So, I posted earlier about the problem with Obama’s continual and repeated embrace of anti-tax rhetoric. A number of folks jumped down my throat in the comments, including:
Culture of Truth who exclaimed:
We’re 90 days from a national election, and ‘liberal’ pundits think the best use of their time is to attack Obama over this. Criminy, now I recall why I don’t read the thoughtful young Mr Y
politifarce who ranted:
LOL….boy this Bernard Finel really drank the kool aid. Must be reading too much Greenwald or watching too much Faux.
News flash oh poorly informed one. Eliminating the Bush tax cuts largely eliminates the structural deficits.
Sheezus….and this is supposed to be a site where well informed political junkies hang out??? Cole is obviously scraping the bottom of the barrel.
Where do you find these people Cole? On Dkos or FDL maybe?
and The Moar You Know who scolded:
This falls into that really sad category of Balloon Juice posts that I like to refer to as “click bait for the Firebaggers and retards”. Having made my contribution, I’m out.
Then, DougJ posted, stating:
All this too-clever-by-half contrarianism and nit-picking might have impressed college teaching assistants, but it doesn’t impress the millions of Americans who are dealing with things more pressing than Upper-Class White People problems.
Now, look folks. You guys seem to think the election is just about what happens on November 6, but it isn’t. The issue is also what American politics look like for the next four years and beyond.
The danger is that we win, and then what follows is basically a continuation of politics as they have stood since 2010, where even with a Democratic president and control of the Senate, much of the agenda is about cutting spending. This occurs unless we can make a compelling case for the alternative during this campaign. Why? Because VSPs will claim that the “math demands” it. Because Democratic politicians won’t have the guts to step forward and change the dialogue without cover from the White House, and the White House won’t be willing to provide it because the political folks there will claim polling does not support it. Which, of course, it won’t, since no one has made the case. I’m not claim that the “Bully Pulpit” can change all of this. But that said, isn’t it perfectly obvious that Obama’s decision to pivot to the deficit helped create this dynamic? And couldn’t a pivot to infrastructure and/or a renewed emphasis on how tax avoidance is unpatriotic help alter the dynamic? The latter, by the way, would be a nice line of attack on Romney.
Would you rather spend the next four year debating entitlement cuts or, instead, fighting to get new infrastructure built, an assault weapons ban passed, EFCA, the DREAM Act, carbon pricing, and so on?
As Gex noted in the original thread:
I can see both takes on it. This ISN’T that big of a thing. But we are where we are because Republicans have spent 30 years taking small pieces of government spending and taxation out of context and making the idea of that tax ridiculous. And we chip away and chip away. And we get comfortable with the process of identifying a tax and deciding we don’t need it anymore until we are where we are now.
Yes. Precisely. The GOP has structured our political debates because they have hammered away on this theme year after year, in good times and bad, through victories and defeats. They have ruthlessly pursued “starve the beast,” and they have been successful in starving the government of resources. And while, yes, an expiration of all the Bush tax cuts would go a long way to eliminate the structural deficit, Obama is promising to extend the majority of them, so that isn’t likely to be on the table, even if doing so wouldn’t have a deadly short-term impact on the economy.
I am not suggesting Obama scuttle his election to make a political point. But I do think that unless we find some way to reverse the this anti-tax mania, we will inevitably be on the defensive.
Yes, we have more important fish to fry than a tax cut for Olympians, but unless we find a way to win this debate over taxes — by which I mean, find a way to get support for increasing government revenue structurally — those more important things will be increasingly at risk. How you win is important. Not as important as winning, of course. But not wholly irrelevant either.
Comrade Jake
I agree, but I happen to think that Obama is doing a lot more in this regard than you’re giving him credit for. The guy is running national ads where he says he thinks the rich should pay a bit more. That is a lot bigger than any concern over Olympic gold medals, which nobody will be talking about next week.
Chris Whitehead
On the other hand, once we re-elect Obama — and hopefully give him plenty of Dems in House and Senate — he has little to lose by attacking the Republicans, and hard. That’s my hope, anyway: no 3rd term worry, no holds barred.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
anybody else stop reading there?
Frankensteinbeck
This anti-tax insanity is Reagan’s legacy. Nevermind that he raised taxes, he sold the working class on the idea that raising taxes on the rich means raising taxes on everyone. For thirty years, that has been the public’s attitude, and talking about raising taxes on anyone was political poison to be avoided. Now, for the very first time in all that time, raising taxes on the rich is polling very well.
Why? Because Obama spent thirty seconds looking reasonable admitting the debt was a problem in his deficit speech, then the rest of the speech talking about how the rich needed to pay ‘their fair share’. He’s been hammering it since, and it has WORKED. Don’t go into a tizzy about messaging. Sucking up Republican messaging and turning it into the message we’ve wanted all along is one of Obama’s strengths.
Baud
You lost me at the first sentence:
If you haven’t yet seen that Obama is loudly and aggressively campaigning on a theme of having the rich pay their fair share in taxes — and is attacking the notion of trickle down economics more than anyone I’ve seen since George HW Bush called it voodoo economics in 1980 — then you are living in a fantasy world and are not to be taken seriously.
Bobby Thomson
I agreed with the gist of your earlier post.
I also agree with DougJ that tax-free Olympic medals is not the hill to die on (and add that it would be counterproductive to your goals).
And I think you should post more.
Ben Franklin
. But I do think that unless we find some way to reverse the this anti-tax mania, we will inevitably be on the defensive.
If you plan on making a u-turn at the stoplight in the Titanic, you’ve got a plan that is scuttled from day one. What makes more sense is to convey, to the public, that cutting spending and reducing taxes as the only remedy, is the bridge to nowhere. That, is where the 73% is right now. 30 years of scrubbing the brainstems of the voter has left them with involuntary political functions, and they don’t like change, much less abrupt change
growingdaisies
Agreed 100 percent.
I don’t get how Doug J. doesn’t understand that this is another one of those large anti-tax gestures symbolically, even though it affects only a tiny subset of people. And if you’re going to write a post disagreeing with another post … it’s not really a point of pride that you didn’t bother to read the subject matter. But whatever, Matt Yglesias is history’s greatest monster, etc.
That said, there’s no way Obama’s picking a fight over this a few months before the election, in a country where the city with the second worst traffic problems in the US just turned down a penny tax to fix their transportation infrastructure. I’m totally unsurprised he’s going to simply agree and let it be a non-issue instead of letting it turn into a hammer that can be used to bludgeon him.
Timing matters.
brettvk
I went last night to the primary watch party for my county’s Dem organization, and the governor was there for the first time in a long time. His speech was a solid stump production, but it disturbed me that the crowd reacted so enthusiastically to his assertion that we’d solved many state problems “without raising taxes.” I’m not eager to give up any more of my already meager income, but we all have to give up this idea that taxes never rise. It’s gonna kill the nation as surely as it’s killing California.
Ron
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: I didn’t stop there, but I should have.
danah gaz (fka gaz)
I agree with the gist of your earlier post as well.
But this is not an issue to be taking up HALF OF THE DAMNED FRONT PAGE right now. It’s not that big of a deal.
Plenty of us can pick apart Obama’s policies, his decisions, and his campaign.
I’m certain you can as well. (pats you on head). Good for you!
Now fucking suck it up and focus on the shit that matters.
There is plenty of time to take this kind of stuff on. August of an election year is not that time.
You’re right on substance, wrong on timing and framing.
These GOP clowns are throwing EVERYTHING but the kitchen sink at us in a desperate stab at deflecting from Romney’s tax secrecy.
And you are sitting here lapping it up.
Stop being a stooge.
How many ways can I say that your are being punked? Jesus Christ in a strip club. What part of this do you not understand?
Corner Stone
God dammit but I am going to love this.
MikeJ
@growingdaisies:
Because it’s not. It’s tiny. The Olympics are over in a couple of days and the entire issue will be forgotten.
Tax cuts for people who represent their country in the Olympics is on the same level with tax cuts for soldiers. There’s no constituency for sticking it to a 18 year old who has spent the last dozen years waking up at 4am to make the country proud.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
In a world where a good number of people will vote against Obama because he’s:
1. Near
2. a Democrat
3. Born in Kenya
4. A Muslim
a fight over taxing Olympiads is exactly what Rubio and the other Republicans want.
Actually, November 6th is pretty definite: Either Obama wins or Romney wins. We either get the good guy in, or we get the man who will leverage the country to make himself richer.
You’re the one who seems to have it backwards. You can’t change anything if you are not in office. That is the one and only rule, and it’s what the Republicans understand.
Emma
In any other election I would agree with you. In this one, not so much. If we don’t get Obama re-elected, we get President Mitt “I hired a lobbyist to help me cut my property taxes” Romney.
