Skip to main content

View Diary: Obama aide: Next debt deal will require more tax hikes, entitlement cuts (367 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •   Because there were no cuts (40+ / 0-)

    to earned benefits/entitlements in the bogus fiscal cliff deal. That made it a win win win!  Nevermind that it was only a part of the whole deal.  Nevermind that we held all the cards and then gave them to the Republicans.  Nevermind that we blew a giant hole in the budget on the revenue side and set things up for it to be filled with cuts to our already too weak social programs, one of which has absolutely nothing to do with the deficit and is simply a decades long goal of the Republicans and right-wing Democrats to destroy it.  And nevermind that after the Bush tax cuts expired, we went and made 75 or 80% of them permanent.

    It was still a win win win and the critics were so damn wrong.  


    "Justice is a commodity"

    by joanneleon on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 08:27:56 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Oh so because the public outcry against (16+ / 0-)

      cuts to Social Security proved to be effective this past round, that's a face palm?  I see.  Very interesting.

      j - Why are people so screwy?

      •  Polls show the public gives the President high (3+ / 0-)

        marks on the fiscal cliff deal, which includeds a huge number of Democrats.

        Most Democrats approved of the legislation, and the vast majority of the party -- 81 percent -- supported Obama's performance in the negotiations. Republicans' discontent with their party leadership, in contrast, was profound.
        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

        81 percent of Democrats shows that this President still has the confidence of his party. We will have a jaded view of this President and Democrats if we go by his usually small but vociferous critics here within this community....

          •  It means, that the public and Democrats in general (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            TheLizardKing, wishingwell

            did not protest against this President or had an "outcry", as you termed it, over the way the President conducted  these negotiations as some here.

            •  Given the polling data on Social Security and (22+ / 0-)

              Medicare, it is a certainty that that impression of the deal would be far less positive had either been included in the deal.

              Both of those items would have been tipping points in the opposite direction and I think that some of the Members of Congress realized that before the WH did.

              •  Well, the interesting point is most Democrats who (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                glynis

                voted for this President didn't believe he was out to destroy Social Security or Medicare. This belief has become an article of faith for many individuals here.

                You said that if Medicare and Social Security was part of the deal, the outcome would have been different, and that "some of the members of Congress realized that before the WH did."

                Now, I hardly think it is likely that some in Congress have more of a realization of the importance of Medicare and Social Security being on the table and Barack Obama, who has campaigned and won the presidency twice, has not....

                It seems to me that many of the President's critics are ready to leap at the President, even based on stories that he has, or a member of his team, has mentioned Medicare or Social Security; this, without even knowing the context.

                It should be said that, since the President entered office, he has actually improved Medicare as opposed to destroying it. An awkward fact for most of his critics....

                •  You won't be able to spin this (7+ / 0-)

                  if the WH proposes SS & Medicare cuts.

                  Does this mean Obama doesn't care about Dems winning in 2014 and 2016?

                  Democratic Leaders must be very clear they stand with the working class of our country. Democrats must hold the line in demanding that deficit reduction is done fairly -- not on the backs of the elderly, the sick, children and the poor.

                  by Betty Pinson on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 10:06:05 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  The interview was pretty clear about (5+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  3goldens, quill, joanneleon, mcmom, shigeru

                  context and Obama has said these things before about cuts including his offer of CPI for SSI recipients.

                  All you are doing is calling more attention to the mounting evidence that the Obama Administration is not opposed to and even perhaps more than willing to cut Social Security and other programs that help the poor, children and the elderly.

                  Sperling sketched out the broad outline of a possible deficit-reduction deal that would involve higher taxes along with spending cuts on social welfare programs, including the federal health insurance program for the elderly and the Social Security pension plan.
                  •  Obama cutting programs to help the poor??? Are you (0+ / 0-)

                    absolutely kidding me? You folk are forcing me to whip out the Obama list of accomplishments. I know many of you Obama critics are literally afraid of that list.

                    But can you honestly tell me which President has been better for the poor in, perhaps,  the past 60 years of  this nation than Barack Obama?

                    We're talking about a President, who has provided 20 billion dollars to fund nutritional programs to assist the poor. And billions of dollars more on other programs for the poor.

                    We're talking about a President who has oversaw expansion of the Pell Grants program, to expand opportunity for low income students to go to college.

