended again when needed. Screwed by Obama again. He doesn’t need the damn bully pulpit or better messaging; he needs balls. “Middle class tax cuts only or I’m vetoing and deal with the consequences b******.” He would get what he wants and if he didn’t then he could proclaim victory on the deficit.
Napoleon
@Rhoda:
If Obama had any balls he would tell the Blue Dogs that any thing other then a permanent extension of the middle class tax cuts with no permanent extension of the tax cuts for the rich buys an automatic veto and that their opponent will use it against them in the next election. He should pair that with waiving a copy of his bank account in front of them showing how much he has in the bank from his books and mention that he would just as well sit on a beach spending that money before he goes out on the lecture circuit to make even more money instead of sticking a knife in the back of the bottom 99% of this country.
But that would take leadership.
General Stuck
@Quiddity: Axelrod’s statement was spot on what Obama has been saying, so the leftists create a false issue to push, by willfully misinterpreting what Axelrod said, then scream about it, and when Obama says that was always his position, you suggest he said this because of the hissy fit on your faux accusations in the first place, that Obama is calling bullshit on. Fucking idiots are internet clown progs. This is the behavior of an alcoholic.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@Hal: Agree. See my comment at 20. I think we need to start supplying some of them with a spine.
Maude
@General Stuck:
And don’t forget how Obama has failed them.
ploeg
PLUS
Republicans and Blue Dogs hold hostage any initiative that does not include permanent extension of the Bush tax cuts for the rich
EQUALS
Obama caves in. Or you can say that Obama gets what he wants (continued tax cuts for the middle class) and the Republicans get what they want (continued tax cuts for the wealthy), but in any case, it seems like we’re getting a permanent extension of the Bush tax cuts.
Zifnab
Read that again.
Number one priority.
He’s caving on tax cuts for the wealthy because he wants to cling to tax cuts for the middle class.
I think Obama has as bad a tax cut fetish as his Republican allies. And I think this is going to be what kills him on this fight. He’s so doggedly FOR tax cuts, that he’ll sell everything else down the river to get what we really don’t want.
ChrisNYC
The most exhausting thing about this latest freak out on the internet is that the HuffPo story didn’t even include any substantive quotes from Axelrod. It was all “seemed to” and “suggested” without quoting him on what he actually said. Strange, since the interview was supposedly “candid” and “reflective” and included plenty of other direct quotes.
It is an awesome display of force, though, that DKos can force the President to pat hands from half way around the world to rebut Sam Stein’s made up conclusions. Personally, I would have preferred if they had used their super powers and political genius to keep Feingold in office, but that’s just me.
Napoleon
@General Stuck:
That is just inaccurate, Axelrod went further then Obama ever has.
General Stuck
@Hal: exactly, dems and Obama are in the drivers seat because the cuts will expire automatically. And the only way they can fuck it up is agree to make the high end cuts permanent, because a temp extension will leave them with the issue in 2012 of hammering the wingers for pushing the unpopular tax cuts for the rich.
Just Some Fuckhead
It should be pretty clear he’s already decided to temporarily extend tax cuts on the wealthy, which is fine, if he needs to do that to keep his promise about tax cuts for the middle class.
But as part of that, he needs to disband the catfood commission, and end the ridiculous kabuki about the deficit and debt. Because clearly no one gives a fuck about fiscal sanity when yer just gonna give hundreds of billions of dollars away to people who don’t need it then whine and cry we need to charge people to see their own national treasures.
Zifnab
@ploeg:
Ah, but the math doesn’t end there. Because in order to give over the tax cuts, they’re basically going to need to raise the debt ceiling. So then Republicans will have Obama by the balls twice.
“Cut taxes!”
Obama cuts taxes
“No debt ceiling raise unless you cut Medicaid!”
Obama cuts Medicaid
“More tax cuts or we won’t let you pass the defense bill!”
Obama cuts taxes
“Oops! We’re out of money again! We won’t raise the debt ceiling unless you expire Unemployment Benefits!”
And so it will go.
Republicans have a decided advantage, because they don’t care whether the country implodes.
Strandedvandal
And the Firebaggers prattle on like they didn’t hear a thing. It is amazing to me that these people can read something posted on Huffpo that is attributed to some nameless, faceless bureaucrat and it’s hard fact because it validates their hatred for all things Obama. A hatred they have cultivated and nurtured be reading anonymous posts and articles designed to make them hate Obama. Yet, when they Administration directly comes out and contradicts the anonymous statements, and says things they want to hear, and that they agree with, they don’t believe it at all.
burnspbesq
@anon:
You do understand, I assume, that the consequences that your are being so blithe about would likely include the election of a Republican president in 2012. If you’re OK with that, then there is no reasoning with you.
Quiddity
@General Stuck: At no point did I endorse the “faux accusations”, as you put it. I was examining what was reported and discussing the political usefulness of the sequence of events. Your have willfully misrepresented my views, called me a moron, and characterized various people as fucking idiots and alcoholics. You are mendacious and vulgar and do not contribute to serious discussions here.
General Stuck
@Napoleon:
If you read the full Huffpo interview, you would find that Axelrod clearly stated making permanent the high end cuts is off the table, period. But Obama was willing to talk compromise about a temp extension of the high end cuts. This is what Obama has been saying all along. It is perfectly consistent for what Axelrod said about maybe having no choice but to temp extend the high end cuts to get the middle ones extended. You folks just focused on that statement, withhout reading or accounting for everything Axelrod said in that interview, which was making permanent the high end cuts was off the table.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@anon: Really, how would he get what he wants? Everything expires, and he gets blamed for raising taxes. Then, all the House Republicans have to do is refuse to only lower < $250K until the Senate caves. Then what?
ETA: Especially since raising taxes right now on everyone making less than $250K would be disastrous for the economy.
brent
@Darius:
Obama says his top priority is to extend the middle-class tax cuts. So all the Republicans need to to is to package the middle-class and upper-class tax cuts together in a single bill, and dare Obama to veto it.
Well they can’t. They will control the house in a couple of months but not the Senate. So they canot force a bill to the President’ s desk without help from Dems. Not saying that won’t happen and we already have Dem Senators like Conrad signaling that way but they still are not in a position to force anything on their own.
Also, I have to disagree with John Cole’s reading of this statement. What it sounds like to me is that the President is laying the groundwork for reluctantly agreeing to the top end cuts. He could have very easily drawn a line in the sand. If he intended to fight a battle over this, he could have very easily said so. Instead what he said is that extending the cuts for the rich would be irresponsible but explicitly did not say he would veto such a move. That being the case, given that congressional republicans will clearly not back down, if such a bill gets to his desk its a pretty solid bet that he will sign it.
I am not in the “Obama has failed me” camp but in my opinion, this statement quite clearly expresses his lack of will on this matter. Its a statement from someone who knows they are going to lose putting the best possible face on their loss. Its baffling to me that neither he nor the Dems seem willing to fight on this issue which, in my mind, is a clear winner for them, but its hard to read their position as anything other than preemptive surrender at this point.
General Stuck
@Quiddity: LOL, I just call em like I sees em. Sometimes I forget the delicate flowers on this blog. Get this man a fainting couch Cole/
celticdragonchick
@Just Some Fuckhead:
This.
Sullivan has some similar sentiments:
Weigel’s view:
What amazes me is that voters want to hear it despite saying they also want serious attention to the debt, and despite the fact that this supply side nonsense has been debunked inside and out.
…And the fiscal fragility revealed by the hideous debt now required to attend to a crisis like the financial collapse of 2008? It seems to have disappeared from Washington’s collective mind. Do we really have to wrap fiscal sanity in the mantle of patriotism to have it stick? Or around cultural loathing of Obama? Can we not achieve long-term fiscal stability simply because it is clearly the most responsible thing to do?
Silly Sully! Of course we can’t do that! It’s un-American!
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
We’re screwed until the public gives the President the authority to raise taxes on someone, anyone.
anon
Bullsh*t on the disaster for the economy. You don’t know sh*t about the economy if you believe that. Short term pain -maybe and only maybe I’ll grant you, but not as bad as the short term and long term pain of the high income tax cuts.
Tsulagi
“Sound” may be the operative word.
Sounds like the starting point for negotiations with new Majority Leader Orange and Senate R-leaders is tax cuts under $250k made permanent and open to extension of cuts above that to get it done. Dealing with a sane opposition party you’d think they’d take that as a big victory, but then “sane” becomes the operative word.
p.a.
Rhetorical question, I know: Will anyone in the media ever explain that EVERYONE, including the Richy Rich-es of the US, are maintaining their tax cuts on their (OUR) first $250,000 ? (or 225k, whatever…) ? Most wingers don’t understand (because they have been lied to in addition to being clueless) that we have a marginal-tax income tax. They really think all income is taxed at the individuals’ top rate tax.
anon
Apparently I have a tag issue. That deleted part is exactly what I meant to say.
Linda Featheringill
So this is a day to go ballistic because of what our crystal balls tell us that somebody MIGHT do?
And that is sane and intelligent and productive?
Geez!
Old Chinese proverb: Predictions are hard to make, especially about the future.
TWP
Mark my words, he will cave. There won’t even be a vote to extend the middle class tax cuts permanently. It will be a 2 or 3 year extension on all of them.