Enough said.
Yutsano
Presidents do not set tax rates. Everything you’re wishing for comes from a better Congress. Concentrate your ire on the teatard folk who insist that any tax increase equals the death of FREEDUMB!! Get Obama better co-governors, then see what happens.
Corner Stone
@Chris Whitehead:
I applaud you Chris. This may be the funniest thing I have read in quite some time.
MikeJ
@brettvk:
You don’t think it’s good to not raise taxes when you don’t need to? If you can actually solve problems without raising taxes, isn’t that exactly what you should do? If by not raising taxes you make problems worse that’s a different issue. Raising taxes unnecessarily is flat out moronic. Worse, it’s bad politics.
You know what they call a politician who is completely pure on every issue but loses? A FUCKING LOSER.
Steve
The operative narrative on taxes in this country definitely needs to change.
That doesn’t mean you start changing the narrative by picking a stupid fight over taxation of Olympic medals, three months before the election.
Obama’s pledge not to raise taxes on incomes under $250,000 – which has been his position since well before he was elected – is a far, far more damaging concession to the anti-taxers. If you want to talk about something relevant, talk about that instead.
Corner Stone
BTW, I understand you may not know this, but “politifarce” is the latest reincarnation of a well known Cole stalker better known as “Fred/Derf”.
It’s ok you missed that one this time. But his/her style is distinctive and quite obviously smelly. So try not going for a round two.
Appreciates yas.
amk
Hey kid, Obama’s rhetoric on letting shrub’s tax cuts for the wealthy expire for the past 3 years is suddenly trumped by a silly nationalistic grandstanding on olympians and he is anti-tax now?
And you needed to drag your readers into your post to justify your stupid framing ?
danah gaz (fka gaz)
80% of this thread is right on. the other 20% and the front pager are not. full stop.
Midnight Marauder
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
Yep. This shit is atrocious.
Glad to see a new pair of clown shoes dancing across the front page.
Whidby
And it’s not too soon to consider how Obama’s position on this might play in the 2014 midterm congressional elections. I mean, let’s keep our eye on the prize people!!!
Corner Stone
@Midnight Marauder: Damn. I thought you was dead.
Linnaeus
@MikeJ:
Sure, it’s moronic. But I’d be willing to bet the much, much bigger problem is the former rather than the latter. Tax cuts at any cost are ruining this country.
danah gaz (fka gaz)
Cue the other front pagers to step up and post some more relevant things so that this gets moved to the bottom of the heap where it belongs. At this point, I’d take a video of tunch or some more max photos.
And DougJ – please in the future, don’t bait. We knew you were right. You didn’t have to continue this farce by rebutting it and forcing a continuation of this idiotic crap.
Zach
Do you realize you’re sort of the one buying into the rhetoric when you keep repeating that we have a structural deficit that requires repealing the Bush tax cuts? In fact, the Bush cuts remedied a sort-of-real problem in that we were slated to have a surplus with nothing to spend it on as the war on poverty and wage growth worked their magic and revenue increased faster than outlays. The cuts were too big, but there’s no need at all to get rid of all of them unless you think we need to find a way to keep paying twice as much for healthcare as we need to rather than continue what Obamacare started towards reforming healthcare to lower costs. Replace the American health system with something approximating the NHS and you’ve essentially fixed the long-term budget picture without touching revenues… little reason to stake your flag on an unpopular slate of tax increases to raise a couple hundred billion a year when we’re spending nearly a trillion a year on absolutely nothing.
Obama’s the first national Democratic candidate in many years to run on increasing taxes on anyone. He won on the tax issue in 2008. He’s gone a long, long way towards neutralizing toxic Republican tax rhetoric without resorting to it himself. Saying Olympians shouldn’t pay taxes on medals is just as meaningless as weighing in on a college football tournament or steroids. There’s a history of politicians getting involved in popular sports in order to connect with people that has little to do with trillions of dollars of revenue and outlays.
Midnight Marauder
I’m just really getting sick of listening to strategic advice from a group of supposed liberal who haven’t managed to get their political agenda enacted or recognized in any kind of meaningful way over the past few decades. These fools are a fucking joke. Their advice is equal parts laughable and erroneous.
You dumbasses had your chances over the years to get something done and all you did for the most part was fail spectacularly and get your ass handed to you by the opposition when it comes to communicating effectively with the public at large.
Maybe you clowns should just shut the fuck up for awhile on the advice tip. We know what you have to say and it’s largely pretty fucking stupid.
srv
The Bush cuts will be extended whether Obama wins or not. Election talk is just that. The 1% will get what they want either way, so suck it up. Right sizing entitlements are the new reality, the only difference is which and how much.
patroclus
It seems to me that, in suggesting that Obama morph his current campaign to increase taxes on upper incomes to one where he, instead, slimes all over Olympian medal winners, is indeed, a method of suggesting that he scuttle the election. Clearly, the OP is not a campaign advisor.
Taxing Olympians for the stipend awarded by the U.S. for athletic achievement is stupid. It was stupid when you first posted about it – it remains stupid. The argument that “we” are making (and winning) is that federal income taxes should be increased on upper incomes.
dmbeaster
How did approval of the Olympic medal tax exemption become Obama allegedly embracing anti-tax rhetoric?
I hate to be mean, but this post just doubles down on the stupid.
Midnight Marauder
@Corner Stone:
Nah, son. Just been busy on a new project.
/O-BOT…AWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYY!
Spatula
Keep doing your thing, Bernard.
You have all the right haters after you here on BJ. :D
You know, the ones who shit their pants at any digression from BARACK4EVAH, 24/7.
There’s a reason Cole asked you to contribute here. Please post more often. DougJ seems to think this is his blog. We need an antidote.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@Zach:
We did have this thing called the debt. Paying that down would have allowed us to respond to recessions better.
Strandedvandal
I see I haven’t missed a great deal.
Baud
@Strandedvandal:
Same shit. Different day.
raven
@Spatula: Ain’t no need to jump ugly on my boy Doug.
jl
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
” Now, look folks. You guys seem to think the election is just about what happens on November 6, but it isn’t. ”
‘anybody else stop reading there?’
Well, fair warning was given.
I agree with commenters, that compared to the anthill of taxing Olympic athletes piddly prizes, yes the election IS abaout that happens on November 6, totally completely absolutely.
BTW: what is the distribution of Olmypic athletets’ outlays and lost earnings due to training? What percent of Olympic athletes make significant money from endorsements? What is their income distribution? How big is the US Olympic team?
What is the point of trying to talk about the issue without that info?
Steve
@Zach: Good thing we didn’t elect that know-nothing Al Gore! He never would have had the good sense to cut taxes.
Corner Stone
@raven: Why not? Fuck him and his J. Geils Band looking stupid ass.
Weaselone
Did I miss something? Are tax breaks for Olympians the new drones?
Fiscally, it’s essentially irrelevant. Obama’s position on it bolsters the whole anti-tax mania about as much as a cricket adds to a performance of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. Whatever miniscule impact it has on the debate is far outweighed by his championing of an end of the tax cuts for those making more than $250, an his moving the ball forward on the need for the wealthy to pay their fair share.
scav
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: “You guys” does verge on the “you people” line of defense. I’ve yet to read “a refuge for a snarling mass of vitriolic vicious bobbleheads” as a rotating tagline yet.
Strandedvandal
It pains me to say this, but I am starting to miss ED Kain.
schrodinger's cat
Condescending much?
What does this even mean? I get the feeling that you don’t really understand macroeconomics as your earlier posts on Bernanke and monetary policy show. Before lecturing us why don’t you at least try to understand the subject you are pontificating on.
LT
As a fan of DougJ, can I just say, DougJ – go fuck yourself. Jesus, that was a low point for you.
Corner Stone
@schrodinger’s cat: I would have a harsh retort but I love beach volleyball just too damn much.
LT
The foundation of fucked up arguments like DougJ’s and others is one simple thing: Telling people what to talk about. And just fuck you for it. If you don’t think this is worth talking about – go the fuck away and don’t talk about it, you obtuse fucking hypocrite idiot authoritarian fucks.
kdaug
Sounds like someone got some silver-dollar-size blisters on his fee-fees.
Folks were mean to you?
Awful damn sorry about that.
Troll the comments to cut&paste then repost the mean things on the front page?
That’s just ammo, son.
danah gaz (fka gaz)
@kdaug: =)
Ripley
Hey, you’ve got Spatula on your team…. Winning!
raven
@Corner Stone: John Lee Hooker once said about Magic Dick “If he eats p(*^*&%% like he plays that harp then he’s a motherfucker”!