                    We are talking about a President who has cracked down on companies:

                    that pass off employees as independent contractors avoid paying Social Security, Medicare and unemployment insurance taxes for those workers. Companies do not withhold income taxes from contractors’ paychecks, and several studies have indicated that, on average, misclassified independent workers do not report 30 percent of their income.
                    Federal and state officials, many facing record budget deficits, are starting to aggressively pursue companies that try to pass off regular employees as independent contractors.
                    http://www.nytimes.com/...

                    We're talking about a President who passed the Affordable Care Act, to allow 30 million people access to healthcare while some on the left wanted the bill killed.

                    There is a record of this President delivering policies that will assist the poor, and there is a record of some individuals who are not in line with most Democrats attacking the President at every step of the way.....

                    •  ah, I remember a war on poverty by a president, (3+ / 0-)

                      does that count? It was quite effective, perhaps you remember it too?

                      But can you honestly tell me which President has been better for the poor in, perhaps,  the past 60 years of  this nation than Barack Obama?

                      "Who are these men who really run this land? And why do they run it with such a thoughtless hand?" David Crosby

                      by allenjo on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 01:05:12 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  You're actually going to bring up war on poverty? (0+ / 0-)

                        As if all that I have mentioned is simply nothing.... I mean, you look at all the things I just cited and your big comeback is.... He hasn't cured cancer? I thought any of you could come up with something better than that.... You could even try coming up with a President who has done more for the poor in the last 60 years than Barack Obama...but you can't because you have none.... So let's jeer the President for not eradicating hunger pains.... Typical stuff....

                        •  How old are you? Can you count? (3+ / 0-)

                          You asked:

                          But can you honestly tell me which President has been better for the poor in, perhaps,  the past 60 years of  this nation than Barack Obama?
                          LBJ and The War on Poverty - you remember nothing about that?

                          If you are too young to remember, you might read up on it, before you even attempt to try to tell people that Obama, in your opinion, has done more for the poor in the last 60 years than any other president, because it is just not true.

                          Just a little research will tell you that.

                          "Who are these men who really run this land? And why do they run it with such a thoughtless hand?" David Crosby

                          by allenjo on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 03:08:08 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  I thought you were referring to the President's (0+ / 0-)

                            war on poverty..... LBJ was a great President and did a lot also in terms of Medicare and Medicaid for the poor. His war on poverty was a continuation of FDR's New Deal....

                            Still, when you consider the sheer volume of allocated funding for the poor, tens of billions of dollars under Obama, plus the Affordable Care Act, plus Pell Grant expansion; billions of dollars on programs for the poor who are veterans, also consider the increase of the US population today over the 1960s I don't believe LBJ has done more for the poor, In terms of dollars and cents, than President Obama....

                            I am open to the possibility of you showing me where I am wrong....

                          •  Not per capita. (0+ / 0-)

                            But it is ridiculous to even pretend that a dollar to dollar comparison of Presidents who serve decades apart is a meaningful comparison on any topic.

                          •  It is also ridiculous to suggest this President (0+ / 0-)

                            doesn't care about the poor in this country, for when it comes to caring for the poor, very few Presidents can eclipse this President. And yes, even LBJ.....

                •  not only medicare (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  NedSparks

                  he has expanded medicaid as well.

                •  I disagree on at least two points (7+ / 0-)
                  Well, the interesting point is most Democrats who voted for this President didn't believe he was out to destroy Social Security or Medicare. This belief has become an article of faith for many individuals here.
                  First I voted and campaigned for Obama. Not because I didn't think he had cutting SS and Medicare on his agenda - but because he wasn't Romney. I was under no illusion about his agenda after I saw him pack the Simpson - Bowles Commission with deficit hawks.
                  Second - to trust Obama as an article of faith is deeply unrealistic. It strikes me as kind of childish.
                  Obama is not a hero or a saint.
                  He's just another guy in the White House. And he has signaled over and over that he wants to cut benefits.
                  We need to keep the pressure on him not to cut benefits. That's how politics works.
                  •  Some here may disagree, Capt Crunch (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    joanneleon, aliasalias

                    as you can tell from their comments.

                    Obama is not a hero or a saint.
                    He's just another guy in the White House.

                    "Who are these men who really run this land? And why do they run it with such a thoughtless hand?" David Crosby

                    by allenjo on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 10:27:21 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  The article of faith is the belief that Obama will (0+ / 0-)

                    destroy Medicare or SS. I think many here have no proof that the President would do this based on his efforts to improve Medicare and expanded Medicaid.... Points they ignore.