Call me a firebagger if you want, but if you believe Obama won’t cave on this before the discussion even begins, you haven’t been paying attention the past two years.
Bipartisanship!
Sidenote: I sincerely never seen an administration act more weakly and timidly than this one. It really is a sight to behold. And don’t even get me started on the Dems in Congress. They are the definition of “limp noodles”.
J.W. Hamner
He’s got to know that he wins if he doesn’t blink. Few Dems ever seem to realize this, but I need to believe that Obama does.
He really needs to be ready to veto any package that includes tax cuts for the wealthy. In my opinion the policy win is for both tax cuts to expire, and that may actually happen if Obama plays chicken with the GOP.
Ash Can
Now, as you can see from this very thread, it’s all about Obama himself selling out liberals. Nothing’s really changed.
jcricket
We’re just going to keep cutting taxes for the rich + corporations and growing defense spending to the point where the “only solution” is to disband Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, large infrastructure projects for cities and anything that might help anyone other than the few at the very top.
And based on this election I’m predicting voters would happily go along with (mainly to keep the darkies from getting any benefits).
Grover Norquist is probably orgasming right now just thinking about how fucking stupid we all are.
Tom Hilton
@TWP:
Here we have the essence of manic progressivism: actual honest-to-god accomplishments are far less important than tough posturing.
ChrisNYC
@brent: You’re not following closely enough.
The freak out yesterday was because Axelrod supposedly intimated that Obama would agree to a temporary extension of all the cuts, which would have represented a departure from the position that Obama has already taken, which is that the middle class cuts should be permanent and the upper end cuts would AT MOST be temporary. This statement does not express a lack of will in the matter. It represents a reiteration of what he has been saying for weeks.
His position is securing middle class tax cuts — cuts for the middle class that was badly mistreated during the Bush era — as the primary goal. Somehow, this is interpreted as weak or ineffective because, hey, let’s posture, let them all expire and keep screwing the middle class. That’ll show ’em. It’s mindboggling.
Morbo
No, no, they’re saying that their number 1 priority is making you a one term president.
shargash
Obama just said preserving the middle tax class cuts was a higher priority than ending the upper income tax cuts. I’m not sure how to get from that that he’s not backing down. I’d be willing to bet that both cuts get extended, and if only one gets extended I would not be willing to bet it was the middle class cut.
p.a.
@celticdragonchick:
I’m no Reaganaught, but even he (or his handlers) and GHWB realized Reagan’s first-term budget policies were a disaster, and began inching back towards fiscal sanity even before Clinton. Pls note I said inching, before I get strafed as an apologist for teh crazy.
General Stuck
I still maintain there will be no extension, and only a House vote to make permanent all of the Bush tax cuts, that will die in the senate. Wingers are not in a compromising state of mind right now, in case no one noticed, even more than before. They would rather see taxes go up under Obama’s watch, and how can you blame them with this kind of cynical politicking. They haven’t paid any price for obstruction so far, so they think they can destroy Obama by denying him the space to govern. That is the only issue on the wingnut agenda right now, making Obama a one term presnit. They could care less about anything else, not the country, not anything but getting rid of Obama. And they are not alone.
Ash Can
@p.a.: GHWB was the one who called Reagan’s crackpot ideas “voo-doo economics.”
TWP
@Tom Hilton: It’s not about posturing. It’s about stating what you believe and moving towards those goals. Healthcare is a perfect “accomplishment” that was completed in spite of a manic White House operation that was never clear on specific policies.
Public Option: “um, maybe, yes, no, absolutely not, can’t be done, well maybe, no, okay we’ll try, nope.”
Drug price regulation: “absolutely!, wait, we made a deal with PHARMA, so maybe, hey, don’t talk about that, let’s move on, what? us? we didn’t do anything. oh it’s the only way we could get a deal.”
etc., etc., etc.
I still have no clear idea what Obama wants to do to improve the economy. Do you? I know what Republicans want to do: cut taxes, austerity, eliminate social security, etc. But I have no effing clue where Obama stands.
And I never have. It seems to change daily.
Admiral_Komack
@General Stuck:
You’re not going to convince the fake-ass-progressives.
President Obama will always be the enemy, and they will parse his words six ways to Sunday to prove it.
Ash Can
@Tom Hilton: This. Two years of accomplishments, down the memory hole. It’s maddening.
Tsulagi
Seems WP had a spaz moment. I’ll try again…
“Sound” may be the operative word.
Sounds like the starting point for negotiations with new Majority Leader Orange and Senate R-leaders is tax cuts under $250k made permanent and open to extension of cuts above that to get it done. Dealing with a sane opposition party you’d think they’d take that as a big victory, but then “sane” becomes the operative word.
brent
@ChrisNYC:
I assure you that I have been following the back and forth quite closely Chris. What I am saying is that, whether or not he has been saying it for weeks, this is not the statement of a man who intends to put up a big fight. Frankly, I think even a temporary extension of the top rate cuts is an unnecessary capitulation but the language he is using here, in this particular statement, is about what he considers “irresponsible” whereas the language of a man who intended to really fight on this issue would be about what he considers “unacceptable.” Its not a subtle difference.
I think there are a lot of ways that the Dems could put the Republicans on the defensive on this issue. I think, in the end, that it is a winning issue for them. But so far, their entire approach is to move further and further towards what Republicans want on this and the President has been part of that.
The reality at both the level of policy and politics here is that they should be making Republicans defend their willingness to raise taxes. Instead, they are defending their unwillingness to cut some taxes. Its truly pathetic to watch and this statement continues tot reinforce that framework.
Bullsmith
Boy John, I read his quote very differently. To me he’s saying “my number one priority is extending the Bush Tax cuts for the middle class, so that means we’re going to completely cave to the Republicans and extend them all. Although I will use strong rhetoric to attack the Republicans, in the name of the middle class I am going to do exactly what they want.”
Am I wrong? The real issue is clear to me. If the top tax cuts get extended with borrowed money, the Democrats have caved. They can say it’s in the name of the middle class but the simple fact is they controlled both houses and could’ve forced a vote on the middle class cuts. They didn’t. Now they’re using the middle class to defend passing a new round of Bush’s wonderful tax policies.
If those top tier tax cuts actually expire (even if they take everyone else’s tax cuts with them) then the Democrats have stood up to the rich and done the right thing. Anyone want to bet the rich don’t get their tax cuts?
eemom
I’m feeling too tired and pissy today to put much effort into this, so let me just state, simply:
Fuck Arianna Huffington and her bullshit blog.
Fuck Jane Hamsher and her bullshit blog.
Fuck all the other circle-jerk assholes who bleated this “caving” meme yesterday and their bullshit blogs.
Fuck Keith Olbermann and Chris Hayes for chasing this meme on teevee last night with the panting, drooling glee of dogs after mailmen.
Fuck every “oh, he’ll cave, mark my words” asshole on this thread.
Fuck Glenn Greenwald, even though he hasn’t jumped on this bandwagon yet. Because he will. Mark my words.
Fuck Andrew Sullivan, because he too will no doubt weigh in from wherever in his ass his head happens to be today. And then John will link to it, mark my words.
There. And if I’ve forgotten anybody, fuck them too.
General Stuck
@eemom:
I love your poetry eemom :-)
Corner Stone
@Rhoda:
I certainly don’t forget that. It was one of the wrost tactical blunders the D leadership could’ve made to wait so long to deal with the issue.
It’d be even nicer if he actually had constantly made the progressive case.
TWP
@brent: Exactly. There are lots of issues out there that are difficult for Obama and Democrats to fight for, but middle class tax cuts and raising taxes on the rich is NOT ONE OF THEM.
Remind me again why Democrats should control Congress and the White House? Oh, that’s right, so they can give the rich tax breaks and cut Social Security. Perfect.
Frank Chow
Axelrod is the new Rahmbo. Firebaggers will unite against his plot to punch hippies.
SteveinSC
@General Stuck: Hello, the democrats control the House and Senate now, not the fucking republicans. If the current House votes to extend only the middle class part and can’t get it through the Senate they will expire on January 1 and the asshole republicans will have to come up with something. At that point it is their new majority that is on the line. The taxes would go up, the deficit would go down. They would have to bring forward a tax cut benefiting the rich and driving up the deficit. Good luck with that. Letting the tax cuts completely expire whacks the repukes more than the dems.
ruemara
@Linda Featheringill:
La Linda, EVERYDAY IS A DAY TO GO BALLISTIC OVER CRYSTAL BALLS in progressive netroots land. Each Progressive Change/Bold Progressive email I’ve received has been sent back with a go away stupid people.
Bob L
I am curious what you all expect Obama to do about this? Ending the upper class tax cuts was a win with the voters issue before the election, so naturally the Blue Dogs screwed it over because they really would rather be Republicans and help destroy the country. Obama doesn’t have much negotiating room if a big chunk of his own party is actively working for the other side.
Safe to say the current congress was a Democratic controlled congress but never a Democratic majority.
Mnemosyne
@ChrisNYC:
Ding ding ding. But places like the HuffPo have been so successful at selling the “Obama hates hippies!” narrative that all they have to do now is hint at it and people on the left start screaming about how they’ve been BETRAYED!! and parse every sentence to make it come to the conclusion they want it to.
