The Dean is happy.
Washington Post columnist and “dean” of the Beltwaypress corps David Broder was one of the few people (not counting Republicans) who stood up to applaud Barack Obama’s tax deal. Under the I-am-not-making-this-up headline “Centrist on the Rise,” Broder (12/9/10) congratulated Obama, who has”separated himself from the left of his own party and staked a strong claim to the territory where national elections are fought and won: the independent center.”
Obama has”begun to regain focus as the pragmatic liberal that he is–not the hard-line socialist Republicans make him out to be but a president far more practical and down to earth than his critics on the liberal flank of the Democratic Party. ”
Reclaiming the “center,”of course, mostly means trouncing your base–and that’s what Broder is cheering:
When their constituents see the fatter paychecks, Democratic members of Congress will have a hard time sustaining their carping about the lost opportunity to engage the GOP in an old-fashioned campaign against the fat cats.
Obama’s move “wasn’t a Sister Souljah moment,” Broder warns, but this move to the righthas given Obama a chance “to define himself, more clearly than ever before, as a raging moderate.” His conclusion: “This was the best showing for Obama in many months.”
But wait a second. How exactly does a deficit hawk like Broder–who recently called for a drastic, British-style austerity program (FAIR Blog, 10/25/10)–reconcile Obama’s base-bashing tax cuts with the hundreds of billions it will add to the federal debt? Apparently bashing liberals is a higher short-term priority; in the long-term, this will all somehow make slashing government spending easier:
Also, the $900 billion this deal will add to the national debt increases the pressure on Obama and Congress to undertake the kind of tough-love budgetary changes outlined by the presidential commission on deficits.
So the rich get tax cuts now, and the rest of us get “tough love” for the foreseeablefuture.That’s “centrism,” David Broder-style.
Yeah, and when the federal debt increases then of course the ‘serious/adult Republicans’ (and sycophants like Broder) will be FORCED (they really, REALLY do NOT want to do it… but what other choice will ‘serious’ people have??) to falsely conflate the debt with the health of the Social Security program and, alas, reduce Social Security until it is little better than the coupon section of the Sunday newspaper. But we HAVE to protect the ‘Social Security’ of the Paris Hiltons/Kim Kardashians and all their brethren, we wouldn’t want them to have to fly business class or anything gauche like that.
Obama should listen to Broder IF he wants to have a lot of free-time come Jan 2013.
As a frustrated progressive, I am excited to see a spinal cord emerge among Democratic reps. Perhaps if this were a natural phenomenon the November results would have been different. Liberal voters lost much faith in the Democratic majority who failed to show any stones for two years, and as a result many progressives failed to show at the polls. I sadly expect this to backfire as their weak knees win out…but I can still have Hope can’t I??
Looked at from a different angle, Broder claims Obama has “staked a strong claim to the territory where national elections are fought and won: the independent center.” But if we’re to define the “center” of American politics by what the public actually thinks, nearly all of the polling on this tax matter indicates that ending, rather than extending, the Bush cuts for the wealthy is the “center” position. Bloomberg, for example, just released a new poll showing that 59% favor eliminating the tax cuts for the wealthy. Offered a series of options, 27% of respondents said ALL of the tax cuts should be allowed to expire, 34% said end the cuts for upper income and only continue those for everyone else, and 16% chose to extend the cuts for the wealthy for only two years, while making those for everyone else permanent. Only 19% chose permanently extending all cuts for everyone.
(The broad political “center” is, contrary to Broder’s claim, in support of ending the cuts for upper-income people)
Thanks to FAIR ,I ‘ve got David Broder’s number, however I’m ambivalent about Obama’s decision. In order to extend unemployment benefits for millions of Americans ,how much of a choice did he have the vile GOP is holding him and the unemployed among us hostage.
I’m disaffected with Obama but in this case what else could he do? And why is the vile GOP able to wrap him around its soiled finger?
It’s the Independents who swing the election every time! So it’s important to keep focus on 2012 and to run on killing these breaks then. Instead of crying over the deficit nobody is actively ready to tackle. I say this because if you REALLY want to cut the deficit, you’d raise taxes across the board, and NOBODY’s going to want that!!!