BGinCHI
@Midnight Marauder: Midnight Marauder Says:
Then go train your ears elsewhere. Or make an argument.
Mnemosyne
I do love how Obama’s lukewarm support of a bill that hasn’t made it out of committee in the Senate (and probably never will) is proof of BETRAYAL!!
How is it that firebaggers get themselves so wound up over things that haven’t actually happened yet? Next up, Bernard’s 2,000 word post about how Obama is totally going to kill Social Security in the lame duck session, no, it’s for real this time, I swear!
Strandedvandal
LT seems upset.
raven
AW man my John Lee Hooker quote about Magic Dick got eated by the mod monster!
Shawn in ShowMe
What president in the history of the country argued for the need to raise taxes in an election year? C’mon now.
Then it’s never gonna happen because historically it’s the Congressional reps that take the lead on progressive issues. Robert La Follette. Hubert Humphrey. Ted Kennedy. They didn’t wait on cover from the White House. We don’t mock firebaggers because we have become jaded. We mock them because these are grown ass people who don’t know how government works.
Culturally, we live in a moral cesspool. We’ve gone from a rich Romney who happily paid his taxes to a robotic scion who is damned if he will pay any. We’ve gone from corporate contributors who actually created good-paying jobs to “job-creators” who outsource jobs. We have middle-class citizens who care more about picking out their ideal McMansion than building community. We don’t need a president, we need cultural transformation. We, the people, need to build a few large institutions outside of government to get that done.
Zach
@Steve: Gore didn’t run on putting on the entire surplus in his lockbox. There was a mix of tax cuts, spending increases and spending via tax credits. The Bush cuts are pretty stupid, but they’re only insane when coupled with blowing a trillion on nothing every year. Running a huge surplus every year (AND guaranteeing a balanced budget) was even stupider in an era of pretty slow growth and low interest rates.
politifarce
Shorter Bernard Finel, “yes it was click bait as is this post”
I’m done with you whoever you are. Don’t care.
ChrisNYC
Holy crap. I don’t even know what to say about that. Other than geez, have you read the comments here? Like even on a pet post?
gluon1
I don’t understand the anger at Finel any more than I grasp that at Yglesias, the yelling at both of whom seems to be based on almost willful misrepresentation of their arguments.
As I read this sensible post, Mr. Finel is arguing that we should all talk about how paying taxes is a good thing and why. That’s not anti-Obama and need not be phrased in “I disagree with the President about Olympians’ taxes” language. Rather, if a lot of hoi polloi, viz., us, were to talk about the value of taxes and infrastructure investment, the President might be able to eschew the nods towards idiots like Rubio and this kind of insidious idiocy. We’d be clearing the way for POTUS et al. to move the ball by simply mowing the green before him, to make a poor metaphor about sport.
Have I misunderstood someone or something?
jrg
Uhh, no. That’s why their bullshit continues to work. The minute grannie’s Social Security check stops arriving in the mail is the minute “small government conservatives” go the way of the dodo.
This is not the hill Obama needs to die on.
LT
@Strandedvandal: Yeah but it’s the good kind of upset.
All this crap was born in the Obama campaign, grew up in his presidency. Dems were given a test – can you be objective with Obama as president – and a very surprising and very depressing number of them failed really badly. Good, honest people and organizations became “Firebagger” pariahs for *being consistent* with their criticism of politicians and government.
There is almost no more such thing as values for these people. Assassinating American 16-year-olds? It’s all good! We would have totally given George W. Bush a pass on that one! And a hundred other examples. And really awful idiot crap like this: “Don’t talk bad about him! You’re ruining the election! Now’s not the time!” Forever, and ever, and ever, amen.
Surprising, depressing, whisky inducing, total human stupid. Worse – us humans.
Zach
@Belafon (formerly anonevent): Do you really think the Tea Party would’ve Tea Partied less hard had the debt been zeroed out in 2010 (as promised by Gore/Lieberman) rather than been at $10T? Instead of Obama proposing to double the debt, he would’ve been proposing to make it infinitely larger! The national debt has posed no real problem when it comes to borrowing money to finance government and economic stimulus during and after the financial crisis; it’s posed the political problem wherein people invent a phony economic problem… folks would’ve done that no matter what.
Corner Stone
Hmmm. Snap!
Komen says founder to leave CEO role but stay on in management
“It also said that President Liz Thompson would leave Komen in September and board members Brenda Lauderback and Linda Law were leaving the board.
The shakeup comes after the world’s biggest breast cancer charity provoked uproar earlier this year over its decision to cut funding for Planned Parenthood, a provider of birth control, abortion and other women’s health services. It later reversed that decision and said it would restore the funding.”
Bernard Finel
@Baud: Obama has not proposed raising taxes on the wealthy anywhere near enough to make up the difference. If he were talking about bringing back pre-Reagan rates it would be one thing. But he isn’t. He’s talking about extending the majority of the cuts, and even if he gets his way 100%, we’ll still have a revenue shortfall.
scav
@Corner Stone: hee hee hee hee hee hee hee. . .
schrodinger's cat
@Corner Stone: Thanks, I think. How have you been?
Corner Stone
Goodness. Usain Bolt just strolled. Was he carrying an umbrella?
LT
@gluon1: It’s not anti-Obama. It’s anti-dumb. Obama is BEING FUCKING DUMB when he does shit like this. When ANY prominent Dem plays into Republican power ploys – and that’s what the anti-tax thing is, just as the anti-abortion thing is – they care not at all about taxes or abortion – it is FUCKING DUMB.
It’s not only okay to say, it’s necessary to say that.
Bernard Finel
@schrodinger’s cat: If you don’t understand what a structural increase in the revenue base means, I humbly suggest it is you who needs to read up on economics.
Midnight Marauder
@BGinCHI:
Perhaps I should have been more clear that my post was directed at the Bernard Finel/Kevin Drum set.
Strandedvandal
May be good LT, but aint healthy.
LT
@Bernard Finel:
I don’t know how anyone can argue with this.
Steve
@Zach: I understand what you’re saying, but did we run a huge surplus for even one year?
@LT: “Fight every battle the Republicans pick for us” is not the winning strategy. It’s just not.
Gwangung
This is a poor tactic ( and we ARE talking tactics) in a nation where a major segment runs on resentment. I thnk a better tactic is to use the resentment. Don’t go through the forebrain. Use the resentment and focus it on the rich.
Baud
@Bernard Finel:
Ah, time to move the goalposts. So now Obama has to go back to pre-Reagan tax rates in order to…what exactly?…Satisfy you?…Deserve your support? We’re really getting into unicorn country here.
DougJ
@LT:
Interesting point.
Tractarian
FACEPALM
LT
@Strandedvandal: What’s not healthy? Being upset? Since when?
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@Zach: I’m not saying the baggers would have responded any other way. I wasn’t even responding to them. I’m talking about actually applying some of that money to pay down the debt. When you’re doing well, you take care of the debt so that it’s not as big a problem when times are tough.
But now that you bring them up, the one difference would be is that there couldn’t have been a debt limit hostage crisis.
LT
@DougJ: Which one?
pragmatism
@brettvk: I was thinking that California isn’t a good comparison to anywhere (except arkansas) but the filibuster is a decent analog to the wrongheaded 2/3 majority on budgets.
Bernard Finel
@schrodinger’s cat: And as far as being condescending… lol. Kettle, pot, something of the sort.
But more generally on issues of tone, you know, grow a pair. Or at least a sense of humor. Jeez.
Oooh, he disrespected me. Please.
Comrade Jake
@Bernard Finel:
I think all of us would agree that there’s a valid point to be made concerning the need to change the way the American public views taxes. I just don’t think you’re making it. Heck, I can’t even tell if you’re really interested in trying.
Bernard Finel
@Baud: As a matter of math… if you want to get back to Clinton-era revenue (which is a minimum level going forward to sustain projected costs of existing programs), you either need to allow all the Bush cuts to lapse, or make up the difference by taxing the wealthy at a higher rate.
How is this unclear?
RinaX
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
I sure did.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@LT: You can’t argue with the fact that Obama has proposed extending the tax cuts for < $250K. What we can argue about is whether it's a good idea to let these expire or extend. I don't think it’s a good idea to let them expire. A $1K-$2K reduction in earnings right now would not do the economy any good – see 1937.
Edited for clarity.
scav
Why do I keep getting flashbacks to Ralph Nader?
jl
Found some info on Olympic athlete’s income distribution. Not sure how reliable it is, but interesting.