Joseph Nobles
@General Stuck: Calling Quiddity a moron is really over the line. Fuck off, you big bully.
ETA: Oh, wow. Requests for civility are met with insults like “delicate flowers” and calls for fainting couches. Time to go soak your head.
sparky
@General Stuck: we shall see. as for myself, i agree with the commenters upthread who see this as fashioning an apologetic excuse for once again doing something crappy–“it’s not my faaaault”. it’s certainly not “hanging tough.”
@Quiddity: i think more disingenuous than mendacious. he’s rather careful: like the GOP, no outright lies, just a collection of facts more or less unmoored from their context along with some tiresome insults.*
i must, however, say in fairness that he’s engaged in arguments with me a few times *after* tossing the invective. so while i don’t agree with him, i will say that if you don’t take the flamebait you *might* have a discussion with him. otherwise, he’s a feature, not a bug of the comments, so to speak. given that John et al still permit basically anyone to comment (thanks!), his invective is a small price to pay. or install the pie filter if you want.
*”alcoholic”? seriously?
General Stuck
@SteveinSC:
Yea, I realized that too late to change. Dems still are the majority until Jan. It doesn’t really change the end game dynamic though, unless the high end cuts match with low end ones, whatever the House passes, and I still think the wingers will block it in the senate, any bill that doesn’t make everything permanent. I think they want taxes to go up under Obama’s watch, specially for the middle class. But I could be wrong and they end up with temporarily extending them all, which i do not see as a cave. Lame Duck sessions are notoriously volatile and why few things get passed as nerves are frayed from the recent election, none so more than this one, imol
homerhk
is anyone else’s comments entirely struck through. From comment 49 onwards all are struck through…
Regardless, I have a question. If HuffPo intentionally puts its spin on Axe’s words (and I couldn’t actually find a full transcript of the interview, just a few quotes from Axe within the ‘narrative’ of the article) to the effect that the White House has already caved in AND such spin is inaccurate (which it looks like it might be), how can they complain that the White House is showing its hand in the negotiations? Isn’t that what HuffPo is doing on the WH’s behalf? I mean if a site that is supposedly progressive says that the WH has caved, doesn’t that give the Republicans more reason to think that the WH will cave and make them more intransigent?
also what eemom said.
ChrisNYC
@brent: Well, then I don’t follow your criticism. Obama has already said he would reluctantly extend the high end cuts temporarily, provided the the MC cuts were permanent. The entire crisis precipitated by the Huff Po piece was that Axelrod supposedly said that the WH would agree to temporarily extend all the cuts, rather then to do the temp/permanent division. Even when the issue was voting before the elections, splitting off the MC cuts from the high end cuts was the whole point — the lefties in Congress wanted to force a vote just on the MC cuts and the bluedogs said that any action had to be on all the cuts — therefore, they didn’t hold any vote. The idea was to make the GOP hold the MC cuts hostage to the rich people cuts or to allow the different resolutions to go forward. Don’t let them vote on tax cuts for the rich that include MC cuts. Make them show where their loyalty is. And expose their deficit nonsense at the same time.
I still don’t understand how Obama’s keeping the position he has held from the beginning somehow becomes “moving further and further toward the GOP position.” It’s not his position that’s moving it’s the goalposts.
va
He’s not standing up, though. He could be saying anything there, after the phrase, “Here’s the right interpretation.”
BTD
@General Stuck:
This would be an optimal result.
I hope you are right.
p.a.
I predict cave. ‘Past results are not indicative of future performance.’ But it’s all I’ve got to go on. The actual process and trigger, I don’t know. Another bout of ass-kissing moderate Dems and ‘moderate’ Repubs? Haven’t heard much from Associate President Nelson-Collins-Snow-Brown lately.
Don’t forget the right’s public p.r. campaign. How ’bout a nice helping of ‘Dems talk bipartisanship but engage in class warfare’ press articles from the usual suspects. And this (my own creation; I’m so proud): ‘Lame Duck Congress should not legislate, the people have spoken and nothing should be attempted until the new Congress convenes.’ Don’t thank me Rush, just die.
ruemara
@ChrisNYC:
That is a feature, not a bug, of this president. It’s been the thing that’s happened since he took office and it will be the thing that defines the end of his term or terms. It’s bullshit, it’s personal and I don’t get it, but as a POC, I find it completely all too sadly familiar.
chopper
@SteveinSC:
exactly. dems want to keep the cuts permanent for the middle class? pass it in the lame duck session. a bill just for the middle class. let’s watch the GOP vote against a tax cut in the house and senate, yeah right.
then in january the cuts for the rich expire on their own and any attempt by the new GOP house to cut them can hopefully be killed in the senate.
Felanius Kootea (formerly Salt and freshly ground black people)
@Rhoda: Am I missing something? Why isn’t this just framed as extending tax cuts on the first $250,000 of income so that both the middle class and the rich get a tax break? Above $250,000 we have to let the tax rate go back to what it was because otherwise we face a major problem with the deficit. Then hammer home the fact that both the rich and the middle class get a break on the first $250,000 of their income. Why is this so hard to state?
Linda Featheringill
@eemom:
Amen. You said it so much better than I could have. :-)
[Sometimes I think I’m on the wrong blog.]
General Stuck
@Joseph Nobles:
When every day, on just about every thread, firebaggers push the same old tired memes, well after they have been thoroughly debunked, I just think moron is the right term. This isn’t an Oprah blog.
But in the service of being a nicer person, Quiddipity can call me a bully, a moron, idiot, whatever suits his fancy, and if he doesn’t want to, I will call myself one or several of those things. It all comes out in the wash, and politics ain’t bean bags.
kc
@dp:
No shit. Sometimes I wonder how the hell he got elected.
Btw, he’s gonna cave on tax cuts for the rich.
Bill E Pilgrim
I wouldn’t be so sure, John. Before that part, in response to another question, Obama said this:
So what’s “somewhere in between” making the upper income tax breaks permanent, and making sure that the middle class breaks remain?
I mean look, he could have misspoken here or spoken imprecisely, it’s a press conference in Korea, he’s giving a general tone of being willing to negotiate and so on. However if you’re going to read what he said as evidence that he’s “not backing down” about extending the upper income tax breaks you’re going way out on a limb and ignoring another part that seems to indicate exactly the opposite.
It’s going to be interesting to see anyway.
FlipYrWhig
@Bob L:
No, it wasn’t. The Senators who were in close races didn’t want any part of it.
@ChrisNYC:
True, and _we already went through this all once with Peter Orszag_. The “temporary extension” has been coming down the pike, because lots of Democrats cower at the prospect of “raising taxes.” This is what Democrats _want to do_. It is NOT what Obama wants to do, and he articulates that position clearly. But it is what his party wants to do. Even the good people. So, you know, this is what we have.
Indulge me for a moment.
I am fucking well horrified that all it takes for some of you fuckers to throw a shit fit is reading the _headline_ of an article. It said “give in,” and you started flipping shit all over the place. Aren’t we supposed to be the party that is very proud of how we actually read things and interpret them rather than waiting for word from above about what we all now think? You would rather be pissed off again than actually read past the fourth word of a headline to a story? Really? Why are you like that, and what is the fucking matter with you? I’m tired of the nonsense. Use your goddamn brains.
chopper
@General Stuck:
you big bully!
Citizen_X
My armchair-quarterback two cents: I think he’s prioritizing this exactly the wrong way; he ought to make ending the upper-income tax credits his top priority and leave it up to the Repubs as to whether or not they want to save the middle-class tax cuts. Would that hurt him politically? I don’t think so, because he’s already been convicted in public opinion of raising taxes.
Then he could say, “Hey, I fixed the deficit, and I wanted to give you a tax cut but the Republicans wouldn’t allow it.”
And honestly, if most of the American public is too clueless to realize we’ve been given a tax cut, do we really deserve it?
FlipYrWhig
@Felanius Kootea (formerly Salt and freshly ground black people):
Look at the polls. More than 50% on the one that ran on DailyKos said that no taxes should be raised on anyone.
Dennis SGMM
@General Stuck:
Taking a hard line on making all of the tax cuts permanent would fit right in with the Republicans’ strategy. If the cuts expire then they get to castigate Obama with their tried-and-true “Tax and spend, tax and spend.” If the cuts are all made permanent, or even if only the MC ones are, then they can brag that they heroically fought off a tax increase.
It will be spun as a win for them and a loss for Obama no matter what the outcome.
The really spooky part for me is that the Dems will be defending 23 Senate seats in ’12 and the Republicans have already stated that they have no problem revisiting existing legislation.
Malron
John, its fascinating watching how full of shit and gleefully gullible the left is. People on the left continue to insist the Huffington Post is a source of progressive information, yet once again Arianna’s Drudge-like site posts lying innuendo as its lead story and the left swallows hard. I don’t think its a coincidence this “breaking news” happened at the same time Obama’s overseas trying to get shit done on behalf of the same people that are stabbing him in the back non-stop.
brent
@Bob L:
Well its a good question Bob L, and you make a good point. If the Democrats were a cohesive unit then the easiest thing to do would be to put together a bill, in both the House and Senate, with just the middle class tax cuts and force Republicans to vote against it. The real problem with that move, which understandably the President is reluctant to discuss, is that there are enough Dems who would agree to an amendment adding on tax cuts for the rich, that he would still end up with a bill that extends all the tax cuts.