It seems odd that dealing with the Bush Tax cuts came as something of a shock to the Dems, after all, they only had ten years to develop a strategy for keeping these “temporary” cuts temporary. Of course, the GOP was counting on D.C. inertia and framing the expiration of the cuts as a massive tax increase — deficit be damned. I agree with what was said above, though: two or three years from now, when the deficit is even worse, the GOP will clamor for big reductions in Social Security and Medicare and any other “entitlement” program that actually helps real people.
David Broder must be senile or perhaps he lives in an opaque soundproof bubble; Obama is no leftist, and never has been. Obama always rides the safe middle.
Make sure that ALL tax cut extensions expire. That will assure that the Republicans revisit the tax issue to possibly come up with a permanent tax plan next session.
Do not keep the tax cuts as the present proposal requires and hope that the Republicans get around to revising the plan at a later date. There is no leverage.
If the tax cuts expire for the wealthy, they will darn sure revisit the issue ASAP.
This man has no relevance in today’s world. It certainly doesn’t make me dislike this President for trying to do the right thing for millions of people who depend on those unemployment benefits to survive. He begged the dems to vote on this before the election but they wouldn’t. I don’t blame the president, I blame the spineless democrats.
Mr. Broder, You are so full of it.
Obama is not a liberal. He is not a very good politician and a disgrace.
And for that matter you also disgrace the term liberal.
No need to explain.
Martin Lepkowski
The “rest of us getting tough love in the FORSEEABLE future” might be true if Obama’s deal didn’t include the “temporary payroll tax holiday” that reduces funding for Social Security.
Republican Senators Corker (TN) and Johanns (NE) told reporter Ryan Grim that whenever the Democrats attempt to end the “tax holiday” the GOP will scream TAX HIKE and the Democrats will make the “holiday” / Social Security funding cuts permanent. The GOP will then claim Social security is underfunded and sign its death certificate.
The “temporary payroll tax holiday” is Obama and the GOP’s plan B for starting the unraveling of Social Security now that Obama’s catfood commission’s efforts to gut Social Security have been stalled.
The “temporary payroll tax holiday” will result in VERY tough love way beyond the FORSEEABLE future for most Americans.
Mr. Broder,
Obama is no liberal. he is not a very good politician and a disgrace. He is a one term president.
And for that matter you are also a disgrace for supporting the tax cuts for the rich, no matter how you phrase it.
Martin Lepkowski
wakefield , RI
What do you mean by “… Broder was one of the few people (not counting Republicans)…”??
David Broder IS a Republican, and shows it in every column.
One of the problems as that over the years the Center is now the Right wing so Obama is riding in the perceived Center that is really over there aiding and abetting the Reich wing. He only fights when the Left gets angry for his helping the right and Reich as he has. With the added costs the reasons for the dreams of the crypto-fascists is to finally kill all aspects and additions to the New Deal. They have already helped to kill the Middle Class which has been shrinking since 1980, wages frozen since 1970 and the deregulation of the banks have all played their part i the restructuring of our gov’t and society and economy. Obama didn’t even get the unemployed payments to last for 24 months instead only 13. That is just for the present 2 million recently made unemployed. Not the other 19 million been unemployed and under employed for 4 years or more that is a depression.
Obama is no Centrist (in a real sense) nor Liberal or Progressive but a Regressive in lamb’s clothing.
Mr Obama and Broder need to get a room together.
I think Obama has continued to keep the tap on and the money flowing,so he has accomplished more than most dems would grant him ,and he has snookered the Rs more than they would like to admit.That said…when i hear him admitting that this supply side economics will great millions of jobs and help rebound the economy I feel like im living in the twilight zone.He reminds me of a lawyer speaking for any side that pays him(oops he is).This is all political chess games.But how do we help the economy?This anger at the rich in England and here is a diversion for the masses.Stupid class warfare.You could take all their money…chop off their heads..feel good for a day or two then what?