                    And if I believed Obama was going to destroy SS and Medicare I wouldn't have voted for him, despite the fact that he isn't Romney. So, I have to wonder about your decision based on your belief that Obama would have done such unthinkable acts.

                    •  Moving the goal posts (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Capt Crunch, 420 forever, aliasalias

                      and using semantics, just as the president did to lie to the voters during his campaign, saying he would not "slash" Social Security, when in other ways he signalled full intention to cut it.

                      Now Biden, on the other hand, when they were panicking about their poll numbers and the president's poor performance in his first debate, did come right out and emphatically tell the country there would be no cuts to Social Security.  

                      Anyway, cuts to Social Security is undermining the New Deal and it is the first step toward destroying it.  If he cuts Social Security, there will be hell to pay, even though he has been prepping the country for doing it for at least two years now.  Let's talk about his poll numbers after that happens.


                      "Justice is a commodity"

                      by joanneleon on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 10:49:09 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Can you prove where the President slashed SS? (0+ / 0-)

                        You said he lied.... Where is the lie???? I can prove where the President improved Medicare; can you prove where he has destroyed Medicare????

                        With all the talk of the chained CPI it was not part of the deal. Why wasn't it? That's another question. Was it supposed to be, or was it meant as a smoke screen. Nobody not privy to the discussions knows exactly.

                        If it was, I would still not condemn the President unless I knew the parameters of the entire deal. And how was the President going to shield the poor as was suggested.... We don't know it all, but, until I have reason not to, I trust this President to govern in my best interest that is why I supported his candidacy.  I trust his leadership capacity.

                        But this is, perhaps, the difference between many of you critics of the President (from the first days of his presidency) and most other Democrats or perhaps most other people....

                        If the President should one day decide to cut Medicare or SS, the American people, Congress, and everyone who have a stake in these social legacies will want to know exactly what the President is planning to do, what do these cuts mean? And they will give him a hearing before they decide to vilify him.  

                        You may not belief this, but as odd as it seem, you do not have a corner on the market for caring about Medicare and Social Security.

                        And it is also true that you and other critics of the President do not have more compassion for the poor than those who are supporters of the President or the President himself.

                        You may want to believe you do, but this is not based in reality. This President has a record to stand on. I am always willing to see yours.

                        It is not part of the instinct of most people to condemn someone without first knowing the nature of the crime that said individual has committed. Your condemnation without proof is just fine for you, but you will find it difficult to recruit very many followers to this philosophy except for a handful of individuals within this community.

                        The President still has the approval of 81 percent of Democrats, according to recent polls.

                    •  Two more points (0+ / 0-)

                      I never said that I thought he was out to destroy SS. I said he was out to cut it. BIG difference.
                      If I thought he was out to destroy SS and Medicare I would not have voted for him.
                      The article of faith you referred to was:

                      most Democrats who voted for this President didn't believe he was out to destroy Social Security or Medicare. This belief has become an article of faith for many individuals here.
                      Perhaps though your comment "was not meant to be factual." ala John Kyle. :)
                •  When we get quasi-official mentions (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  joanneleon, denise b, aliasalias

                  of the fact that the administration floated chained-CPI and other specific reforms to SS in the context of budget negotiations, that is the context. It wasn't a vague rumor of things going on behind the scenes; it was an explicit concession that the administration announced to the press corps.

                  I don't negotiate for a living. But I am hard pressed to imagine any context in which it's a sign of negotiating strength, when your opponent is offering nothing -- no revenue boosts of any kind -- and you turn around and float a concession that cuts to the core of one of the central New Deal programs that your party has historically protected.

                  Nothing requires a greater effort of thought than arguments to justify the rule of non-thought. -- Milan Kundera

                  by Dale on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 10:52:20 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

            •  You are not panicking! (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              TheLizardKing

              Fear-mongers are having sad.

            •  Um (11+ / 0-)

              The outcry was BEFORE the final deal, over the administration's reported proposal to include chained CPI. Once the House GOP's Tea Party wing once again stupidly refused the administration's offer, the Obama team came back with a smaller deal that didn't include chained CPI but had less in revenue increases as well.

              We'll have to see, once all the dust settles from the next titanic clash, what they do, or do not, offer. But the hints several times have been that they're willing to offer this.

              Republicans...think the American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people. And they admire the Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it. Harry S. Truman

              by fenway49 on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 09:33:37 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  I for one was on the phones (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Helpless, joanneleon, aliasalias

              with the WH and my reps. Were you?