The truth is that the only real leverage that he has to get what progressive Dems want is his veto power and his willingness to politically shame and manipulate those Dems who would side with the upper class tax cuts into not doing so. He may have his reasons, and I can even see the argument that they are good reasons, but so far he has made it clear that he doesn’t intend to do either of those things.
General Stuck
@sparky:
I said it was alcoholic “behavior”, but never expect you to make such distinctions. And please pie me, anyone, or quit the whining
Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle
@aimai: Didn’t Obama create the Catfood Commission? He only has himself for the egg on his face via this Commission.
ChrisNYC
@ruemara: It is bullshit and it makes me furious because we’re in so much trouble, we really need smart, responsible government and his own side is just determined to take this guy down.
Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle
@FlipYrWhig: So you think we shouldn’t be pissed about the Catfood Commission? Have you read what Krugman has to say about it(and he read the fucking thing)?
Corner Stone
@Dennis SGMM:
Don’t forget the, “Largest Tax Increase on the middle class in history!!”
FlipYrWhig
@Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle: No, I don’t think you should be pissed about the Catfood Commission, and everyone who calls it the Catfood Commission is a dumbfuck.
Corner Stone
So let me get this straight. It is now the collective understanding of certain individuals here that President Obama’s position was to ALWAYS temp extend the tax cuts for the rich? That was ALWAYS his position?
Corner Stone
@FlipYrWhig: Catfood Commission is a good moniker and I’m glad it’s front and center.
General Stuck
@Dennis SGMM:
This is true, the wingnuts for good reason can expect positive media coverage on whichever angle they demagogue from, from the experience of the past two years.
But the overall dynamic will change completely in Jan, when they become players again with the House. Obama still has the upper hand being in the WH. If the wingers do let all the cuts expire, then Obama can freely propose his own mc cuts only for passage, and when the House wingnuts bow up and demand the high ends cuts too, or nothing, then Obama can demagogue them for holding the middle class cuts hostage, while holding out for unpopular tax cuts for the rich.
It is hard to put ourselves into next year, but everything will change, and the past two years will seem like they barely happened, and the media will be hard pressed to just fluff the wingers when they run a chamber of congress. That is my viewpoint, anyways, fwiw.
eemom
@FlipYrWhig:
Music, sir. Music to my weary ears.
ruemara
@Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle:
No, he didn’t create the Catfood Commission. It was a compromise agreement because both sides wanted a deficit commission, but the Senate couldn’t agree on how to make one. This was the fall back compromise so that Blue Dog Kent Conrad and some of his pack would vote to raise the debt ceiling. And, this is not the commission’s report, this is an unvetted document released by the 2 co-chairs.
Citizen_X
@General Stuck: “I didn’t say you’re a pedophile, I said you act like a pedophile.”
FlipYrWhig
I can’t take any more of this habit of scanning the news to find new acts of betrayal to wallow in because it feels good to feel bad. Just, stop.
Woodrow "asim" Jarvis Hill
@kc: I truly, deeply, do not understand you people.
As many others have said, Obama has always signaled that a temporary extension of the high-end cuts was possible. Just like the Public Option, people on “my” side insist he use this to “prove” he’s “one of us”. We pick some segment — not the passing of the middle class cut, which is key, but the sunsetting of the rich people’s cut, which is not from a Progressive POV — and insist it get done, or else.
If the cost of continuing/extending the kind of relief I’ve always felt was part-and-parcel of being a Progressive is to give rich people a few more years of money I don’t personally think they need or deserve, sure. Go ahead. That’s playing the long game, that’s playing to keep people in the game.
Again and again, it’s not about what’s best, or even what’s passable. It’s about proving cred, keeping it real, showing you’re from the street.
What bollicks. What I want is a President who’s doing the damned job, and that job has crap-all to do with rhetorical games about drawing lines in the sand. that’s why I rejected Bush, and that’s why I reject constantly playing that game, as too many “progressives” seem to find critical.
brent
@ChrisNYC:
I still don’t understand how Obama’s keeping the position he has held from the beginning somehow becomes “moving further and further toward the GOP position.” It’s not his position that’s moving it’s the goalposts.
Now I will have to accuse you of not following this closely enough. Obama’s original position was not to extend any of the cuts above $250,000. That has been his position since his election. It is only in the last two weeks that he himself and Dems just before the election have been suggesting that there was any compromise available at all. I am still baffled as to why they feel they need to offer such a compromise but thats neither here nor there. In any case, the new position was okay lets offer to extend the top cuts temporarily but no way to permanent cuts. Now what he is saying here is not that he will not agree to permanent cuts but that he thinks they are “irresponsible.” However his top priority is middle tax cuts so even if the top cuts are irresponsible, he is not saying that he won’t go along with them in order to get the middle class cuts. If he will refuse to extend the top cuts permanently, why not say so?
Now, which part of that is incorrect?
Corner Stone
@aimai:
That has never been President Obama’s style, and for all the bluster about Rahm, he wasn’t very effective in that regard either.
What has proved fatal is having the rightwing single you out for targeting. You get cut loose so fast you don’t even get a chance to talk to your boss in person.
Dennis SGMM
@Corner Stone:
Oh, yeah, and because they’ve harped on these points since the Reagan years they get a Pavlovian response from their base and an uncritical reception from most of the media.
FlipYrWhig
@Corner Stone: It _still_ isn’t his position. His party happens to have a different position than he does, and they’re working to squeeze him.
Felanius Kootea (formerly Salt and freshly ground black people)
@FlipYrWhig: Now I’m truly confused. I’m hearing that “the American people” want the deficit closed. Permanently extending the Bush tax cuts for everyone regardless of income level will greatly increase the deficit. I’m hearing that the Dems want the middle class tax cuts to expire but not those for upper income earners. Extending the Bush tax cuts permanently for the first $250,000 of income achieves this goal but *also* gives the first $250,000 of a rich person’s income a tax cut. I have never heard any Democrat put it that way and a good case can be made. Now if “the American people” want to close the deficit but also don’t want any tax increases on anyone regardless of income level, according to the polls you cite – what programs do they want cut? I guess Kos should poll that, unless of course, the respondents believe in magic math.
Tax Analyst
The #1 problem now is dealing with this single-minded Republican strategy coupled with a media that is loath to call them on it. It takes what would normally be pragmatic and effective negotiation and compromise efforts right off the table and throws them back in Obama’s face. His dilemma then becomes finding a way to drag them along without giving them things that ought to be unacceptable, like the permanent tax cuts for the well-to-do.
It seems he mistakenly thought that after they did all the prerequisite posturing the R’s would eventually go along with things the country really needed. I don’t think it occurred to him that they would really be willing to rachet up the overall suffering quotient over essential issues, but that’s what they are doing.
At bottom I don’t believe Obama is a big enough prick to play this game out to the max at the expense of our overall national interests.
Obama is a thoughtful and rational man who likely expected at least a minimal amount of cooperation from the opposition if only because their own constituent’s needs and well-being would come into play. I doubt he factored the possibility that they wouldn’t into his original strategy and I think he’s still struggling to accept that they are actually going to play this crazy game to the end. I think he now needs to assume this is the case, and that once he does he can figure out a way to deal with it effectively. He really doesn’t have the luxury right now of just letting events come to him and it’s increasingly apparent the media is totally ready to sit back and let the GOP play this ridiculous nut-cake shit out. Because there are things he wants and needs passed I don’t think it’s a feasible option to just sit back and play chicken with these dickheads.
It’s not simply a case of just needing to “grow a spine”. It’s more like needing to have a giant, inflexible raw and sore prick installed where your backbone would normally be.
Violet
@Citizen_X: __
I like this idea. Keep hammering home that Republicans only want to help their very, very, super rich friends.
FlipYrWhig
@brent:
Gee, I dunno, maybe because the Senators from his party think that cutting taxes on wealthy people is a good idea? Could it be that? Or is it all a super-secret plan to spite a few thousand self-important dickwads on the internet?
ChrisNYC
@FlipYrWhig: That accepting the word of “anointed true progressive” (until they make a misstep and become a traitor) rather than reading actual news is a big part of the problem here. It’s so right wing. You know, “If Rush is for/against it, so am I dammit!” And, frankly, a whole bunch of our dear lefty bloggers are way too sloppy/strategic to trust at face value.
FlipYrWhig
@Felanius Kootea (formerly Salt and freshly ground black people):
This isn’t what was polled, but I think it’s consistently the case that people think that the government wastes billions upon billions of dollars, and they should stop doing that. That way everyone can pay less in taxes and no deserving person would ever be deprived of services.
General Stuck
@Citizen_X:
That’s kind of pathetic, that comparison, really. Alcoholic behavior can be found in those who don’t drink. I guess I assumed everyone knew that, but looks like I was wrong. You have to abuse children to be a pedophile, always, or that is a completely false charge to make.
Legalize
@Ugh:
This. Put it on the GOP starting 12:01 am Jan. 1.