All we have to do is hold the Blue Dogs and DLC in the Democratic party up to the flames of our wrath until we can get someone else in office who actually cares about our Democracy. Russ Feingold is a good place to start. When asked in polls questions like: Do you think everybody in the US should have sufficient food, housing and health care regardless of their position in life or ability to pay? Do you think the President should have the right to demand the killing of anyone he chooses without due process of law? … and other such outright non-spin questions, 78-80% of respondents answer YES to the first question and NO to the second! This is not rocket science. That such large majorities can agree on such simple questions is very telling. Also, huge swaths of communities in this country have a hard time voting. They can’t get time off work because they work far from home, because they have two or three jobs, because they have to pick up their children from day care. I mean the reasons that poor people don’t vote is long and getting longer with our economy the way it is. AND HOW COME NATIONAL ELECTION DAY IS NOT A HOLIDAY? What about all of the people kicked out of their homes, most ILLEGALLY, how easy is it for them to vote? The barriers to voting are more extreme in this country than any other industrialized country in the world. Then there is the fact that VERY FEW states have fixed their voting systems and MILLIONS are disenfranchised every election because of votes stolen by COMPUTERS, which have no business being used for voting. Just ask me. I work in computer security and election defense. When you look closely at things like this you realize that the largest majority of citizens in this country are NOT FOLLOWING THE REPUBLICAN SPIN! It is just that you would never know it from our National News Media!
David Broder: DBSB: DAVID BRODER is a STUPID BUM!
! Neither working people nor liberals actually exist in Broderworld!
As Jim Hightower said in his book: “The Only Thing Found in the Middle of the Road is Double Yellow Lines and Dead Armadillos.”
It made me very proud to watch Bernie Saunders filibustering, and calling it like it really is. Obama’s cave is as big as Carlsbad Caverns. Bernie for president in 2012!
“T’was the night be4 Crapmas…”
In 2000, George W. Bush loses the Presidency by half a million votes only to win by one vote in the US Supreme Court. Still, the man goes on to rule as if he won by a 49-state landslide.
Of course, he did win 100% of the black vote in SCOTUS. Yeah…like THAT was the difference between Bush the campaigner and the Bush the Chief Executive! Or — for that matter — Bush the presidential candidate and Bush the executioner.
Barack Obama wins the Presidency with a solid majority in the Electoral College, 91% of the black vote around the country, solid majorities in both Houses of Congress, along with the predictions and hope by many of a major sea change from government by regressive taxation.
Instead we get the Shah of Iran.
By the way, anybody notice the NYT and WaPo “treason” charges by right-wingers and Teabags — over WiKiLeaks releases — are meant to co-incide with the Obama-Congress tax giveaways? Strange indeed since neither the Times nor the Post think the leaks are worth the steam off their….
Bill Clinton’s support of the “new stimulus package” got my attention. Extention of unemployment benefits for a few months contrasted with two years of huge tax breaks for 2% and small tax breaks for the other 98% makes me wonder what “bi-partisan” means. And then again, there is the matter of the estate tax break for those that have “estates”. How does retaining the Bush “tax givaway” guarantee the absense of a double-dip recession? Why delay paying off government debt? – unless the idea is futile.
Let the Bush “tax givaway” expire. Perhaps that would bring more effort toward reforming the tax code. More would be gained by eliminating special interest tax breaks and tax loop-holes. Tax individual tax-payers at a uniform rate. Corporate persons pay no less. There wouldn’t be a problem funding social security if every individual paid their fair share of tax.
nicklock: “I say this because if you REALLY want to cut the deficit, you’d raise taxes across the board, and NOBODY’s going to want that!!!”
classicliberal2: “Offered a series of options, 27% of respondents said ALL of the tax cuts should be allowed to expire”
I would say almost a third of the population is willing to raise taxes on everyone versus the 19% who favor the position the Republicans are shutting the Senate down over.
I’m not applauding Obama because this deal put him in the political middle and “trounced his left-wing base,” but because it is a great deal for Democrats and because it is the product of brilliant negotiation (as usual by Obama), despite what my many near-sighted, blinded-by-pride Democrat friends claim. Obama’s getting this bill had nothing to do with his deliberate trouncing of the left wing, it was all about getting the best he could for the middle class — and by god, he got better than best — primarily a huge stimulus to the economy and old left-wing me the opportunity to pay my mortgage and dead-of-winter heat bill, and feed my family on January 1. Yes, it’s terrible the rich get to get richer for a couple of more years, but this is a stimulus we couldn’t have gotten otherwise, and a hugh one at that, and the rich are not going to get to sit in the cat-bird seat for much longer, because when this comes up again in 2012, it will enable liberals to knock the Republicans out of the park for maybe a few decades. This so-called Republican “win” will be short-lived, as it has increased the hatred for them a few [lot] fold, and no one will vote for the rich and their prostitutes, the Republicans, when Obama offers us a permanent blow to them next time around. The outcry of the Dems in the House is all about their wounded pride. Obama is a grown-up and doesn’t worry about his pride, he just gets on with his work — that’s why they don’t get it. He’s a brilliant strategist with more heart and wisdom and intelligence than any of us. And, again, wow, what a talented negotiator. And why do the Dems and my left-wing press keep trying to get Republicans elected? Can’t we do our arguing behind closed doors like the enemy does? Strategists, Democrats aren’t. Carl Rove is laughing his head off about now.