An Olympic-Sized Income Gap Even Among Our World Class Athletes
…United States sent 529 athletes to compete in 25 sports…
…Gabby Douglas just garnered a multi-million dollar endorsement deal from Kellogg’s with her two gold medals. Millionaires populate the US Olympic Basketball Team. The seven-figure Williams sisters dominate Olympic tennis. And high-performing runners in track and field events might break six-figures.
…there are medal-winning Olympians in less well-known sports, like shot put and archery, who must work two and three jobs to represent the world’s richest country. Even Gabby’s mom had to sell her jewelry and do without to keep her daughter in the running until fortunes could turn.
…
According to CNN’s Money, “only 50% of American track and field athletes who are ranked in the top ten … earn more than $15,000 a year in income from the sport.” Many struggle to pay their bills…
http://colorlines.com/archives/2012/08/uss_olympic-sized_income_gap_exists_even_among_our_world_class_athletes.html
amk
@Bernard Finel: Deficit control ? Who is spouting the rethuglican talking points now ? What next, ‘austerity moves’ ?
You know jacksquat about economy as well as politics.
danah gaz (fka gaz)
@gluon1: “Have I misunderstood someone or something?”
I can only speak for myself. And I promise to be civil this time.
The problem is not what Finel said as such. This isn’t really about that.
It’s about this: In response to the Romney fail parade, the wingnuts are tossing endless amounts of chaff into the sphere of political discourse. This chaff is not always completely irrelevant (in fact, the most effective chaff has a whiff of relevance to it), but pales in comparison to the most important issues of the day.
This Olympic taxation issue is chaff. The Olympics are nearly over, and this issue will be dead as biscuits within two weeks tops. And NO MATTER what happens, there will be no legislation that comes out of this. Nothing will change either way. On the other hand, the more time we spend focusing on chaff, the more distracted we get.
This issue is about 79 people, and a marginal amount of revenue in the grand scheme of things. Not only that, as I said, it’ll be irrelevant in the near future. The subplot of this is to keep as many people as possible from talking about actual election stuff. Notice that this kind of thing comes up the most when the GOP is otherwise getting battered. It’s squid ink. It’s a deflection, a countermeasure.
Historically, Democrats have proven particularly vulnerable to this tactic. Especially when these minor issues have a hint of legitimacy. We tend to disagree with each other a lot more than the authoritarian righties, and they exploit us over that. We fracture over this chaff. We talk about it endlessly and chase it at our own expense. This is how you lose control of the message. This is how you lose sight of your goals.
You may find it difficult to believe since it doesn’t apply on an individual basis, but it’s a VERY real and VERY potent phenomenon as it applies to the larger mob. Messaging and focus are in fact, extremely important. It’s not simply enough to be right. You must also talk about the right things, and let the little stuff go, or rather save it for Nov. 7th
I’d add that Obama was as foolish as Finel, for getting involved, and he of all people should know better. This was a miscalculation on the part of his campaign, IMNSHO
Baud
@Bernard Finel:
In order to get back to Clinton-level revenue, you need to stimulate economic growth, as well as do those other things. Imposing a tax increase at this time on people who are still struggling is just as bad economically as cutting government spending.
LT
@Gwangung:
THAT at least is an honest argument, rather than the kind of crap you expect from so many here and all over the Dem internet, which amounts to “Oh! You’re just a single issue do you WANT the Repubs THE SUPREME COURT! it was the House’s fault” bullshit that is too stupid to even fucking listen to.
And I undesrtand it – but I disagree. Obama could be and should be sticking the shiv in here (just as he should have on the healthcare fight). I think a big number of people would respond to it.
My evidence: The 2008 presidential vote. It is unbelievable to me that thaqt energy was not only not used – it was kicked in the balls repeatedly. A HUGE lost opportunity.
Corner Stone
@schrodinger’s cat: I’m good, thanks. Beyond working my tiny little balls off, I just finished building my own DRONEZ and also setup a Mac Mini HTPC.
At this point I’m not sure if my Logitech Harmony 650 is going to play my Plex or signal off a Hellfire missile up my nethers.
It’s a confusing time. But brisk. Mighty brisk.
Bernard Finel
@amk: You’re right. In theory, an alternative to combating the anti-tax mania is simply to argue that “deficits don’t matter.”
I’m not sure this is viable in the long-run as a matter of economics, unless you make some pretty heroic assumptions about the irreplaceable role of the US Dollar as a reserve currency.
But agreed. We can definitely go way too far in terms of accepting the “deficit” frame.
taylormattd
You still don’t get it.
There is NO danger at all here. None. None ever.
It is a dumb proposal to exempt a handful of Olypmic Athletes from paying taxes on Olympic winnings.
Who fucking cares?
This is possibly the most stupidly embarrassing slippery slope argument anyone has ever made on the history of the planet.
jl
I forgot to note in my previous comment that from my internet search, it looks like the issue of taxing Olympic prize money is an anti-tax hobby horse that is brought up every Olympics in the US. So, regardless of the merits of the issue, this is some kind of periodic PR stunt pulled by anti tax nuts. So, does that not suggest that people might want to think a little bit before jumping on their purity hobby horses?
And from search, looks like other countries have dealt with the issue. From what I saw, in Canada, you can expense your training costs against any prize winnings (not sure if can do that in the US). Australia has a two tier system: those athletes who are successful enough to live off their sports profession pay taxes, those that are not successful enough do not pay a tax.
IMHO, this kind of issue is not a good candidate for sophomoric theoretical principled grand standing or purity trolling.
JR
Changing the nature of political discourse is not something to be attempted within 3 months of a national election. Framing is a long-term process, but if it isn’t accomplished by this close to E-Day, WORRY ABOUT OTHER SHIT.
Bernard Finel
@Baud: Yes. Which is why in an ideal world, I’d pair allowing the Bush cuts to lapse with aggressive short-term stimulus/infrastructure spending and NGDP targeting on the monetary side.
Obviously, the politics of this are hard… but relying 100% on tax cut for the stimulus effect has really problematic medium/long-term consequences.
Just Some Fuckhead
Yeah, Mr. Liberal Elite Academia up in New Yawk pounding away on the populist drum as long as it’s in support of the existing center right paradigm.
Quote me next: Fuck you DougJ.
Comrade Jake
@LT:
What, precisely, do you imagine that would look like in this case?
mclaren
Bernard, you’re dealing with brainwashed obots. These people are cultists. They’re fanatics. You’re not going to get these wack jobs to admit that Obama is the third Bush term.
The only policies differences between Obama and Dubya involve minor social issues like gay rights and abortion rights. These issues are minor because at the end of the day, the tide has long since turned and gay marriage is going to be legalized, it’s only a matter of time now. Roe v. Wade is not going to be rolled back by the Supreme Court. So these social issues are done deals.
But the tide has not turned on Bush’s endless unwinnable wars (which Obama is eagerly continuing) or the endless self-destructive tax cuts for the rich (which Obama is enthusiastically continuing) or the refusal to indict any wich Wall Street financial crime lords (Bush wouldn’t, and Obama won’t either) or the refusal to end the Reagan-era elimination of usury laws that make it illegal to charge 35% interest rates on credit cards (Obama is just fine with 35% interest rates, he loves ’em and refuses to even utter a peep about reinstating usury laws).
All the way down the line, Obama is continuing and extending Bush era extreme far-right policies. And the obots refuse to admit it. Their minds refuse to admit the reality that Obama is a well-spoken polite liberal-talking Bush clone.
jl
People talking budget implications.
Say, round numbers, 530 US Olympic athletes.
Third win gold, third win silver, third win bronze.
About 8 3/4 million total prize earnings.
I think that would be a ceiling type estimate.
Fly speck stuff.
Bernard Finel
@JR: I get your point… and yet, 90 days to E-Day is precisely when people are paying attention, no?
john
I agree entirely with Bobby Thompson, way up in comment #6. There is certainly a framing problem with the discussion of taxes in this country. It’s probably not worth it to make a fuss, after the fact, about Obama supporting this bill, but it would have been nice if he didn’t feel the need to make this kind of anti-tax statement in the first place. Not sure where all the vitriol is coming from, but I appreciate your point of view.
MikeJ
@Bernard Finel: Speaking of the nonsense of deficit mania:
http://wonkwire.com/2012/08/08/closing-the-budget-deficit-will-wreck-the-global-economy/
DougJ
@Just Some Fuckhead:
I remember when you used to be an interesting commenter.
Baud
@Bernard Finel:
You keep changing the conversation. We’re now far away from the Olympics. Is Obama relying 100% on a tax cut for the stimulus effect? I’ve heard him talk about infrastructure and jobs spending for what seems like forever now.
amk
When you have obama-is-boosh mclaren on your side, you should know you are truly fucked.
LT
@JR:
This is the kind of crap I’m talking about. Translation: “I choose what you talk about!”