Anoniminous
Tax cuts or no tax cuts is froth on the wake.
The minor increase in consumer discretionary, and a resulting increase in micro-economic activity (if there is any!) will be wiped-out by the resetting of Adjustable Rate Mortgages. See here.
Leading to the interesting high probability the loss of tax revenue to the Federal Government will be shifted to the Major Market Financial institutions.
Neo-Classical Economists and Conservatives, who don’t understand Dynamic Complex Systems, will say this is a Good Thing as banks can then loan that money out for productive operations. Alas, that’s not accurate. These mortgages have already been “booked” – accounted for as “profit,” sliced & diced into Collaterized Debt Obligations so the fund stream to the Major Financial institutions will flow right back out again as interest, and other, payments.
It’s predictable the upshot will be continuing stress on financial institutions as the mortgage interest resets will drive more mortgage loans into the Non-Preforming category and less micro-economic activity as the people who can use the tax cut money to meet their mortgage obligations. Why is it predictable? Because the tax cut money does not fundamentally change the constants and variables of the existing Positive Feedback Loop in the negative direction.
What is, therefore, will continue to be.
Corner Stone
@FlipYrWhig:
Well god damn son. WTF is his position then, at least according to you?
FlipYrWhig
@ChrisNYC: I think it’s totally cool to say “Cutting taxes on people making $250,000 and more is bad policy and I don’t want to see it happen, and I will do whatever I can to see that it does not.” I think it’s completely, embarrassingly absurd to say “If this happens, Obama is stabbing us in the back because he’s a wuss.”
Dennis SGMM
@General Stuck:
Hopefully, Obama can put them on the spot. So far, to me anyway, he seems to have gone out of his way to be non-confrontational. Dont take that observation as firebagging: non-confrontation seems to be his style. I think that the White House is going to have to work a lot harder on gaining control of the narrative in order for him to successfully demagogue the GOP on tax cuts for the rich. The administration also needs to figure out a way to get it through people’s thick skulls that everyone gets a tax cut on their first $250K of income.
kindness
Rahm loved to hippie punch and then brag about it. I honestly don’t think Obama liked to hippie punch so much as he was philosophically on par with Rahm’s objectives.
And honestly because of my beliefs, I don’t trust the Obama Administration to do the right thing.
To them, compromise means giving up progressive ideals and legislative acts in favor of right-center-right ideals and acts. (ie – see Public Option, Wall Street Reform)
eemom
Lots of extremely good insights on this thread interspersed with the “Obaaaahma baaaahd” sheep-bleating. It is refreshing, as John says.
FlipYrWhig
@Corner Stone: This is “public option” all over again. He has a preferred policy whose merits he defends. Public option is good. Tax cuts for the top 2% are bad. But _other people also have input_ into whether that policy gets enacted, including members of his own party, and he’ll have to decide whether to sign off on what _they_ want, regardless of what he wants.
Corner Stone
@Tax Analyst:
This has been the case for two solid years. When does it become rational to form a different overarching strategy?
FlipYrWhig
@kindness:
If you don’t have enough progressive legislators, how do you accomplish “progressive ideals and legislative acts”?
General Stuck
@Dennis SGMM:
It is his style, he doesn’t get petulant, nor smirks. He just states the case clearly, though not with a lot of emotion.
And I listen to his speeches and he says usually, precisely what needs to be said. He is not an emotional person, seems to me, but he is consistent and straightforward. It is not his fault that the receiving ears need more mustard to understand.
I doubt he can change who he is, just like the rest of us. If they wanted a drama queen, folks should have voted for Mike Gravel, or Jane Hamsher.
p.a.
These conversations remind me of the old Kremlinologist/Sinologist articles back in the day. Trying to figure out what was going on by seeing who stood where on the review stand for May Day parades etc. Yuri Andropov likes Jackie Collins novels so he’s a moderate on relations with the West, Lin Biao handed Mao the towel after his Yangtze swim- he’s on the rise.
Who really knows what’s going on now with the tax cuts? The fight is over, but has there even been a definitive answer about why there is no public option? It was really considered? Who were forceful proponents in the administration? In congress? We’ll have to wait for memoirs, I’m afraid. And sift them for the truth.
Felanius Kootea (formerly Salt and freshly ground black people)
@FlipYrWhig: I think the first step for Dems is to get everyone to understand that the US has a progressive taxation system for income earners. They need to repeat this early and often because even well educated people think there is no difference between marginal tax rates and effective tax rates. I know it’s hard to do, but it can be done by using that $250,000 figure to illustrate how *everyone* gets a tax cut under Obama’s plan, and some (20% of the population?) also get a tax increase for income they earn above $250,000. There’s got to be a way to state that clearly.
change
Obama, like Jimmy Carter, is a weak-kneed p*ssy who we only have to push and he falls over like a cheap house of cards.
And it’s going to be even worse for you know that Republicans are in the driver’s seat.
The President is irrelevant.
El Cid
@Dennis SGMM: I think we’ve probably all known people who could confront people or policies in the sense of insisting upon this or that point without being confrontational.
chopper
@Corner Stone:
far as i can tell, his position has been 1) permanent extension of the middle class cut and 2) no permanent extension of the cut for the rich.
Felanius Kootea (formerly Salt and freshly ground black people)
@kindness: I guess you must hate congress even more. Because last time I checked, they write the legislation. If you can show that there was overwhelming support for the public option in both the house and senate and then Obama and Rahm came along and killed that support, I’ll be glad to see that evidence. Otherwise, all you’re showing is a lack of understanding of how the US government works. I know it’s easier to blame Obama than to accept the very real complexity that exists, but come on.
brent
@FlipYrWhig:
Well I have already made the point in this thread that the basic problem here is very probably the conservative dems
@brent
so I am not sure that your sarcasm was really necessary but in any case that isn’t really what baffles me. The President and the progressive caucus do not need to be the ones offering a compromise. Regardless of the conservadems, they still control most of the votes in a democratically controlled congress and they control the Presidential veto. That means, if they want to, they can set the agenda and then let the Republicans and the conservadems decide how they want fight against that agenda. Move them, in other words, towards the progressive block. Put them on the defensive.
Instead, what they did right out of the gate, as has been the strategy all along on all sorts of issues, is compromise with themselves first. As I said, the President may have his own good reasons for approaching things this way but it is not clear to me how this helps either politically or policy wise in the long run. All the Republicans ever have to do is say no and they know eventually give them more and more of the field to work with.
Corner Stone
@FlipYrWhig: Ok fine. Now tell me what his position is.
DecidedFenceSitter
The problem here is that the US public is no Solomon to pass judgment. We have a metaphorical baby, and the question is whether to split (i.e., destroy) the baby (the US in this analogy) and one mother says “sure!” (i.e., Republicans), and the other gives in in order to save the baby.
In the story, of course, Solomon sees that the compromising mother is obviously the one who loves the baby more, and thus awards custody to her.
In our reality, the compromising mother would be seen as weak and punished for compromising.
I don’t see any good solutions for this. The President’s #1 stated priority is the American people; Mitch McConnell’s #1 stated priority is keeping Obama to a single term.
If the President compromises, they both will achieve their goals. The President will do what he can for the people, and McConnell will win enough concessions to ensure that his folks come out to vote, and Obama’s folks stay home.
I just don’t see a way out of this morass. Things never got bad enough to replicate the period after the Great Depression – where the Dems would have equivalent of 80% majorities in both parts of Congress (from what I recall from a Nate Silver article a long time ago).
But it didn’t get that bad.
Which means Obama is going to have to compromise to get anything done and save the baby. However, I don’t know if pushing the soft line will get him anywhere with the Republicans. In relationships, the one issuing ultimatums usually wins, unless of course the ultimatum is called. Which will be very bad for the American people. And unfortunately, that depends on the American people to understand the truth of the underlying causes.
Which requires the Democratic party to get a clear consistent message out. Which they’ve failed to do for at least the past 2 years spectacularly, leaving little hope for a radical systemic change in the future.
So I don’t see a way out. Between Citizen’s United, and Republican’s excellent (in the sense of competence) message machine, there’s little light I see forward.
ChrisNYC
@brent: Here’s the TPM tick tock, which goes back to the campaign.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/09/tax-cut-tick-tock-how-the-dems-championed-the-issue-before-it-fell-apart.php
In the campaign, he said he’d end the rich people cuts and keep the MC cuts. In November 2008, “advisors” said that because of the financial crisis he would consider letting them expire, rather than repealing them beforehand. On September 7, he agreed with Pelosi and Reid that the priority was making the MC cuts permanent. On September 10, he said that the GOP should vote on the MC cuts before the midterms and leave the high end cuts for another day.
change
And we’re not going to agree to a temporary extension, either.
Make them permanent or you get nothing and are gauranteed to have a one term failed Presidency, like Jimmy Carter.
burnspbesq
Listening in on a conference call in which our firm’s tax legislative affairs guy is handicapping what’s likely to happen in the lame duck session. It’s a foot-long shit sandwich with all the trimmings.