“Obama has begun to regain focus as the pragmatic liberal that he is.” This is where the error begins.
Obama is no liberal. He self-defines himself as a “New Democrat”. Otherwise related to “Blue Dog”, “neo-liberal”, “conserva-dem”.
Therein lies the problem. We didn’t know it, but we elected a closet Republican who now works on their behalf, not ours.
Like every other tea bagger issue, these mighty patriots care not one whit for the actual issues they raise. Even as the President is with them at every turn they snarl, and those of us who actually pulled that lever for the man are left in the dust. I’m flabbergasted, where is the hue and cry about the deficit now? I agree with most posts here that it will raise its ugly head on the backs of SS and Medicare and Obama will rationalize the further destruction of the working class with soft spoken eloquence – God help us.
I thought from the beginning that he was no liberal. I told my Republican friend to wait and see, and that he would soon like Obama. It took two years for the Republicans to like him, but they will get rid of him anyway because he is half black. To think that the poor can only get the crumbs from the table if they put more filet mignon and lobster on the table for the rich is enough to drive a liberal to insanity.
Here’s how much President Obama believes in so-called “supply side” aka trickle down economics [the trickle being the rich pissing on the poor]
Steve Inskeep NPR: Let me ask you about something that we heard from one of our listeners. â┚¬Ã‚¦ The question that we got was: â┚¬Ã…“Please ask him how keeping the tax rate for the richest the same as it has been for a decade creates one single job.â┚¬Ã‚Â
President Obama: It doesn’t, which is why I was opposed to it â┚¬” and I’m still opposed to it.
Ta-Nehisi Coates at The Atlantic recent wrote: “Obama’s politics remind me of Lincoln Chafee’s, and I think, were they not extinct as a political force, Obama could well be a liberal Republican. But most of those people are now Democrats. “
3 (including Broder, Dave; and Willy) Against 300 Million; the Victory goes to the Three STOOGES! MANIFEST INSANITY!! And a DEM-crappy New Years!!!
My mother called it the horsefig political position.
You always found horsefigs in the middle of the road.
So many pundits try to define Obama’s political “place.” Mr. Obama has no political place or stance. To have stance you need a spine.
You’re kidding, right FM? Your not kidding, I know, Helen Bedd. For a sober and accurate review of our new Republican President’s treachery and ignorance, see Michael Hudson in CounterPunch: http://www.counterpunch.org/hudson12082010.html When sick, old right-wing, power-worshipping bastards like Broder are crowing about Obama’s genius, you know he’s gone around the bend, and it’s like reaching the fifth stage of political and social death for the majority of us: Acceptance, with Outrage attached. See also Thomas Frank’s column in the new Harper’s (“The Fatal Center’) for a keen and accurate look at what’s in store for us, and how badly the neo-liberal Dems mis-judged events of the last thirty years or so.
Tim I enjoyed the article listed.It pointed to the exact flaws i screamed about going into the last election.That aside…. it doesn’t take into account a presidents learning curve.It never seems to occur to anyone that once Obama sat down with the top economists(not necessarily top idealogs)That he was taken to the wood shed on his beliefs.As a conservative i am convinced that he had to get the information at some point that his belief system going in was unworkable and in fact disastrous.Now he could of stuck to his natural inclination of the liberal ideology come hell or high water to create a new world even though he may of been forced to tear down the old.The rug was pulled out of that by groups like the tea party.He chose pragmatism for a chance to stay alive.
@TimN…yes, being serious…just trying to add to the discussion…and you’re right about Broder….
I’ll note we’re now in crazy world where BoBo Brooks thinks the deal’s great and Kraut the Hammer writes how the gop got fleeced, while Steve Benen notes [ala FM] that Obama got a lot of concessions considering how little leverage he had post-election…
As usual with fair threads, I’ll note all the legitimate critcism about the President is coming from the left.