I mean – fuck you. Fuck you with razorwire coated dachsunds. How about this: You choose what you want to talk about, and other people choose what they want to talk about?
And the fucking boneheadedness of people thinking blogs matter THAT fucking much – oy fucking weh.
taylormattd
@LT: Don’t worry, I didn’t tell him not to talk about it, I just told him he was fucking stupid.
Just Some Fuckhead
@DougJ: I thought that was a pretty good comment. I was only half-serious and was really just aiming for that sweet spot between over-the-top outrage and overer-the-top outrage.
Corner Stone
@amk: As opposed to people like you on the side of angels?
I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet
@Bernard Finel:
I assume you’ve seen this CBPP report with the famous graph – http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3490 The biggest driver of the deficit in the rest of this decade is the Bush tax cuts. After 2019 the major driver of the deficit will be medical costs especially in Medicare (due to baby boomers being eligible, etc). See page 42 of CBO’s 2011 Long-Term Budget Outlook – http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/06-21-Long-Term_Budget_Outlook.pdf (108 page .pdf).
The middle class has been decimated over the last 30 years or so. Taxing them more is not going to help the US economy, and that’s why Obama is right to make the cutoff for tax increases $250k. Taxing the rich at the Clinton rates will help a great deal even if it won’t solve the deficit problem. The long-term deficit problem will be helped the most by getting the increase in overall health care costs (not simply Medicare costs) under control and by getting the middle class growing again.
My $0.02.
Cheers,
Scott.
DougJ
@Just Some Fuckhead:
Then maybe you’re back!
taylormattd
@Just Some Fuckhead: Uh huh.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@mclaren: Gotta love the name calling.
schrodinger's cat
@Bernard Finel:
You still haven’t explained what you mean by a structural increase in the revenue base as opposed to increase in the revenue base. The word structural has specific connotations in macroecon.
I don’t care about your tone, it is your argument that I find idiotic and the assumption that no one here has thought about what happens after Nov 7.
Bernard Finel
@Baud: You’re right. That was badly worded at best.
I acknowledge I may be underestimating the amount of emphasis he’s put on new spending in the second term.
Corner Stone
@LT:
This is just beyond the pale.
I mean, how the hell would you even wrap a dachsund in razorwire?
Just Some Fuckhead
@DougJ: You know how this works, DougJ. Ya don’t furtively wipe poop around the edges of the punchbowl when no one’s looking. Ya just climb up there, hunch over it, drop yer shorts and squeeze out a big steaming one.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@LT: Don’t know what you’re bent out of shape for. Seems you’re doing the exact same thing you’re accusing others of: You’re not allowed to talk about the fact that you think the election is the most important thing because this other guy said it wasn’t.
ETA: Hell, I think an important debate would be over whether it is worth trying to change the direction of the race. My answer is no, because right now, anything other than “Mitt won’t show his tax returns” and “Mitt fired a lot of people entirely for his own gain” and “Mitt plans on selling your grandmother after he gets bored as president” are the things we should be talking about
danah gaz (fka gaz)
@Corner Stone: This subthread is filled with win.
The mental imagery is a gift that keeps on giving.
ETA: By the time it concludes, I expect to have at least two great band names borne from it.
Just Some Fuckhead
Shrooms, anyone?
taylormattd
@Corner Stone: So really? You truly believe that a statement of support of Rubio’s dumb sop to Olympic athletes is terrible? You really think this post is well-reasoned?
Corner Stone
@I’mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet:
Yeah, that’s fine and all. But that’s never going to happen. It’s going to be all or none and that means it’s going to be all.
amk
@Corner Stone: Yes. SATSQ.
LT
@Comrade Jake:
Incessantly and consistently making the argument that stridently regulating and taxing the living fuck out of the very wealthy is good good good good. With lots of juicy fucking FACTS and NAMES – Lay, Madoff, Milken, Citi, UBS, Trump – on and on and on highlighting how good regular Americans have been getting fucked in the ass by horrible fuckers with a lot of money.
How about something simple: Obama: You know why we fought our War For Independence” BECAUSE SUPER WEALTHY UNREGULATED UNTAXED FUCKS WERE FUCKING AMERICANS OVER, that’s why. And they’re doing it again.
How fucking hard is this to get?
taylormattd
Hey Bernard, this is the caliber of person you are attracting with your lame thesis: @mclaren
jwb
@Just Some Fuckhead: And DougJ left you with such an opening there…
danah gaz (fka gaz)
@LT: please sir, may I have some more? =)
jwb
@Just Some Fuckhead: See, now that’s much better.
Corner Stone
@taylormattd: No you fucking simple.
But anytime an authoritarian executive branch power mongering son of a bitch asshole like amk starts talking shit about who’s supporters cast aspersions on a thread, that’s just fucking like summer in a bowl.
jl
CNN Money article on Olympic athletes income
Olympians face financial hardship
By Charles Riley @CNNMoney July 10, 2012
http://money.cnn.com/2012/07/10/news/economy/olympic-athletes-financial/index.htm
Survey Results
How Much Money Do Track and Field Athletes Make?
May 8, 2012 By Jack Wickens
Track & Field Athletes Association Bulletin
http://trackandfieldathletesassociation.org/blog/how-much-money-do-track-and-field-athletes-make/
LT
@Belafon (formerly anonevent):
Jesus Christ.
Corner Stone
@Corner Stone: Double tap, apparently.
Comrade Jake
@LT:
I fixed that for you. Somehow it doesn’t have quite the same resonance.
John
So we need a president who will forthrightly stand up for massive tax increases? One who’ll say things like
That was Walter Mondale accepting the Democratic nomination for president on July 19, 1984.
To refresh your memory, here’s the outcome of that election:
Ronald Reagan: 54,455,472 votes (58.8%), 525 electoral votes
Walter Mondale: 37,577,352 votes (40.6%), 13 electoral votes.
taylormattd
@LT:
I know right? If only Obama would, for example, publicly speak about how unfair it is for millionaires and billionaires to pay less taxes than regular folks.
If only.
General Stuck
Now you went and got the firebaggers excited with this massive important issue. The little dears lately, haven’t had much to firebag on Obama. We can call it Therapy of the Damned, or, we haven’t had a circle jerk of idiots for way to long around here.
Just leave plenty of towels and pearls, and open the Overton Window for any brave souls that might want to jump.
Too funny.
Jewish Steel
As MikeJ put it above, where is the constituency for churlishly demanding a pound of flesh from wholesome American kids? From what quarter is the political will to make a big deal out of this flowing? In an election year? Three months before the election? It was a nice piece of ju-jitsu to say, “Yeah, you’re right. Those kids shouldn’t be taxed.” And boom. It’s a dead issue for Romney and the Republcans. What could be clearer?
amk
@Corner Stone: ooo, I am so wounded. Look up who’s and whose, you idjit.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@LT: Well, lets see if I can summarize your posts:
Fuck you, don’t change the subject!
Quit fucking changing the subject!
Don’t argue with me, you fucker!
Jesus Christ!
Does that about summarize it?
jl
@General Stuck:
Dammit, Stuck, you weasel! WHAT SIDE ARE YOU ON?
Fair warning, in this here fight of all fights, if you’re one of them varmints on the other side, Imma commin’ fer ya!
danah gaz (fka gaz)
@General Stuck: Hehehehe… If I only played in a metal band. I knew there was a band name in this somewhere, I just figured it would it would come out of that razor wire + daschund thing.
Oh… it looks like somebody already went there oh well.
AxelFoley
@Baud:
Same here. Who the hell is this dude?
Bernard Finel
@schrodinger’s cat: Government revenue (even as a percentage of GDP) varies dramatically for all sorts of reasons, including economic cycles, asset bubbles, changes in tax laws that create de facto amnesties, asset sales, and so on.
A structural increase in the revenue base is an increase in the trough-to-trough, peak-to-peak revenue that exists throughout a time series.
So yes, I mean it precisely in the way it is meant in macroecon theory.
taylormattd
@Corner Stone: I see.
So you don’t agree with the post; instead, you are yelling at people because of personal animosity.
jwb
@Corner Stone: If Obama is reelected, I’m certain it won’t be all. I’m almost certain it won’t be none. Or rather I think it’s likely to be none and then none will lead to frantic negotiating.
Just Some Fuckhead
Bernie, just so you can come prepared next time, here’s a little checklist you can keep handy:
1. Obama is powerless.
2. It’s a center right country.
3. Where you gonna get 60 votes?
4. He’s doing that already and no one cares.
5. The media, dammit.
6. It’s 11 dimensional chess.
7. Good luck finding that pony, emoprog!
Oh god, I feel so dirty right now.