              Isn't that a bit of an outcry, as I am hardly the only one?

              "Who are these men who really run this land? And why do they run it with such a thoughtless hand?" David Crosby

              by allenjo on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 10:24:11 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Reps, yes (0+ / 0-)

                They are our only hope.

                WH no - it's a waste of breath.

                We decided to move the center farther to the right by starting the whole debate from a far-right position to begin with. - Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay

                by denise b on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 01:09:31 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  start a negotiation on strength..... (0+ / 0-)
                  We decided to move the center farther to the right by starting the whole debate from a far-right position to begin with. - Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay
                  Now if the Democrats could learn the rules on how to start a negotiation on strength instead of weakness.

                  "Who are these men who really run this land? And why do they run it with such a thoughtless hand?" David Crosby

                  by allenjo on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 01:26:08 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  In the case of the WH (0+ / 0-)

                    while I think it's true that Obama doesn't have any idea how to negotiate, I also think it's true that he has always been working towards a cut in entitlements. It's not being pried out of his hands - he wants to do it.

                    We decided to move the center farther to the right by starting the whole debate from a far-right position to begin with. - Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay

                    by denise b on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 03:38:39 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

          •  Marketing works wonders (12+ / 0-)

            and also a compliant media not willing to educate viewers and challenge power.

            Obama: self-described moderate Republican

            by The Dead Man on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 09:24:34 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  It means the 1% press corps were very happy (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            allenjo, joanneleon

            with the deal resulting in propaganda stories that reflected it.

            ...and the people clapped.

            Physics is bulls**t. Don't let them fool you. Fire IS magic.

            by Pescadero Bill on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 10:29:33 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  His overall job approval still under 50% (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Capt Crunch, allenjo

          So no, the public doesn't approve of what he's doing here.

          If he and his supporters keep going down this road, we may be forced to start reminding them publicly of his job approval ratings.  Is that what you want?

          Democratic Leaders must be very clear they stand with the working class of our country. Democrats must hold the line in demanding that deficit reduction is done fairly -- not on the backs of the elderly, the sick, children and the poor.

          by Betty Pinson on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 10:03:52 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Obama's job approval under 50%? (0+ / 0-)

            this job approval graph from TPM

            Overall job approval at 53%.

            •  I stand corrected, just over 50% (slow clap) (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              joanneleon

              The last one I checked  at Polling Report had him below 50%.

              So are you saying this indicates Americans are happy with him cutting Social Security?  I don't think so.

              Democratic Leaders must be very clear they stand with the working class of our country. Democrats must hold the line in demanding that deficit reduction is done fairly -- not on the backs of the elderly, the sick, children and the poor.

              by Betty Pinson on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 10:47:07 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I'm not saying anything more (0+ / 0-)

                than a correction to your comment about his approval rating.

                Reading into an overall approval rating something about a specific issue is an exercise in futility.

                •  POTUS handling of issues has a big impact (0+ / 0-)

                  on job approval rating.

                  That's why they call it a job approval rating, and why its interpreted differently than personal/likeability ratings.

                  Voters may like a POTUS, but if he isn't doing a good job, the ratings will show a discrepancy.

                  Democratic Leaders must be very clear they stand with the working class of our country. Democrats must hold the line in demanding that deficit reduction is done fairly -- not on the backs of the elderly, the sick, children and the poor.

                  by Betty Pinson on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 12:31:50 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  The one I listened to yesterday was at 50% (0+ / 0-)

                comparing with Reagan and Clinton - around 56-58% as I recall.

                "Who are these men who really run this land? And why do they run it with such a thoughtless hand?" David Crosby

                by allenjo on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 01:28:12 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  Reagan and Clinton both much higher at this time (0+ / 0-)

            of Obama's presidency.

            "Who are these men who really run this land? And why do they run it with such a thoughtless hand?" David Crosby

            by allenjo on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 10:32:36 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  True (0+ / 0-)

              Clinton presided over a very strong economy, full employment and kept the country out of ridiculous, expensive ground wars.  All of those things make a POTUS popular, much more so than saber rattling and fear mongering.

              Going in to his second term with such a grossly unpopular idea like cutting SS tends to make me think Obama either isn't interested in being a popular POTUS or is terribly naive about his ability to sell SS cuts to the public.

