Obama shows takes a stand, showing some serious spine

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Jfern, what should the Dems be doing now again?  No deal means taxes go up - on everyone, and extended unemployment benefits end. And then, assuming the Senate goes along, when the GOP takes over the House, a new deal can be cut, that you will like even less. Why?  Because Obama is just not going to sit there, and watch his future go down the tubes, in tandem with the economy remaining a very sick puppy.

Way to sum up what everyone should be thinking with a short paragraph.

I'm sick of most liberals being hypocrites with regards to this deal. So counter-cyclical economic policy is only okay when it doesn't involve temporary tax cuts? If the left in this country is going to constantly complain about "austerity measures" regarding spending cuts, they should take the same stand on potential tax increases. Now, being a leftist myself, I totally understand that this is frustrating topic because it shows off the horrible two-faced nature of the Republican Party, which will hold America hostage when it comes to tax cuts for the wealthy, who have a low marginal propensity to consume and have their tax rates at historical lows in the name of the economy but will attack any form of stimulus proposed by Obama.

In otherwords can you guys see why Obama's deal could be the best one for the economy? I'm sure that you could make some Game theory-esque argument that by saying that because Obama and the Democrats failed to increase the rates on the rich that any Republican drive to cut spending in the future will pack more of a punch and because of it, in the long run this deal will create a net economic loss because it gave these arguments much more merit. This isn't true though: a. only increasing rates on the rich wasn't really an option at this point and b. there is a good chance that if the Republicans try to hold the country hostage again they will overplay their hand causing their whole strategy to unravel. Remember: if a spending cut happens, the public's first instinct is to blame the GOP but if a tax increase happens the first instinct will be to blame the Democrats. It's something psychological that I think is embedded into every American's mind. This will really hurt their opportunities to push for damaging cuts in the name of a balanced budget.

You don't see the problem here? Also, how do you know that these are temporary? Obama's leadership seems to prefer standing up to liberals than Republicans.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

What Obama and the Democrats should do is extend all the cuts for two years and then later try to push to extend only the non-rich cuts longer (before 2012) but not the rich cuts, or even better, cut taxes for the lower brackets a bit while offsetting it with a tax increase for the rich and force the GOP House to bottle it up and show their true colors.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I'm assuming that graph includes the planned temporary Social Security cut right? There's no way my taxes are over a thousand dollars higher without the plan, though I am happy about that Social Security cut since it means more money for me and less money for olds.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

What Obama and the Democrats should do is extend all the cuts for two years and then later try to push to extend only the non-rich cuts longer (before 2012) but not the rich cuts, or even better, cut taxes for the lower brackets a bit while offsetting it with a tax increase for the rich and force the GOP House to bottle it up and show their true colors.

The Republicans aren't going to agree to that, and Obama is going to fail to effectively make it an issue because he has zero leadership and zero political skills.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Jfern, what should the Dems be doing now again?  No deal means taxes go up - on everyone, and extended unemployment benefits end. And then, assuming the Senate goes along, when the GOP takes over the House, a new deal can be cut, that you will like even less. Why?  Because Obama is just not going to sit there, and watch his future go down the tubes, in tandem with the economy remaining a very sick puppy.

Way to sum up what everyone should be thinking with a short paragraph.

I'm sick of most liberals being hypocrites with regards to this deal. So counter-cyclical economic policy is only okay when it doesn't involve temporary tax cuts? If the left in this country is going to constantly complain about "austerity measures" regarding spending cuts, they should take the same stand on potential tax increases. Now, being a leftist myself, I totally understand that this is frustrating topic because it shows off the horrible two-faced nature of the Republican Party, which will hold America hostage when it comes to tax cuts for the wealthy, who have a low marginal propensity to consume and have their tax rates at historical lows in the name of the economy but will attack any form of stimulus proposed by Obama.

In otherwords can you guys see why Obama's deal could be the best one for the economy? I'm sure that you could make some Game theory-esque argument that by saying that because Obama and the Democrats failed to increase the rates on the rich that any Republican drive to cut spending in the future will pack more of a punch and because of it, in the long run this deal will create a net economic loss because it gave these arguments much more merit. This isn't true though: a. only increasing rates on the rich wasn't really an option at this point and b. there is a good chance that if the Republicans try to hold the country hostage again they will overplay their hand causing their whole strategy to unravel. Remember: if a spending cut happens, the public's first instinct is to blame the GOP but if a tax increase happens the first instinct will be to blame the Democrats. It's something psychological that I think is embedded into every American's mind. This will really hurt their opportunities to push for damaging cuts in the name of a balanced budget.