The Senate Republicans are apparently united in saying that all of the Bush tax cuts, including the zero estate tax rate, should be extended for a minimum of two years. The Republican’s fallback position on estate tax is to go back to 2001 rates and exemption amounts, because any compromise (for example, a 35 percent top rate and a $3.5 million exemption) will peel small business and family farms out of the anti-estate-tax coalition.
Our TLA guy is pretty liberal, and he is saying that Obama screwed the pooch by suggesting that he was willing to couple middle-class and upper-class relief. Dave Camp, who is going to be chair of House Ways & Means, is apparently now saying he wants an extension of at least three years, and saying no decoupling.
Splitting Image
The thing to remember is that all tax cuts are temporary at this point. The only way the Western world gets out of its debt crisis is for every country to increase taxes or to let the crisis reach the point that it will take a return to 95% marginal rates to restore sanity.
It’s going to be ugly making them happen, but the big tax hikes are definitely on their way. Extending the Bush tax cuts for the upper classes will just allow Wall Streeters to pretend for a little bit longer that they haven’t screwed the pooch.
If the G.O.P. is actually dumb enough to force the debt ceiling issue, then the 95% rates will be arriving very, very soon. This is why Bruce Bartlett, for example, has been getting very hostile to the G.O.P. He’s been agitating for moderate tax hikes for awhile now, and the revoking the Bush tax cut isn’t going to do the job by itself.
John Cole
Um, the refreshing change was not hearing a bunch of whining about Rahm.
I’d bet Obama caves on the taxes, too. He just doesn’t seem to have too much fight in him, and seems deluded that Republicans give a shit.
Dennis SGMM
@El Cid:
There are people who can do that and carry their point. They don’t usually do as well when confronting a pack of nihilistic jerkoffs who fling sufficient volumes of poo so as to make a cage full of monkeys look like slackers.
Every time Obama makes a speech every superannuated GOP dickhead is immediately in front of the cameras re-interpreting it for the masses. Until the White House figures out some effective counters for that they are looking at a rough road and a dicey election.
General Stuck
@General Stuck:
I want to apologize to Quiddipy, only for not explaining what I meant with “alcoholic behavior” that it was not my intent to in any way imply he was a practicing, or drinking alcoholic. And can see where it would be taken that way. I was trying to describe a particular and common bait and switch tactic used by families in general afflicted by the disease of Alcoholism, but mostly the problem drinkers themselves. I know this from knowing much more than I ever wanted about the disease, and wrongly assumed others would get what I was saying.
So I am sorry mr quiddipy, at least about that.
change
2012 is looking better and better for our side….everything is working to the Republican’s advantage…
ChrisNYC
@FlipYrWhig: I have no problem with people saying they prefer another policy, either. But, this thing of, “They said on DKos that Obama is doing x so so therefore, Obama is doing x, because, well, they said it on DKos” is what drives me nuts.
burnspbesq
@change:
And you’re clearly not interested in what’s best for the country, only in amassing power for the Republican Party. Fuck you.
Tsulagi
@Dennis SGMM:
Yeah they do. Surprising how many people think if they make $250,001, that last dollar would trigger a cascade leading to government trucks backing up to their front door to take all their money.
Mildly surprised Obama didn’t make the point during his 60 Minutes interview that those making $250+k and up through all billionaires would still get ice cream on their piece of the pie. That ending upper cuts would merely limit 2% of wage earners net amount of ice cream to the same as $250k guy.
change
@burnspbesq:
What’s good for the Republican Party is good for America.
We have to stop Marxism in it’s tracks.
General Stuck
@John Cole:
I feel better now. From “there will be no health care reform” bet of John Cole.
burnspbesq
Our guy is saying that the lame duck is going to be about nothing but taxes. No DREAM Act.
Lemnoc
Go back and read the nuance. He most strenuously says he doesn’t want tax rates to go up for middle incomes. With less strength he says he prefers that they don’t go up permanently for high incomes. That means he’ll give on the latter to get the former, which was essentially what was originally reported.
chopper
@change:
spelling too.
ChrisNYC
And Pelosi says no temp extension of high end cuts.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/11/pelosi-gives-bush-tax-cut-compromise-the-big-n-o.php?ref=fpblg
Tom Hilton
@TWP: If you don’t understand where the President stands, it isn’t because he isn’t saying it–it’s because you aren’t paying attention. (And in fairness, you aren’t alone; most of the Washington press corps is similarly ill-informed. Ezra Klein had a great piece a while back starting with some WaPo hack saying “why doesn’t Obama say X?” and then quoting several speeches in which Obama said exactly the thing the hack thought he wasn’t saying.)
burnspbesq
Based on what I’m hearing on this call, I’d say (1) the probability of a deal is less than 50 percent, because the Republicans are going to overreach, (2) if there is no deal, the only thing that will get done is the AMT patch, (3) carried interest is dead so long as the Republicans control either house, and (4) the deficit commission report’s tax suggestions to trade lower rates for base broadening are going to get serious consideration in 2011, because a lot of new Republican Congresscritters ran on something like that.
chopper
maybe we should point out to the GOP that if the tax cuts for the rich are extended, obama himself gets a tax cut.
BombIranForChrist
He’s totally going to cave:
“Here’s the right interpretation—I want to make sure that taxes don’t go up for middle class families starting on January 1st,”
Since the tax cut automatically lapses, he MUST get a bill to extend it. And the only way to do that is to keep the cuts for the rich too.
Cole got played.
eemom
@John Cole:
Um, you started the post with “Doesn’t sound like Obama is backing down.”
@General Stuck:
tee hee. I remember that those posts wailing “It’s over!” in summer ’09.
Bullsmith
@change:
I look forward to the day when you get to find out what Marxism actually is. Clearly you have no clue at present.
BlizzardOfOz
Wait, you still listen to what Obama has to say on TV? That’s pretty funny…
change
@Bullsmith:
Read the original platform of the Communist Party:
Almost exactly like the policies of the modern Democrats, right down to a “progressive income tax” and a “tax on inheritence”.
Look:
Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
Abolition of all right of inheritance.
Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of the population over the country.
Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.[9]
How many of those are endorsed by “progressives”?
Mnemosyne
@DecidedFenceSitter:
It’s basically a hostage situation. The Republicans are saying, “Fuck you, unless you do every single thing we say, we will start killing hostages.” And we know they’re not bluffing. So what is the solution here? It’s not like “looking tough” or “standing tall” is going to do anything to change the Republicans’ minds — they’re still going to start shooting hostages in the head, because they win either way.
Not only that, but as soon as Republicans do start shooting the hostages (like, say, by holding up DADT repeal), liberals immediately turn on the Democrats and demand to know why they didn’t give in to what the Republicans wanted because then maybe the Republicans would have given in. Even though they’ve never given in before when we give them what they want.
It’s a no-win situation.
eemom
@chopper:
and Michael Moore, also too.
And those mooslim-loving obamafascistcommeez at Google. Sheeyit, talk about coddling the terrists — why not just enact a direct subsidy to al quaeda?
eemom
I know “don’t feed the trolls” is generally a lost cause, but y’all really got to stop responding to that “change” thing. It’s stupider than a spambot.
change
Do “progressives” believe your money is YOUR money, or the government’s money?
Mnemosyne
@burnspbesq:
So no budget for the Pentagon and the military is completely out of money as of Jan. 1? Because that’s what the military appropriations bill with DADT and the DREAM Act attached actually does.
Kay
This is why I love Pelosi:
“It’s too costly. It’s $700 billion. One year would be around $70 billion. That’s a lot of money to give a tax cut at the high end. And I remind you that those tax cuts have been in effect for a very long time, they did not create jobs.”
Yeah. Where are those jobs created by the tax cuts? We’re still waiting for them to show up, since, what? 2003? Any day now…
change
In 2007, unemployment was at 5%. Then the economy went off the rails.
Gee, what happened in 2007? Oh yeah–Democrats took over Congress.
Hmmmm….
Maude
Emo is the official language of the US.
The president speaks English and so, isn’t understood.
jayackroyd
@Zifnab:
I really don’t think he ever “caved” on anything. I think the president is doing what he wants to do, a 3rd way corporate/government partnership, rather than a more adversarial liberal (both the Adam Smith and the FDR kinds) approach, breaking up monopolies, protecting consumers, etc.
“Temporary” extension until 2012 is the same as a permanent extension.
Kay
@change:
But the tax cuts were in place all that time. They’re an “engine of job creation”, and we’ve been fueling that engine borrowed money since 2001.
I would think we’d be at full employment. Weirdly, we seemed to have ended up with 10% unemployment and a top 1 % of fabulously wealthy people. I can’t figure out where the conservative model went wrong.
change
@Kay:
We had 5% unemployment until the Democrat Congress convened. Businesses knew taxes were going to go up at that point, so they “priced in” the bad news and stopped hiring.
That, and Barney Frank/Chris Dodd giving out free home loans to people who couldn’t afford them.
Tsulagi
@John Cole:
I’d go with that.
Believe on this very blog during the early part of the 08 primaries, transcendy talk notwithstanding which we all love, said Obama didn’t excite me much because I didn’t trust him to pull the trigger when it counted. I was right.