              Democratic Leaders must be very clear they stand with the working class of our country. Democrats must hold the line in demanding that deficit reduction is done fairly -- not on the backs of the elderly, the sick, children and the poor.

              by Betty Pinson on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 10:50:09 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  and certainly none of us should become jaded...... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          3goldens, joanneleon

          with this presidency, or any democrats in general, right?

          We will have a jaded view of this President and Democrats if we go by his usually small but vociferous critics here within this community....

          "Who are these men who really run this land? And why do they run it with such a thoughtless hand?" David Crosby

          by allenjo on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 10:22:00 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  It was a big victory (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        3goldens, rudy23

        just like the one we're going to score this time.  Again.

        What we need is for Obama to stand up to this corporate donors, the ones who are pushing this crap, and tell them he's not going to cut SS.

        The WH is constantly putting our necks on the chopping block because they're too afraid to tell their donors to STFU on this issue.  Either that, or the WH is unprincipled and ignorant enough to believe the Third Way BS.

        The WH is behaving in a very cowardly manner on this issue.  

        Democratic Leaders must be very clear they stand with the working class of our country. Democrats must hold the line in demanding that deficit reduction is done fairly -- not on the backs of the elderly, the sick, children and the poor.

        by Betty Pinson on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 10:01:56 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  And therein lies the root of all corruption -- (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          joanneleon

          big corporate donors. All they have to say is they'll either withhold funds for smaller Senate and House Dem races, or threaten to run negative ads in key districts.

          The President has veto power, but the Corporate Overlords have blackmail power.

          It should be like an epic clash of good vs. evil. Like Super Man going up against all of his comic villains at once. But what we'll get with this comic showdown is more a Neville Chamberlain-esque like approach resulting in a pragmatic agreement the 1% can live with.

          The rest of us, well, not so much.

          Physics is bulls**t. Don't let them fool you. Fire IS magic.

          by Pescadero Bill on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 10:43:38 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  You haven't got a clue, have you? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        aliasalias, joanneleon

        The WH has given off signals from Day One that it intended to cut entitlements. And there have been plenty of hints from people like Pelosi that Democrats will cave in.

        I hope we can still stop it with a public outcry, but that hasn't been what's stopped it so far; it hasn't been stopped, they're just working their way towards it.

        We decided to move the center farther to the right by starting the whole debate from a far-right position to begin with. - Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay

        by denise b on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 01:03:07 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  So earnest, you are. (0+ / 0-)

          I suggest you reread my comment and the others that I've posted in this thread.  You might find that you are the one who is not following the action with respect to this discussion.

          Here's a hint: I'm on "your" side - or really more accurately on the side of protecting the social safety net regardless of what the White House or Democrats say.

          •  Sorry. Either (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            joanneleon

            I misread your comment or I replied to the wrong one - I'm not sure anymore.

            We decided to move the center farther to the right by starting the whole debate from a far-right position to begin with. - Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay

            by denise b on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 03:41:51 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  Wherein you argue for austerity (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Quicklund

      You probably don't realize that austerity involves two components: spending cuts (boo!), and tax increases (yeah?).

      It might help you here if you pay attention.

      By saying Obama should let all the Bush tax cuts expire (something he never campaigned on), you are arguing to impose a massive trillion dollar austerity program on lower and middle class Americans.

      This is why the deal critics came across as so foolish.

      •  You know who else was foolish? (18+ / 0-)

        Lt. Dan Choi for protesting DADT and chaining himself to the White House fence because Obama was totally going to do something about it... eventually. Just like he's taking care of unions who have been waiting for 4 years for him to do something besides letting Republican governors tear them apart in state after state. Just stay quiet, because if we're patient President Obama won't do anything to raise the age you can obtain medicare (like he's already proposed) or cut social security (like he's already proposed). And if he does do those things it's all the Republicans fault because they took the deal Obama offered them.

        •  If you are unhappy with Republican Governors (0+ / 0-)

          Be unhappy with the people who elected them. I'm not exactly sure what Obama can do to override right to work for less laws, but I guess in magical pony land, anything is possible.

          •  It wouldn't take too much for Obama to back unions (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            aliasalias

            Hell, he could've just shown up at a rally in Wisconsin for Tom Barrett's recall fight against Scott Walker instead of sitting on the sidelines doing the nothing that he did. Or how about walking that picketline with striking workers as he promised to in 2007.