You don't see the problem here? Also, how do you know that these are temporary? Obama's leadership seems to prefer standing up to liberals than Republicans.

The problem that Obama didn't include House/Senate Democrats in the negotiations? Yeah, I see that problem. These tax cuts aren't guaranteed to be temporary but I firmly believe that Obama will take a stand on this issue in 2012 because he feels that the public is on his side with this one. It isn't as if he supports keeping the tax rates the same on the rich, he had to make a compromise on this issue based on political necessity and in the end it was better than I expected. He's still awful at negotiating but whatevski, this one turned out okay.

Have you been reading around the progressive wonk blogosphere? Most of them have lukewarm support for this compromise. DailyKos needs to stop acting like this is THE WORST BETRAYAL EVER. Come on guys? You really think that all of the tax cuts expiring would have gone over well with the public? Also why the efff do you think that the average person who supports letting the tax cuts expire is going to be up in arms about this, which will doom Obama? It isn't going to matter. This is going to be an insignificant thing compared to the rest of the perceived atrocities that are going to go down because of the GOP. The base is going to volunteer. They're going to enthusiastically donate. 2012 is going to be almost assuredly a polarizing, ultra-intense battle.

[DrScholl]

Do hardcore liberals not get that middle class taxes would go up without this deal? That alone would make economic recovery difficult, because that's where a lot of buying power is.  Holding out would not have resulted in a more favorable deal, the opposition is looking for a fight and will not waver.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Do hardcore liberals not get that middle class taxes would go up without this deal? That alone would make economic recovery difficult, because that's where a lot of buying power is.  Holding out would not have resulted in a more favorable deal, the opposition is looking for a fight and will not waver.

Giving the Republicans everything they want without a fight means that either you are completely retarded, or you are a Republican.

[cinyc]

Do hardcore liberals not get that middle class taxes would go up without this deal? That alone would make economic recovery difficult, because that's where a lot of buying power is.  Holding out would not have resulted in a more favorable deal, the opposition is looking for a fight and will not waver.

Giving the Republicans everything they want without a fight means that either you are completely retarded, or you are a Republican.

Republicans didn't get everything they wanted.  They didn't get a permanent extension of the current rates and caved on only funding additional unemployment benefits if offset by spending cuts.  You have to give a little to get a little.  And, quite frankly, the liberal Democrats have an extremely weak hand right now.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Do hardcore liberals not get that middle class taxes would go up without this deal? That alone would make economic recovery difficult, because that's where a lot of buying power is.  Holding out would not have resulted in a more favorable deal, the opposition is looking for a fight and will not waver.

Giving the Republicans everything they want without a fight means that either you are completely retarded, or you are a Republican.

Well, since the Republicans didn't get everything they wanted, then I guess he's neither?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

At the end of the day I'd say the plan with the temporary extension of all needs to pass just because the already lapsed unemployment benefits are too important.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

At the end of the day I'd say the plan with the temporary extension of all needs to pass just because the already lapsed unemployment benefits are too important.

There are over 3 million who don't get unemployment even with this deal, because they already had 99 weeks. And it only extends unemployment past 26 weeks for the next year, while the tax cuts for the rich continue until 2012.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Do hardcore liberals not get that middle class taxes would go up without this deal? That alone would make economic recovery difficult, because that's where a lot of buying power is.  Holding out would not have resulted in a more favorable deal, the opposition is looking for a fight and will not waver.

Giving the Republicans everything they want without a fight means that either you are completely retarded, or you are a Republican.

Well, since the Republicans didn't get everything they wanted, then I guess he's neither?

The Democrats still have a majority and the President, and this is one of the most one-sided deals ever. Especially since he basically told Congressional Democrats to go screw themselves.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Do hardcore liberals not get that middle class taxes would go up without this deal? That alone would make economic recovery difficult, because that's where a lot of buying power is.  Holding out would not have resulted in a more favorable deal, the opposition is looking for a fight and will not waver.

Giving the Republicans everything they want without a fight means that either you are completely retarded, or you are a Republican.

Republicans didn't get everything they wanted. 