8. I’m sure you will get all that under a Romney presidency.
I’m cutting myself now.
Cacti
Bernard, please open your mouth and cram your fist inside.
LT
@Comrade Jake: You realize that makes no sense at all, right?
1. This is a discussion about how Obama (and Dems) talk about taxes, Vis-à-vis Marco Rubio’s inane Olympic tax bill. About how they use the power of their positions and podiums to convey messages to the American public.
2. I ‘ve argued that Obama et al. should be openly and loudly pro- taxes on the wealthy.
3. You countered by implying that the argument is more about Michael Phelps – than it is Rubio, or taxes, or Dems.
That is really just dumb.
taylormattd
@I’mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet: I’m sorry Scott, but this does not address the SLAUGHTER done to the poor overton window by giving 50 people a couple hundred dollars in tax cuts!!!!!!!!!!!!
BGinCHI
@LT:
Not sure where I read this, but it’s profound.
AxelFoley
@Midnight Marauder:
Word.
taylormattd
@LT:
No it’s not. You’d like it to be, but it’s not.
It’s about how Obama made a polite statement of support to a dumb bill giving a handful of Olympic athletes (who are considered heroes by most Americans) a tax break.
If you’d like to know how Obama has been talking about taxes, tax structure, and tax fairness, you might want to read this.
Bernard Finel
@Cacti: Hehe, I have a small mouth and a large fist… not sure it will fit.
taylormattd
@Just Some Fuckhead: How goes the glorious war against Straw?
LT
@taylormattd:
You missed “incessantly and consistently”. They were right there in the sentence you cut and pasted.
Bonus: Obama supporting Marco Rubio’s dishonest and inane bill = Obama kicking himself in the nuts.
Comrade Jake
@LT:
Oh there’s piles of stupid in this thread, no doubt. But it’s not coming from me.
Just Some Fuckhead
@LT:
On a serious note, this seems like a good idea. All ya gotta do is point to Mitt paying 13% last year and ask if he really needs another tax cut. Does Mitt really need another dancing horse? Another estate? Even more money to buy the Republican nomination again in four years? That last one may even get Republicans on board.
Weaselone
@LT:
Like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and John Hancock? The richest men in the colonies were the leaders of the US War for Independence. The Boston Tea Party stemmed in large part from tea smugglers who were going to get driven out of business courtesy of cheap tea from the East India Company.
LT
@taylormattd:
Michael Phelps is a hundred millionaire. he doesn’t need a tax break. This is true of other athletes too, and it’s not going to magically make Obama lose in November to say that.
And, again, this is not in a vacuum. Obama has repeatedly and weirdly made Republican-talking-point comments about taxes, Social Security, retirement age – and this I think is part of that, and it’s very wrongheaded.
Is he also – now, deep in his campaign, saying good things (which I’ve mentioned) – yes, he is.
Comrade Jake
I will say that had we only taxed Bruce Jenner a bit more, perhaps he wouldn’t have had the money to afford all of that plastic surgery. That would have probably been best for all involved.
LT
@Weaselone:
Oh for fuck’s sake. Honestly?
You’re presenting an argument here that – what? I don’t know. That the fact that wealthy Americans fought KGIII and his England in the War For Independence means that KGIII’s and England’s wealth weren’t part of what we were fighting? (They were in fact the single most important characteristic we were fighting.) Are you fucking kidding me?
the Conster
@LT:
Well, that’s that and now I’m totally convinced that you know more than the skinny half black guy with the funny name who got himself elected, got the ACA passed in the face of 100% Republican obstruction and media obfuscation, got all of the Republicans to transport themselves to Crazytown and is likely to beat the media’s preferred candidate who is the beneficiary of all of Wall Street’s muscle. But you think you’re better at this game than that guy. O_o
danah gaz (fka gaz)
@Bernard Finel: “Hehe, I have a small mouth and a large fist… not sure it will fit.”
Well, in that case, I’m sure Cacti wouldn’t mind you either picking a different orifice, or somebody else’s fist.
Just sayin’
taylormattd
@LT: You forgot to add “THE SKY IS FALLING, THE SKY IS FALLING” to your post.
Just Some Fuckhead
@Comrade Jake:
If that means he wouldn’t be the handsome and well-appointed middle-aged woman he is today, how can that be a good thing?
Comrade Jake
@LT:
If only Obama had just come out and said “Rubio’s an idiot. Olympians should pay more taxes too!” Something like that?
danah gaz (fka gaz)
@Just Some Fuckhead: I had to google him. Apparently I don’t eat Wheaties often enough.
taylormattd
@LT:
Yes, yes, republican talking points about taxes. Like this:
taylormattd
@Comrade Jake: No, no, Jake. He should have SCREAMED IT, ok? Just like Alan Grayson would!
Just Some Fuckhead
@danah gaz (fka gaz): Apparently he stopped eating them too
mainmati
@Frankensteinbeck: Because middle class and working class income has stagnated (literally) with all the gains in economic productivity going to the rich and super-rich.
Comrade Jake
Jenner’s face looks like it lost a fight with razorwire coated dachsunds.
LT
@the Conster:
@taylormattd:
Two examples of “I’ve run out of anything substantial so Poopy on you!” replies.
But I do want to respond to ne thing:
This is an example of The New Measuring Stick: whatever Obama gets done – it’s all that he could have gotten done. Whatever Obama did – it’s exactly what he had to do. Any criticism of Obama shall be measured against The New Measuring Stick. If you used to be pro-Medicare for all – this no longer measures adequately against The New Measuring Stick, and you are required to never ever say that. If you used to be anti-assinating Americans with zero due process – this no longer measures adequately against The New Measuring Stick. You must never say anything about this. If you think widening the war in Afghanistan was deeply wrong and will (has) plainly reap more pain than gain – this no longer measures adequately against The New Measuring Stick. You must never say anything about this.
LT
@taylormattd:
Again – and really, if you’re whacked on Haldol or something, you should tell us, cuz this gets old: Those are really good things to say. I”m really glad Obama said those things.
‘Kay?
the Conster
@LT:
Shorter: I’m still and will always be a useless bitter firebagging douchenozzle.
LT
@Comrade Jake:
No.
Weaselone
@LT: Seriously, you drop a steaming pile that is completely irrelevant to the discussion and now you’re pretending that I’m the historical illiterate?
You didn’t say that King George III and England’s wealth were part of what we were fighting, you basically stated that we were fighting solely because we were being fucked over by untaxed fucks. The war for Independence wasn’t fought to make the King and England less rich, or to make them pay their fair share of taxes. Reality was significantly more complicated than than that. To a large extent it was the future Americans who were untaxed and wanted it to stay that way. England and those rich “untaxed fucks” you referred to actually spent a crap-load of tax money defending the colonies.
Comrade Jake
@LT:
OK, phew! Man we dodged a fucking bullet there.
Corner Stone
@jwb:
Wait, wait, wait. You’re going for this, again?
LT
@the Conster:
What’s your opinion on the killing of the al-Awlaki kid? And, just as importantly, if not as bloodily personal – what’s your opinion about the secret orders that okayed these killings? Specifically for now – the fact that the Obama administration says they’re too secret even for a judge to see?
What is your opinion on that?
danah gaz (fka gaz)
@Weaselone: Frankly, I don’t see how either of your posts were very relevant to the Olympics taxation thing.
Corner Stone
@AxelFoley: Word up.
the Conster
@LT:
Obama should totally do a swing state campaign tour apologizing for killing al-Awlaki, then double down with a world wide apology tour. That will rally the 15 people including you who care about that, and he’ll lose 50 states.
Corner Stone
Hmmm, so the state killing people is now a public approval/disapproval activity.
Thank goodness we finally have a metric we can live with!
until the next Republican president, of course
Just Some Fuckhead
I guess we don’t have to talk about Bruce Jenner.
LT
@Weaselone:
Who the fuck do you think we fought in the War For Independence?
This is what I said:
Who else could the “SUPER WEALTHY UNREGULATED UNTAXED FUCKS” be but KGIII? The point being that the War For Independence is a good example to show patriotic American show the super wealthy can and will fuck the less wealthy. It is *in our dna* as Americans to fight this.
LT
@the Conster:
What’s your opinion on the killing of the al-Awlaki kid? And, just as importantly, if not as bloodily personal – what’s your opinion about the secret orders that okayed these killings? Specifically for now – the fact that the Obama administration says they’re too secret even for a judge to see?
What is your opinion on that?
LT
@Comrade Jake: Yeah, I know. Lucky, huh?
Culture of Truth
Now, look folks. You guys seem to think the election is just about what happens on November 6, but it isn’t.
No, you look. I didn’t jump down your throat. I only mentioned Matt Yglesias.