Down the road think Dems need to go with a latina president. I’ve seen the SO’s cutthroat bartering and negotiations with vendors in Mexico and SA. It’s almost embarrassing watching her slice and dice to get the best deal. Her job with her company is in contract negotiations in their business with Latin American companies and govs. She’s been called a bulldog in Jimmy Choo shoes. I’ve seen other latin women with similar traits in getting the deal done. Most of the current crop of Dems are just chumps getting taken for a ride.
FlipYrWhig
I realize now that the internet was a bad thing. It just networks and intensifies the obnoxiousness of the people who like to think of themselves as “the left.” At least when it was in magazine form there was some respite between issues. Now it’s just non-stop bitching about every last thing. I don’t know why people want to live their lives this way.
Kay
@change:
But taxes didn’t go up, fanciful conservative who operates on imaginary scenarios.
That didn’t happen. Despite what you’ve been told, Democrats and President Obama didn’t raise taxes. Let’s stick close to reality and let others do the University of Chicago theorizing.
Where are the jobs created by the wholly-real tax-cut engine of job creation? Chug-chug-chug since 2001.
FlipYrWhig
I’m taking a break. I can’t handle the emo peacocking about how “I was right” to be miserable far in advance of the cause. It’s fucking ridiculous, and depressing, and it’s everywhere. Fuck it.
burnspbesq
@Mnemosyne:
The current continuing resolution expires on 12/3. There will be another continuing resolution, but come January all bets are off.
The problem is that a lot of the new Republicans coming into Congress want to implement their lunatic ideas during THIS fiscal year, so all of the appropriations bills are up in the air if they don’t get done in the lame duck. And there’s no way that Boehner and McConnell are going to allow appropriations bills to get done in the lame duck, because they will face an immediate mutiny by their new members.
BlizzardOfOz
@Tsulagi:
So, where does the part where large banks and insurance companies give large quantities of cash to Democrats factor in to this theory? I would also ask who in this scenario really is the chump being taken for a ride.
change
@Kay:
They knew tax cuts were not going to renewed in 2010 once they saw the Democrats got congress in 2007.
Business “prince in” future bad news.
change
Oh, and business also hate uncertainty.
Make all the tax cuts permanent and they will have certainty of low taxes for years to come and the economy will roar. Especially if we cut the corporate tax rate further as part of the deal (it’s the highest in the world, no wonder businesses are leaving the USA)…
DaBomb
@eemom: Thank you for that. I needed someone to say it. And you didn it so eloquently.
@General Stuck: As always keep fighting the good fit Stuck.
@Mnemosyne: @FlipYrWhig: Both of you as well as Tom Hilton and Chris NYC should just give it up. You are dealing with people who loved to be victims. Teh sheer fact that they read Huff n Puff and take everything that is being said on the site as truth without There are also alot of racist dogwhistles being thrown around and goalposts being moved.
As a person of color it is disheartening and hard to swallow.
Legalize
@change
Except that none of that actually happened. Where are the jobs promised by the tax cuts?
Quiddity
@General Stuck: Fair enough. We all, myself included, do that from time to time.
burnspbesq
@change:
Conclusive proof that Change doesn’t live in the same universe as the rest of us. His world doesn’t include Italy or Japan, both of which have higher statutory corporate income tax rates than the United States.
It’s the pie filter for you, asshole. I recommend that others do the same. You don’t need this turd raising your blood pressure.
Kay
@change:
This may be my favorite comment of the day. They do? See, I’m surprised by that, because less than 2 years ago we had to bail them out because they didn’t “price in” their own shoddy practices and unsustainable business models.
Yet they anticipated and “priced in” tax increases that exist only in their imaginations.
Still kneeling at the alter of the CEO, I see. Some dreams never die. Do you have Donald Trump’s book on the nightstand?
change
@burnspbesq:
Yes, Japan has a higher rate and they’ve had a lost decade…
Legalize
@Kay:
But but we had to bail them out because they KNEW that Obama was going to be president. CEOs are very smart which is why they are so uncertain about taxation conditions that were certain 10 years ago.
change
I was against bailing out Wall St. Too bad Nancy Pelosi rammed the bill through.
They all should have gone down in flames, all the bankers that failed. THEY LOST in the market and should have been weeded out as weak links, not propped up by Uncle Sugar.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@Kay: Of course they priced in the bad news: It would cost a few million in lobbying fees to make sure that the government helped them survive their fuckup.
And, yes, I think TARP was necessary.
kay
@change:
Of course you were. And had they not been bailed out, you’d be here whining that Democrats caused the Great Depression II.
Yet. After all that. You still cling to the idea that CEO’s operate with some long-term master plan that is an infallible indicator of all that is Good and True, and you’ll swallow any lame excuse they proffer when they’re grubbing for yet another tax cut on their individual earnings.
kay
@Legalize:
The way to measure CEO smartness is to look at their compensation package. Because no one would pay them all that money if they weren’t so, so smart. It’s easy!
Right? That’s what I was told in 7th grade, and, really, I’ve lived by that maxim ever since, through the S and L scandal, and the Enron scandal, and the FIRE implosion, because the dream never dies for me.
Smart and Good = Well-compensated.
Mnemosyne
@FlipYrWhig:
Stick to the pet and food threads for a while (and pie WyldPirate). I think asiangrrlmn has been doing that because the trolls have been making her all stabby.
Jasper
@change:
Well, see, that’s stupid. There can never be “permanent” tax cuts as long as we have Congress and elections every two years.
The fact is Clinton raised taxes, balanced the budget, and during his term 22 million jobs were created. Bush cut them, including cutting taxes on capital to the lowest in generations, and we had basically no jobs growth for eight years. Now, I’m not all that smart, but it seems to me that something other than tax rates drove those results. Or, alternatively, cutting taxes on the wealthy and on capital succeeds only in blowing up the real economy while diverting resources from actual economic activity to gambling about the order some zeros and ones organize themselves on a computer screen.
Suck It Up!
@Tsulagi:
oh please! talk to me when your SO has actually been president. These I could or she could or he could do better stories are tiresome. No one knows what they would do until they are in the hot seat. Until then, its all talk.
Karen
This is really getting old.
It really does’t matter what Obama does, they wanted to get rid of him the moment Hillary Clinton lost the primary.
He could give them everything they want on a silver platter and they would STILL complain.
Why don’t they just say this:
Obama is not Hlillary Clinton.
I don’t call them firebaggers. Let’s just call them what they are.
PUMA.
And if Jane Hamsher really cared about middle class tax cuts she never would have palled around with Grover Norquist, Yet I have yet to hear about how horrible she is,
MattR
@Karen:
But you don’t understand. Now Jane can call up her pal Grover and tell him to get the Republicans to back off. That should work. Right?
burnspbesq
@Karen:
You must be new around here. Jane gets ripped on a fairly regular basis. Look for any post that touches, even tangentially, on Greenwald. Janey is nearly always collateral damage in those threads.
Felonious Wench
@Karen:
Search the blog for Jane Hamsher.
Pop popcorn, open a beer…
Enjoy the show.
This place was Hamsher-bashing since John was a Republican.
Karen
I’m not new. I probably should have said this:
I have yet to hear from the Obama haters how horrible Jane Hamsher is for cozying up to Grover Norquist.
DecidedFenceSitter
Karen – has there been something new about her cozying up to Norquist that we should comment about? Cause we did all that hating a couple years ago.
Or are the haters required to put in some caveats to note that they are equal opportunity haters? Cause if you aren’t new here, then you should be well aware that if this is a requirement each comment is going to be amazingly long. We’ve got a lot of hate.
Nick
@Ugh:
well, if the public doesn’t want tax cuts for the rich, this is a good thing, right?
Oh, except you guys know the country will support them and won’t admit it.
Nick
@Ugh:
They will…happily, but add in tax cuts for the rich too, and Obama is going to have to explain why exactly he vetoed a tax cut bill. When you’re explaining…you’re losing
JMY
Nobody knows what the fuck he’s gonna do until he does it. So if he caves in on tax cuts for the rich, then you can bitch about it, scream at the top of your lungs, and proclaim how Obama has failed you and is the worst president ever, and that Hillary or Edwards, or Kucinich would never have caved on tax cuts for the rich.
This wouldn’t have been an issue if Dems in Congress had put this up for a vote before the recess, but they didn’t b/c they were scared that Republicans would use it against them in the mid-terms. They caved in, so bitch at them. This has nothing to do with messaging, HuffPo just took something and ran with it, like they always do, so people who want Obama gone can feel vindicated. They take a quote, and go, “See, I told you so.”
So again, none of us knows what the fuck is gonna happen. Let’s hope he makes the right decision. This happens every damn time. I’m starting to thing that it’s not the administration, but people like Arianna Huffington, Kos, etc. who just sit in front of their TV or computer and just look for something to be outraged about.
Triassic Sands
Late to the party.
I don’t know what Obama will do, and I don’t see any reason to freak out — it hasn’t done any good in the past, but this comment thread reminds me of the public option discussion.
On the other hand, the defenders of the president need some new material.
I’m always mystified by the view of politics that argues people should remain silent until after something is done and then bitch. That’s the most passive-aggressive and totally pointless approach I can imagine. It can’t possibly achieve anything worthwhile.
It is true that there is no point in bitching in a Balloon Juice comment — that certainly won’t accomplish anything. And while I doubt if flooding the White House with emails will achieve the desired end, it is at least appropriate and who knows, it might work.