Apparently a deal for Obama and Biden to resign and Bhoener to become President couldn't be reached because some advisers thought it might cripple Obama's agenda.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Do hardcore liberals not get that middle class taxes would go up without this deal? That alone would make economic recovery difficult, because that's where a lot of buying power is.  Holding out would not have resulted in a more favorable deal, the opposition is looking for a fight and will not waver.

Giving the Republicans everything they want without a fight means that either you are completely retarded, or you are a Republican.

Well, since the Republicans didn't get everything they wanted, then I guess he's neither?

The Democrats still have a majority and the President, and this is one of the most one-sided deals ever. Especially since he basically told Congressional Democrats to go screw themselves.

The tax cuts aren't permanent... for those making over $250,000, this make the Dems happy, and it's something the Republicans wanted permanent.

The Republicans also didn't want an extension of unemployment benefits, but Dems did.

That doesn't exactly seem very one-sided.  It seems like some fair compromises.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Do hardcore liberals not get that middle class taxes would go up without this deal? That alone would make economic recovery difficult, because that's where a lot of buying power is.  Holding out would not have resulted in a more favorable deal, the opposition is looking for a fight and will not waver.

Giving the Republicans everything they want without a fight means that either you are completely retarded, or you are a Republican.

Well, since the Republicans didn't get everything they wanted, then I guess he's neither?

The Democrats still have a majority and the President, and this is one of the most one-sided deals ever. Especially since he basically told Congressional Democrats to go screw themselves.

The tax cuts aren't permanent... for those making over $250,000, this make the Dems happy, and it's something the Republicans wanted permanent.

The Republicans also didn't want an extension of unemployment benefits, but Dems did.

That doesn't exactly seem very one-sided.  It seems like some fair compromises.

Of course you think it's fair. You're a Republican.. But I imagine that no matter how much of a Republican Obama is, you aren't going to vote for him. So who cares what you think? Obama is wasting his time trying to appeal to Republicans like you who have a 9.61 economic score. Now, those of us who are well to the left of a 9.61 economic score realize that this is a horrid deal.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Do hardcore liberals not get that middle class taxes would go up without this deal? That alone would make economic recovery difficult, because that's where a lot of buying power is.  Holding out would not have resulted in a more favorable deal, the opposition is looking for a fight and will not waver.

Giving the Republicans everything they want without a fight means that either you are completely retarded, or you are a Republican.

Well, since the Republicans didn't get everything they wanted, then I guess he's neither?

The Democrats still have a majority and the President, and this is one of the most one-sided deals ever. Especially since he basically told Congressional Democrats to go screw themselves.

The tax cuts aren't permanent... for those making over $250,000, this make the Dems happy, and it's something the Republicans wanted permanent.

The Republicans also didn't want an extension of unemployment benefits, but Dems did.

That doesn't exactly seem very one-sided.  It seems like some fair compromises.

Of course you think it's fair. You're a Republican.. But I imagine that no matter how much of a Republican Obama is, you aren't going to vote for him. So who cares what you think? Obama is wasting his time trying to appeal to Republicans like you who have a 9.61 economic score. Now, those of us who are well to the left of a 9.61 economic score realize that this is a horrid deal.

I think it's fair.  It's certainly not what I wanted.  In my history on this forum, I like to think that I haven't been a right wing hack.  Throught my involvement in politics, I've tried to call it as I see it.  I don't tow the party line (as evidence through my support of Chuck Hagel, my calls for DADT to be repealed for years, my support of the legalization of marijuana, my admiration for Russ Feingold, etc.), but I honestly don't see this deal as being one-sided.  I think it's about as close to the middle as you're going to get.  It gives both sides what they want temporarily.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Do hardcore liberals not get that middle class taxes would go up without this deal? That alone would make economic recovery difficult, because that's where a lot of buying power is.  Holding out would not have resulted in a more favorable deal, the opposition is looking for a fight and will not waver.

Giving the Republicans everything they want without a fight means that either you are completely retarded, or you are a Republican.

Well, since the Republicans didn't get everything they wanted, then I guess he's neither?

The Democrats still have a majority and the President, and this is one of the most one-sided deals ever. Especially since he basically told Congressional Democrats to go screw themselves.

The tax cuts aren't permanent... for those making over $250,000, this make the Dems happy, and it's something the Republicans wanted permanent.

The Republicans also didn't want an extension of unemployment benefits, but Dems did.