Second, all those things matter if progressive win elections. Can we not join the team for 90 days every 4 years? No, of course not, because Yglesias must prove his bona fides, even if it’s over something as silly as this. You think no one cares about big issues but you? You think we don’t know what’s going on? That we need your condescension and lectures? Fine, you’re pure, the rest of us are in awe.
the Conster
@LT:
My opinion is irrelevant, and the fact that you seem to think it overrides all the other issues just says to me that you’re just another one of those fucking emoprog white guys who has the privilege to care so much about a terrorist’s kid. I want Obama to win and win big because me and my family don’t have that luxury.
Culture of Truth
A two-hour thread with progressives fighting each other. Just fucking perfect.
the Conster
@Culture of Truth:
It didn’t have to end up that way.
Weaselone
When I originally responded, I thought this thread was a debate over a specific policy position Obama took regarding Rubio’s proposal to exempt Olympic prizes from taxation. It now seems to have shifted to a debate over the Democrat’s inability to counter the Republican anti-tax meme and Obama’s responsibility for that as well as his inability to currently put in place the changes necessary fix the $1 trillion structural deficit. I have to conclude therefore that the chorus of people stating that Obama’s position is a bit of election year pandering with no long-term impact on either the deficit or the tax policy discussion has won the point.
Shifting the American public’s view of taxes is going to take time, and that shift isn’t going to begin with Obama calling for a return to Reagan era tax rates. The rhetoric and the goals have to start small. First you let tax cuts for the wealthy expire, work in the concept the paying their fair share. Then maybe you can go for a millionaires tax, or perhaps push for a return to taxing Capital Gains and Dividends at regular income.
The structural deficit is not going to be solved while we’re still fighting off a recession. First, implementing the cuts and tax increases necessary to address the structural deficit would likely stall or reverse the weak recovery we are currently experiencing. Second, the voters are not going to be receptive given the current economic conditions.
LT
@the Conster:
• “My opinion is irrelevant” – So – I should just not even listen to you then?
• “and the fact that you seem to think it overrides all the other issues” – “The fact” and “seem” don’t really work here, you know? And I’m not getting what the “it” is. Your opinion? Why would I think it “overrides all the issues”?
• ” just says to me that you’re just another one of those fucking emoprog white guys” – Wow. Wow wow wow. Think you’ve overexposed yourself there, Conster.
• “who has the privilege to care so much about a terrorist’s kid” – I’ve got nothing.
• “you’re just another one of those fucking emoprog white guys who has the privilege to care so much about a terrorist’s kid. I want Obama to win and win big because me and my family don’t have that luxury.”
Honestly just lost. You have a very weird warped sense of “luxury.”
the Conster
@LT:
Someone’s overexposing themselves, and it ain’t me. Your Greenwald is showing.
gwangung
I agree that a large number would respond. But I also think you can get a LARGER number by taking that resentment and let the people make their own conclusion. Because by “sticking the shiv in”, you’re mobilizing people who’ve already come to the conclusion you have. You’re not reaching the people who haven’t gotten there—that conclusion that’s so obvious to us is not going to register with them. You’re only going to get their hackles up, and that makes it even harder to get through to them.
No doubt, but a lot of that was from the progressive side as well, not understanding the nature of resistance, trying to steamroller over with with power that ultimately came, not from a mandate, but from a coalition of interests–and that was never going to work.
gwangung
Al least somebody knows how to change the direction of 300 million people.
LT
@the Conster:
That isn’t an adult response. I know you know how weak that is. The same for the “*your* opinion is a luxury – mine is not” weirdness.
Your opinion isn’t irrelevant, Conster. You’re an American. You matter. One more time:
What’s your opinion on the killing of the al-Awlaki kid? And, just as importantly, if not as bloodily personal – what’s your opinion about the secret orders that okayed these killings? Specifically for now – the fact that the Obama administration says they’re too secret even for a judge to see?
What is your opinion on that?
LT
@gwangung:
No, I really disagree – and I think the 2008 election backs this up. A very big majority of people got behind Obama – the most votes in history! (I know this is painted by growing pop. numbers – but not entirely.) I think bold leadership – not the “Okay, now I’m above party” crap that happened immediately – would have been championed. He should have stayed fully Dem – not an unreasonable thing to ask for!
Just my opinion – but Obama has voiced about the same when asked what he done wrong. Treating Boehner as honest and reasonable – it was just fucking wrong and dumb.
Just Some Fuckhead
Alright folks, wrap it up. Night shift is coming on soon and they don’t like stumbling around in firebaggery.
jl
Thread totally out of control.
LT
@gwangung:
We can reasonably disagree about that. We’ll never know.
LT
@jl: We’re not even near 500 comments yet. This thread is nothing.
handy
@LT:
We got people reasonably disagreeing. Damn right this thread is nothing. Just wait til mistermix throws up an Apple vs. Samsung post.
LT
@the Conster:
Honestly, your Greenwald comment – and probably hundreds here and elsewhere – is the equivalent of “Ooh, you touched a girl! girls have cooties!”
Fucking hell. Such a waste of time.
Just Some Fuckhead
@LT:
And.. WRAP
LT
@Just Some Fuckhead: I didn’t even see comment 151 – fuckyeah.
Damn, I ruined a perfectly good wrap. Sorry.
Pinkamena Panic
Can we please get less immaturity, less wrist-slashing emoproggery, and less pointless transphobia in this thread? I’m named after a talking cartoon pony and I sound more reasonable and mature than many of you. Jesus H.!
Also, too, is there a Godwin corollary for when someone brings up al-Awlaki or TeH DrOneZz when it has fuck-all to do with anything? If there isn’t, there should be.
gwangung
@LT: Yeah, I think we’re disagreeing on whether he had the power to that; it seems to me that he couldn’t do bold sweeping moves because his party fell apart except on wide, milquetoast stands–after all, the Dems only got to 60 by taking the remnants of the old sane Republicans.
Just Some Fuckhead
@LT: Meh, my heart wasn’t really in it anyway. I was just going through the motions, trying to recapture the glory of yesterday, the day before, the day before that, the day before that one and the motherfucking day before the day before that one for the last three and a half fucking years.
LT
@gwangung: But fell apart later – after he’d already decided he was above party politics and helped Boehner come across as anything but what he really is – a lying tool for the worst kind of wealthy. I mean why not just call him what he is? Sincerely – why not?
LT
@Just Some Fuckhead: Well, I don’t know what time it is where you are – but I just fucked a perfectly fuckable work day and it’s bourbon-fifteen. So I’ll hoist one for you.
Hey – we could talk about how awesome an Obama second term is bound to be just to fuck with Conster!
Forum Transmitted Disease
Oh yeah.
different-church-lady
I’ve never understood the Tea Party mindset that says taxation is always bad.
And I’ve also never understood the “progressive” mindset that says that taxation is always good.
In the meantime, we’re stuck with this crappy trap that Bush left us with: raising taxes on a squeezed middle class in an election year. Bush and the Republicans knew full well they were leaving a timebomb for any future Democratic administrations.
So, Obama’s trying to defuse the bomb by making the system slightly more progressive while not running straight into the electric fence of raising taxes on the people being squeezed by the lousy economy.
This seems to be the problem every time the guy tries to walk the tightrope: “progressives” get all over his case for not bungee jumping.
The Moar You Know
First time on the front page but it won’t be my last.
Bernard, old boy, send me your address so I can give you a few bottles of “No More Tears” I’ve got under the sink. I used to wash the dog with it. I think you need it more than the dog does.
LT
@different-church-lady:
Weird. Who exactly puts it like that? And if some actually do – what would be wrong with it? What exactly would the US of A have if there werent’ taxes?
It’s impossible to see the core of this as anything but: Obama’s right, always.
For starters: Is everything he does “walking this tightrope” (may as well just call it “11th dimensional chess”)? Do you not see how completely unfair to reason this argument is? There is nothing Obama could do that could not be defended by this argument – and that makes it silly.
different-church-lady
@LT:
Call it a gut-level feeling. Probably no better than Bernard’s original supposition that Obama’s now anti-tax.
Or perhaps I just read between the lines at Daily Kos far too much.
No, I don’t. Obviously I haven’t gone ’round the bend far enough.
I mean, I’m looking at statements along the lines of “We’re fucked if we don’t return to pre-Regan levels of taxation”, and I’m thinking, “You might be right, but how the hell is Obama supposed to get us there in one big step?” Keeping in mind, of course, that said statement is in the context of whether or not Obama is embracing anti-taxation attitudes.
And, I gotta say that I’m mystified by your continued assertions that any critique of a critique of Obama means that person believes Obama can do no wrong. You’ve been thumping this tub for months now, and it’s sounding absurdly defensive at this point.