            This isn't magical ponyland, but simply just holding Obama to his word as a politician when he said he wouldn't cut medicare and social security and slammed his opponents by claiming that they would. Honestly, I don't know why any progressive would back him up when he shows so much disdain for them by immediately backtracking only two months after the election.

      •  You might get your facts straight (12+ / 0-)

        "Austerity" involves, in the world of Washington and European capitals, slashing spending to come in line with revenues, not increasing revenues. It only involved revenues this time because the Bush tax cuts were expiring and there would be a revenue increase anyway, if nothing were done.

        You fail to acknowledge any ground between the deal that was reached, in all its particulars, and, bwahahahaha,

        a massive trillion dollar austerity program on lower and middle class Americans
        This ignores the strong likelihood that some deal would have been reached in the first two weeks of January, even if this deal was not approved Dec. 31-Jan. 1.

        The complaint about revenues is that (a) taxable income from $250K to $450K is largely left untouched (which Obama certainly did not campaign on); (b) that preferential treatment of capital gains and dividends was retained; (c) putting no sunset provision on these preferential rates, making it hard politically to raise revenue even in better economic times.

        Argue your side, but leave the straw men out of it.

        Republicans...think the American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people. And they admire the Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it. Harry S. Truman

        by fenway49 on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 09:42:50 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  False (0+ / 0-)

          Greece, Spain were all confronted with tax increases as part of austerity.

          And that is exactly what you are arguing for by letting all the Bush tax cuts expire: massive de-stimulative austerity.

          •  No, it's not (0+ / 0-)
            And that is exactly what you are arguing for by letting all the Bush tax cuts expire: massive de-stimulative austerity.
            What part of "some other deal would have been reached" is not getting through? There is NO evidence that maintaining low rates on cap gains, dividends, and taxable earned income between $250K and $450K is stimulative in the least. That money is sat on, invested in financial shell games, or invested to create jobs overseas. The House GOP was just called out this fall for trying to bury a report confirming that.

            I've been yelling for stimulus for four years. I said the day he passed the 2009 stimulus that Krugman was right and it was too small. That was proven correct. But, hey, when in doubt just reassert strawman.

            Spain 2013 budget proposal: more than 30 billion Euros in spending cuts, 4 billion in tax increases, with a good part of that falling on lotto winners and second-home buyers.

            Republicans...think the American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people. And they admire the Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it. Harry S. Truman

            by fenway49 on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 11:28:17 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  What other deal? (0+ / 0-)

              What incentive did the GOP have to reach a better deal after the tax cuts expire?

              I'm glad you finally realize that letting the Bush tax cuts all expire would be austerity, so now you're arguing for imposing austerity until a hypothetical alternative would be reached.

              remember, in your austerity proposal, you also lose UI insurance and the other stimulative measures.

              •  Not being blamed for the tax hike (0+ / 0-)

                Read this, for example.

                I'm saying one or two weeks' higher withholding, followed by a deal that restored lower Bush rates on income under $250K or something close to it, would not have tanked the economy, a position held by plenty of responsible progressives.  

                Republicans...think the American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people. And they admire the Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it. Harry S. Truman

                by fenway49 on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 12:11:40 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Okay, here is how that would play out (0+ / 0-)

                  Obama: Pass these tax cuts.
                  Harry Reid: We have a bill already passed extending the Bush tax cuts for those under $250k.
                  Boehner: We have a bill already passed extending the Bush tax cuts for those under $1M.
                  Obama: Pass these tax cuts.
                  Harry Reid: We have a bill already passed extending the Bush tax cuts for those under $250k.
                  Boehner: We have a bill already passed extending the Bush tax cuts for those under $1M.
                  ...
                  Regardless of who goes first, the bill goes to committee. Then, a compromise would have to be reached resulting in a renewal of the Bush tax cuts for those under, say, $350.

                  And viola! Now you have extended the Bush tax cuts, maybe for a better range, maybe not. But you have no stimulus, and you have no delay in the sequester.

                  And so what you have is more austerity until you reach a deal, and perhaps even after.

      •  You shouldn't be throwing stones from inside (0+ / 0-)

        your glass house dude.

        Physics is bulls**t. Don't let them fool you. Fire IS magic.

        by Pescadero Bill on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 10:46:38 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  yep, joanne, never mind all that, and (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      joanneleon

      don't diss the dems, particularly the dem president.

      "Who are these men who really run this land? And why do they run it with such a thoughtless hand?" David Crosby

      by allenjo on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 01:00:16 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site