That doesn't exactly seem very one-sided.  It seems like some fair compromises.

Of course you think it's fair. You're a Republican.. But I imagine that no matter how much of a Republican Obama is, you aren't going to vote for him. So who cares what you think? Obama is wasting his time trying to appeal to Republicans like you who have a 9.61 economic score. Now, those of us who are well to the left of a 9.61 economic score realize that this is a horrid deal.

I think it's fair.  It's certainly not what I wanted.  In my history on this forum, I like to think that I haven't been a right wing hack.  Throught my involvement in politics, I've tried to call it as I see it.  I don't tow the party line (as evidence through my support of Chuck Hagel, my calls for DADT to be repealed for years, my support of the legalization of marijuana, my admiration for Russ Feingold, etc.), but I honestly don't see this deal as being one-sided.  I think it's about as close to the middle as you're going to get.  It gives both sides what they want temporarily.

Nope, not what I wanted. Not at all. DADT and pot are are not economic issues, and liking Hagel doesn't make you not right wing. The fact remains that Obama is wasting his time catering to people with a 9.61 economic score, while failing to get anything decent for the Democrats, and in fact not even having Democrats be part of the compromise.

[bullmoose88]

Major clusterfcuk for the Democrats.  If they can't work out an extension of some sort of the tax cuts...they're going to be seen as the party that allowed taxes to rise on the middle class and failed to get jobless benefits extended.  Are the Republicans playing games and holding everyone hostage for the top 1%...absolutely.  But no one is going to care.  There was a plan to extend things until, hopefully, the economy recovered and the house democrats decided to locate their testicles and make a stand at the worst possible time.

If no deal is reached, and taxes go up starting Jan 1, who do you think the public is going to blame here?  Do you really think they'll blame the GOP?  While they should, they won't.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Major clusterfcuk for the Democrats.  If they can't work out an extension of some sort of the tax cuts...they're going to be seen as the party that allowed taxes to rise on the middle class and failed to get jobless benefits extended.  Are the Republicans playing games and holding everyone hostage for the top 1%...absolutely.  But no one is going to care.  There was a plan to extend things until, hopefully, the economy recovered and the house democrats decided to locate their testicles and make a stand at the worst possible time.

If no deal is reached, and taxes go up starting Jan 1, who do you think the public is going to blame here?  Do you really think they'll blame the GOP?  While they should, they won't.

If low taxes help the economy so much, then why are there 2 million fewer jobs now than a decade ago? To keep up with growth the labor pool, there should have been an increase of 10-15 million. Yeah, it's pretty obvious that they aren't doing sh**t.

[bullmoose88]

Major clusterfcuk for the Democrats.  If they can't work out an extension of some sort of the tax cuts...they're going to be seen as the party that allowed taxes to rise on the middle class and failed to get jobless benefits extended.  Are the Republicans playing games and holding everyone hostage for the top 1%...absolutely.  But no one is going to care.  There was a plan to extend things until, hopefully, the economy recovered and the house democrats decided to locate their testicles and make a stand at the worst possible time.

If no deal is reached, and taxes go up starting Jan 1, who do you think the public is going to blame here?  Do you really think they'll blame the GOP?  While they should, they won't.

If low taxes help the economy so much, then why are there 2 million fewer jobs now than a decade ago? Yeah, it's pretty obvious that they aren't doing sh**t.

I ask you the question, how bad would things be if the tax cuts weren't in place during this recession? 

The fact these cuts were still in place when things were going relatively well during the middle part of this past decade isn't relevant.  But they're needed now.  A tax increase now is contractionary policy...I don't see that as being good for a pretty weak economy.

And as for your 2 million more jobs in 2000 than in 2010 with higher tax rates...you're being silly.  One *could* say the Clinton-era economy thrived in spite of higher tax rates.  Or one could say that no conceivable tax cut was going to make the Bush-era economy fan-freaking tastic.  I'm just going to speculate that without the lower rates the last couple years...perhaps things would have been a heckova lot worse.

[Landslide Lyndon]

All this hyperventilation about the tax rates going back to Clinton-era levels is hilarious.
Most economists I have read while they agree that such a development won't be helpful, they also point that it's hardly catastrophic.