Supporters of the president, instead of railing at the critical, should probably also be flooding the White House with emails calling on the president to show some spine. After all, if you want to be able to say to Obama’s critics, “See, you were wrong, he didn’t cave in,” then you probably ought to give Obama all the support and incentive to stand fast that you can.
I know that 200 emails won’t matter. But 20,000 might, and 200,000 or 2,000,000…???
Mnemosyne
@Triassic Sands:
I don’t think anyone is arguing that. In fact, we’re actually trying to get people to do something, because we have a bunch of whiners laying around saying, “Oh, Obama’s totally in thrall to the banks, he wants to close down Social Security, there’s nothing we can do, it’s hopeless.”
Given how many teabaggers call the White House every day complaining about sociaIism, that’s a great idea. But you’re never going to get the emo whiners to do it, because they think that this is all Obama’s master plan so there’s no point in trying to get anything different.
I’ll give them this much: they do genuinely think that Obama is in thrall to the banks and it’s completely hopeless to do anything to try and change that. It’s annoying as all fuck when the rest of us are trying to get shit done, but I do think they actually believe that.
Triassic Sands
@Mnemosyne:
You may not be arguing that, but if you look at the comment immediately preceding mine…
…it sure seems to be JMY’s argument. And I don’t think I’m imagining how many times I’ve read comments here that really do seem to argue exactly that.
I know a lot of people who are very disappointed with Obama (I’m one of them), who don’t remotely fit the way Obama critics are consistently characterized here at BJ, especially, but not solely, by John C. himself.
Not to pick on JMY, but he also is representative of the kind of Obama apologia that is so common here:
And it wouldn’t have been an issue if the Democrats held 3/4 of all congressional seats, or if Republicans weren’t totally insane. But Obama is responsible for what he does and Congress is not an excuse for his choices. So, IF he gives in on tax extensions for the wealthy, it won’t be the fault of spineless congressional Democrats or mindless Republicans.
What I find saddest, perhaps, is that I no longer have any confidence that Obama will hold the line. And I believe that lack of confidence is based on Obama’s past performance, not on my (non-existent) hatred of Obama.
Ron
Like others, I don’t see this as anything to be cheering about. He says 1)He wants to extend middle class tax cuts (but does NOT say permanently) as a priority and 2)Doesn’t want permanent extensions of the tax cuts for the >$250K bracket. Not sure how this is push back against the rumor that the compromise will be temporary extensions for all of the cuts. Unless the tax cuts for the middle class get decoupled somehow from the upper end ones, nothing will change. OTOH, Pelosi seems to be signalling that she will not allow this particular compromise and since she is still Speaker of the House, that is huge.
Mnemosyne
@Triassic Sands:
I know we all have this myth of the strongman in our heads, but you can’t hold a line by yourself. If Obama is getting no backup from the rest of the Democratic establishment, there’s very little he can do if he just digs his heels in. So, yes, there have been cave-ins on things that he probably shouldn’t have caved on, but at least some of those cave-ins have been because there were no Congressional Democrats supporting him.
The problem from day one is that Obama has had virtually no support from Congressional Democrats, and even his nominal allies in the Senate spend at least half of their time undercutting him. Pelosi is pretty much the only person who consistently has his back, so if she’s jumping in to say that she will block any extension of the $250K+ tax cuts, that’s a huge thing, because up until now, Obama has been hanging out there with no support at all on not extending all of the tax cuts.
I do find it interesting that even you, the person who proposed flooding the White House with e-mails, immediately backed down and decided that all of the pessimistic voices on the thread must be right and there really isn’t anything you can do. How did that happen?
General Stuck
@Triassic Sands:
I give you credit for being articulate with left wing BS, more than most our firebaggers, but it is still a load of hogwash, and is typical why those of us still supporting Obama on the internet blogs, punch so called hippies.
I suppose it is the lingering effects of Bush’s unitary executive and the fantasy of leftists that Bush got everything he wanted just by ordering it up to congress like a pizza.
Or, Obama has no power under our constitution to “hold the line” with anything having to do with passing laws in this country. He has one power in that respect, and it is a big one for sure, and that is the veto. He can bluster, threaten the veto, propose legislation, and cajole congress, but in the end all he can do is sign or veto a bill that congress only, has the power to create. So there is no line to hold in that regard, though he has pretty much done that with making the Bush rich people tax cuts permanent with an implicit veto threat.
It is like with HCR, and the left demanding all or nothing, like reform was only a cold calculated holding of political lines against the enemy wingnuts, as though passing nothing because a PO wasn’t included would be a painless exercise conducted in a vacuum. And I always thought liberals were above all else bleeding hearts, I am, and am proud of it. So when the witching hour came for such decision, I tipped my hat to the wingnuts and conservadems after having fought the good fight, and threw down the white flag for a HCR bill without a PO. And the reason is that I actually care more that 30 million more folks will now have the opportunity in the fairly near future to get health care to stay above ground, and me as a blogging hero will find no glory for dieing on that particular hill, for that particular reason and going with the kill the bill crowd.
I wonder the true nature of self described liberals who would make that stand to the bitter end and let those folks die an early death most likely, so they could feel good about their pol bravado, and about any president that had stood with them.
You folks are like chicks in the nest, all with beaks wide open, screeching in unison, waiting for mama bird to feed them, with no real idea, nor concern on what it took for them to be fed.
So maybe, just maybe, Obama would at least recognize that he may have to allow for compromise to get the tax cuts for the hurting middle class right now, BECAUSE HE ACTUALLY CARES ABOUT THE LIVES OF THOSE PEOPLE more than getting one up on the wingnuts. Think about that a bit, maybe you will learn something about being a liberal.
edit – this comment of mine is not necessarily addressed only to triassic sands, but the netroots in general.
gwangung
Isn’t this something the grassroots can help with by calling their Congressmen? Dem and Repub?
Triassic Sands
@Mnemosyne:
It didn’t happen. I have emailed and called the White House. I’ve contacted numerous friends and pushed them to do the same. There is a substantial difference between thinking something will probably not help, and not doing anything because of that possibility (or even likelihood). And I absolutely believe that there is a threshold beyond which the White House would definitely pay attention. Based on experience, I doubt that number of emails and calls will be reached — whatever it is.
I especially think that people who strongly support Obama should contact him, but the reality is, I strongly suspect, that those who support Obama no matter what are not bothering to contact him to urge one action or another. That’s likely because it doesn’t really matter to them what he does — regardless of what he does, they will still support him (which is fine) and excuse him (not so fine).
Mnemosyne, I thank you for addressing my comment in a mature and thoughtful way. However, as always, anyone who expresses any disappointment or displeasure with Obama is instantly assailed at BJ (by the usual suspects) for being a firebagger (possibly the stupidest term ever coined — coined by people who think that snark and name-calling are substitutes for rational discussion), because the only amount of disagreement that is permissible is none at all (for those people). And, for those people, the world is as black and white as it is for many of the Wingers, at least where Obama is concerned.
I’ve been politically active my entire adult life, and I put a lot of time, effort, and money into getting Obama elected. I had no unrealistic expectations for him as an individual, because by election day I already had a good idea of who he is politically. So, his performance has been measured against fairly low expectations. In some ways he has exceeded expectations; in others he’s disappointed; in a few he has proven to be woefully inadequate.
I’m not critical of him on an issue like DADT, because I don’t think an executive order would be the best course, even if it were legally adequate. I deplore his stand on gay marriage, because I think it is an outdated and bigoted position. Since I don’t believe religion belongs in politics — at all, any political positions that are based on a person’s religious beliefs are not positions that I respect if they are being used in the policy arena. And that goes doubly for positions that seek to deprive people of rights that should be theirs. Given how I feel about religion and politics, it shouldn’t be a surprise that I think Obama has invoked his religious beliefs far too much.
I still hope that Obama will stand fast. He has the option to veto any bill passed by Congress and past presidents have cast vetoes they knew would subsequently be overridden. Sometimes that is the best thing for a president to do. If Obama truly believes that we can’t afford the extension of tax cuts for the wealthy, then the obvious and appropriate thing for him to do would be to veto them. And, further, to promise without fail to veto them. Sometimes things aren’t all that complicated.
Triassic Sands
@gwangung:
Yes, if millions of middle class people contacted their congressional representatives (on any issue), it could have a profound effect.
I’ve contacted mine and gotten others to do the same.
General Stuck
@Triassic Sands:
You know, when you come around and start labeling commenters here on Balloon Juice as “apologia” it kind of wrecks your self hoisting onto a petard, as above it all from those craven Obots and their blunt ways.
You aren’t the first smarmy self absorbed soul to grace us with your faux maturity and scolding presence. big yawn
Shyne
Unfortunately, the walk-back is no walk-back at all. Read the quote. The new White House position is that it’s a bad idea to “permanently” extend the tax cut for the wealthy. The writing is on the wall, and I am definitely no Firebagger. The only way this goes the way it should go is if Madame Speaker decouples these things in the house. Nothing has happened yet, and I have no crystal ball, but eleventy dimensional chess is getting to be a harder case to make these days. I repeat, I am no Firebagger.