LT
@different-church-lady: Now you’re just making shit up. I’ve barely commented here in months. And I see plenty of critiques of Obama that are stupid. and I say so – at DKos plenty.
And your explanation for this:
…makes no sense. It was simply a weird kind of false equivalence, implying that Progressives saying taxes are good is dumb and wrong just like Repubs saying taxes are bad. Taxes ARE good. We wouldn’t and couldn’t function without taxes.
I don’t get this at all. If you agree that Marco Rubio is a stupidly anti-tax Tea Partier and that he was playing that game with this dumbass Olympic bill – then you are bound by logic and reason to agree that “Obama is embracing anti-taxation attitudes” by sponsoring the fucking bill. You don’t have to agree it’s in his very soul – but it’s exactly what he does when he does this kind of dumb fucking move.
eemom
Dayum, epic flame war featuring the return of fuckie and I missed it. Thought I saw a few Greenwald sneers too.
: (
different-church-lady
@LT:
It might just be semantics, but I see it as taxes are necessary. More of them are not inherently good any more than less of them are inherently bad. It all depends on what’s actually being done with them.
Okay, then please change my statement to “You were thumping this tub months ago”, because you are probably correct that I haven’t seen you do it lately, but I remember exchanges of this type from last winter quite vividly.
Other than that, I’d say let’s remove the personal aspect from this, and I apologize for going down that road in the first place.
No, I really do not. Because I have the ability to compartmentalize things into smaller units than some other people.
We exempt all kinds of weird things from taxes. Some of them make sense. Some of them don’t. I have no idea how exempting something that’s the result of representing your country is somehow anti-taxation on the level of a tea-bagger. for Olympic medal winners. Yglesias is clearly making a mountain out of a molehill. Benard, to his credit, actually makes a better attempt at discussing the larger point of how to win the tax framing argument than Y does, even if he was not entirely successful at separating the signal from the noise.
In a sane world we could pare away at all that noise and get down to the most valuable point Bernard makes, which is how to reverse the negative attitudes towards taxation. But we do not live in a sane world. And it is not made any saner by strapping hot buttons and molehill mountains to the discussion.
different-church-lady
@eemom:
Come now, this one’s no more than a 4.5 — some bottles rattling on the shelf.
different-church-lady
@different-church-lady:
I’m sorry, I completely munged that up: I meant to say that neither more of them nor less of them are inherently good nor bad.
JR
@LT: No, really, fuck you. If you think that we can move a goddamn mountain in the amount of time we’ve got left, then please go work on that while the rest of us try to actually do something accomplishable, like get more votes.
We have an election to win, in case you missed that little detail. If we spend what little time we have left dicking around because self-important assholes like yourself would rather see…
Wait, what the fuck are you even after here? You seem to think I’m saying “you can’t talk about this without my permission!” and that it’s your holy mission to say something about it.
My actual point–which, if you weren’t neck-deep in your own sphincter, you might have gleaned–is that worrying about framing at this point is indescribably less important than getting votes, and if buying into a bad frame in the short term means having a better chance to implement policy (even less than your ideal version of it) for the next four years, then you should, as a practical matter, shut up and smile: not because someone is saying you don’t have permission to fart around, but because farting around doesn’t do anyone any good right now.
Actually, as a practical matter, you probably should just assume “shut the fuck up, LT” is a standing order from the universe. Operating under that assumption will make everyone’s life easier.
Johannes
Bernard, may I suggest some C.P. Snow, especially “Corridors of Power”? Because first you get the power. Then you begin reframing the debate. And swallowing the enemy’s bait is bad for step 1; that’s why it’s bait, and not a snack.
gelfling545
You guys seem to think the election is just about what happens on November 6, but it isn’t. The issue is also what American politics look like for the next four years and beyond.
Some of “us people” realize that if the wrong choice is made on Nov. 6 the next 4 years and beyond will be dust and ashes.
iLarynx
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
Me.
Then I went straight to the comments. #14 hits the nail on the head. Policy proposals mean ZERO if you don’t get elected. As basic as it comes, but obviously some will never figure it out.
The post smells like PUMA to me.
scott
The fact that commenters have gone batshit-crazy on the point of this post (shouldn’t we come up with better ways to build support for the programs we want with necessary taxes) is kind of amusing. Supposedly, we’re all progressives or liberals or whatever, and we support using the government to help give everyone a fair shake at a decent life. What’s wrong with the idea of making that kind of support more politically popular and effective? Are we so far gone into horse-race bullshit that we don’t give a damn about the things that we supposedly want our elected pols to do? Pathetic.
scott
@Johannes: So we can’t even talk about this stuff until November 7th because it might distract us from re-electing the Great Helmsman? Good Christ.
Johannes
No, no; talk about it all you like. Just don’t expect the President to take the bait of a symbolic but ultimately empty tax debate (should we tax Olympians in the middle of the Olympics) and try to turn it into a grand civics learning experience in these last months before the election. I have no problem with us debating it, pro or con, on the merits. For Obama there’d be no reward and a minor risk.
Jason Tondro
Just a quick note to say, “Bernard, you are right.”
Some Loser
I can’t seriously believe someone left of center would say Obama has not been hammering “We should tax rich people” idea. That has been his most consistent talking point since his election, even more than Healthcare reform. You’re fucking ridiculous, Bernard. Saying Obama hasn’t talked enough about tax increases for rich people is like saying Obama hasn’t talked enough about Healthcare reform.
Shit. Every other speech his gives is about raising taxes on rich people and make them pay their fair share. Hell, he encourages paying taxes almost every chance he gets. Saying otherwise is just bald face lying.
Some Loser
@scott:
Stop trying to misrepresent this issue. It is just a small time pander to American’s nationalistic feelings. Lip service is all. Compared to his speechifying about raising taxes and paying your fair share, this is nothing. Stop acting like he never talked about raising taxes before. You know that he has, and so does Bernard. Stop lying.
Just Some Fuckhead
@Some Loser: See #4 @ 151.
mikefromArlington
“Now, look folks. You guys seem to think the election is just about what happens on November 6, but it isn’t. The issue is also what American politics look like for the next four years and beyond.”
What happens in November could very possibly affect what takes place in the courts for the next 20 years so yes. This is just about what happens in Nov to an extent. Once you win then we can have a philosophical debate. No use debating if the courts will just wipe out years of progress.
schrodinger's cat
@Bernard Finel: So you think GDP is cyclical? like a sine (or cosine) wave? US GDP has more or less of an upward trend and has been increasing with the exception of some minor blips
Graph here
The tax holiday for Olympians (if it happens) is going to be so tiny that it won’t have an effect close to zero on the GDP, numerically speaking. Politically also, this issue is going to be forgotten by the time the Olympics are over. Unless of course “progressive” bloggers like you keep it alive.
mclaren
@DougJ:
When this lame-ass kind of stuff is the best the obots can come up with, you know you’ve got ’em on the run.
It is fascinating to observe how DougJ and Anti-Liberal Black Lady and Mistermix and the rest of the obots utterly fanatically obsessively refuse to discuss Obama’s death squads murdering U.S. citizens in defiance of the constitution…Obama’s ongoing warrantless surveillance in defiance of the constitution…Obama’s crazy far-right claim that “the government has to tighten its belt too” and practice self-destructive economic austerity…Obama’s demented decision to set up the Catfood Commission…Obama’s endorsement of and signing off on the extension of the Bush tax cuts…Obama’s continuation of endless unwinnable wars, and expansion of said wars into new crazy realms of pointlessness (Africom, anyone?).
Watching DougJ and the rest of the obots discuss Obama, it’s like watching the fanatical far-right movement Republicans discuss Dubya’s eight years in office — the only thing they seem to be able to remember is that AIDs initiative in Africa. All the rest of it? Gone down the memory hole.
mclaren
@JR:
No, utterly wrong.
We have policies to change. If we win the elections without changing the far-right policies that are destroying America, then YOU missed that little detail.
JR
@mclaren: And if we lose the election, we change that policy how? Don’t try to take a shit without dropping your pants first.
The Original Raven
That seems to me the likely result of a Democratic victory 2012. Give the man a gold star. Unfortunately, “not as bad as total disaster” is not much of a campaign slogan.
There is a chance that, having offended many of the very wealthy by taking positions that are not sufficiently servile, Obama may have made enough enemies on the far right that he will have to govern a bit to the left of where he’s been. But I’m not counting on it.
The Original Raven
@Some Loser: “I can’t seriously believe someone left of center would say Obama has not been hammering ‘We should tax rich people’ idea.”
And in 2008, he hammered on hope and change.