And for the record, the House Democrats main objection is the scandalous estate tax deal, not the extension of the Bush tax cuts.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Do hardcore liberals not get that middle class taxes would go up without this deal? That alone would make economic recovery difficult, because that's where a lot of buying power is.  Holding out would not have resulted in a more favorable deal, the opposition is looking for a fight and will not waver.

Giving the Republicans everything they want without a fight means that either you are completely retarded, or you are a Republican.

Well, since the Republicans didn't get everything they wanted, then I guess he's neither?

The Democrats still have a majority and the President, and this is one of the most one-sided deals ever. Especially since he basically told Congressional Democrats to go screw themselves.

The tax cuts aren't permanent... for those making over $250,000, this make the Dems happy, and it's something the Republicans wanted permanent.

The Republicans also didn't want an extension of unemployment benefits, but Dems did.

That doesn't exactly seem very one-sided.  It seems like some fair compromises.

Of course you think it's fair. You're a Republican.. But I imagine that no matter how much of a Republican Obama is, you aren't going to vote for him. So who cares what you think? Obama is wasting his time trying to appeal to Republicans like you who have a 9.61 economic score. Now, those of us who are well to the left of a 9.61 economic score realize that this is a horrid deal.

I think it's fair.  It's certainly not what I wanted.  In my history on this forum, I like to think that I haven't been a right wing hack.  Throught my involvement in politics, I've tried to call it as I see it.  I don't tow the party line (as evidence through my support of Chuck Hagel, my calls for DADT to be repealed for years, my support of the legalization of marijuana, my admiration for Russ Feingold, etc.), but I honestly don't see this deal as being one-sided.  I think it's about as close to the middle as you're going to get.  It gives both sides what they want temporarily.

Nope, not what I wanted. Not at all. DADT and pot are are not economic issues, and liking Hagel doesn't make you not right wing. The fact remains that Obama is wasting his time catering to people with a 9.61 economic score, while failing to get anything decent for the Democrats, and in fact not even having Democrats be part of the compromise.

Obama is certainly not catering to me... I am not thrilled with this deal at all.  I think it's doable... I'd like it to be different, but under a Democratic President and Congress, I'll take it.

I will admit that he should've included Democratic leaders in his talks before announcing the deal... that was a big blunder on his part.

But, what exactly would you like to see in a deal that would be acceptable to you?

[bullmoose88]

All this hyperventilation about the tax rates going back to Clinton-era levels is hilarious.
Most economists I have read while they agree that such a development won't be helpful, they also point that it's hardly catastrophic.

And for the record, the House Democrats main objection is the scandalous estate tax deal, not the extension of the Bush tax cuts.

I have no problem with an estate tax on large estates.  There isn't one this year at the federal level.

As to the other point, are we going to see mass calamity, cats and dogs...living together, if we go back to the pre-Bush rates?  Probably not...but if we can avoid an increase in unemployment until we're back on our feet some more...why not do it.  This deal isn't going to boost the economy...its merely to avoid/delay another punch to the gut until we're better able to absorb it.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

All this hyperventilation about the tax rates going back to Clinton-era levels is hilarious.
Most economists I have read while they agree that such a development won't be helpful, they also point that it's hardly catastrophic.

And for the record, the House Democrats main objection is the scandalous estate tax deal, not the extension of the Bush tax cuts.

Well, the Bush tax cuts did include the estate tax. The estate tax capitulation has the estate tax as lower for the next years then it was in any year prior to the current year, where it doesn't exist. If your point was that this didn't just extend the Bush tax cut, then technically you are correct. I'm sure we can get some horrendously convoluted argument about how the estate tax hurts the economy, but it's obviously total BS.

Obama is certainly not catering to me... I am not thrilled with this deal at all.  I think it's doable... I'd like it to be different, but under a Democratic President and Congress, I'll take it.

I will admit that he should've included Democratic leaders in his talks before announcing the deal... that was a big blunder on his part.

But, what exactly would you like to see in a deal that would be acceptable to you?

I'd want something that people with a 9.61 economic score weren't so happy with. As for this deal, I'd rather no deal then this deal. Yeah, sure I'll pay higher taxes for a bit, but it's obvious that it won't be helping the country in the long run. I'm a liberal, so I use criteria other than my short term interests to decide whether something is good policy.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

OK, jfern, instead of just saying, "Well if you like it, it must be bad!" what would you actually be OK with Obama proposing?

Give me something solid and tangible instead of just complaining about my economic PM score.