Why should the Congress give MORE $Billions to the rich?
A recent study by Wolf,E.N. (2010) The Levy Economics Institutes,shows the top 20% of Income Earners got 61.4% of the income in 2006 compared to 51.9% in 1982. That is a 20% increase in income while the bottom 80% decreased approximately 20% in the same years to 38.6% of the total.
As the head of GE (Imelt)* once said we can build a refrigerator in China and ship it here for less than we can build it here. But he obviously never heard of Henry Ford saying “if I don’t double the assembly line workers wages nobody can afford to buy my cars”
With the jobs in China and the Credit cards maxed out nobody’s going to buy anything and a Democratic President wants to give unfunded Billions more to the Rich. (Whatever happened to the Republicans’ granchildren?)
Welcome to the Top Banana Republic where the new multi-millionaire Florida Governor hands every kid a voucher and says find your own school and his unemployed father waits 8 weeks to get his check of $300 max and the head of Chase/Morgan Bank gets $137,000.*
*Bernie Sanders U.S.Senate floor
Jim did you ever get a math problem wrong because the information you started with was faulty?You started by saying “Why should the congress give more Billions to the rich”.And you in point of fact ended with that.Let me correct the premise.Congress has given nothing.Not one red cent.It has simply not TAKEN as much from those dirty- filthy-lice ridden vermin who have done the unthinkable and accomplished the American dream.You may believe that it is the job of people who have succeeded to subsidize those who have failed.You are wrong.That is a self defeating prophecy.A circle of poverty.
The rich have gone up 20 % because even under Obama they are still able to move to avoid punitive measures.Though it kills their inflow of cash into the system it does not stop the safeguarding of their money.It in fact would necessarily intensify.The people below cannot escape the trickle down pain.Remember corporations never pay a cent of a tax.They simply pass it on to the consumer whose lifestyle declines. Only one way out.Recreate wealth ,that recreates jobs,that pays the bills. This idea of attacking wealth ,that removes jobs, that pays the bills with printed money has failed.
To michael e.:
You sound like a very wealthy person, someone for whom this “taxes of those in the top 2%” is an issue of real consequence in your life. The problem is that I suspect deeply that it isn’t. You are not one of them, although you believe that by repeating their mantras you may become one of them someday. Perhaps you will. Still, pyramids have very pointy tops and it’s difficult for more than a few people to stand there. Speaking as a statistician, I can tell you the chances of you standing there one day are extremely small. Not impossible, just doubtful. Meanwhile, I am sure that those who are currently standing at the top appreciate your support.
John it would not matter if I were in the lowest 2%.Right is right.We are not in this to git what we can git- even if we have to take it from those who have more.There is a word for that.It is called theft.Envy…jealousy.Not words that I really feel.Maybe Im lucky that way.I grew up in a warm loving family.Average family most would think..My guess is that if Bill Gates has children that enjoyed life as much as I did growing up that they are lucky indeed.I have no real want to be in that 2%.And I am angered just like you when I watch some show on Hollywood or the such- and I see those pinheads spending truckloads of money on nonsense.It insults my sensibilities.But we do not elect a government to shake the spare change out of these dumb as dirt people to redistribute it to those we deem more worthy.Stealing with good or bad intention is still theft. There should not be a mechanism in our government for enforcing a leveling of the field in the aftermath of great success.WE are born equal- but 2 seconds later we are not.Thats just life.I am not a person that wants everyone to be out there on their own.Sink or swim.Removed from the help that society and congregation can offer.I simply see the creation of a nanny state as being a primary factor in removing the fiber that gives society the ability to help those that need it.It is why I always say..The road to hell is paved with liberal good intentions.And yes I do believe most of those in these blogs have good intentions.JUst misplaced.
It was just on the news that due to the so called “Bush tax structure”being extended top economists say the economy can expect a 3% growth this year.Are they right?Hope so.WE need to make money to help people.WE cant just keep printing it.
micheal e.
What about the redistribution of wealth upwards, like the last thirty years? Your whole framing of the argument, railing against the “nanny state,” is an elitist fiction. You didn’t come up with it. You read it in the Weekly Standard or heard it on Fox News. You’re just repeating the mantras. If you thought for yourself then your righteous indignation would make more of an impression. As it is, it doesn’t.
BTW. All off the economists I’ve read have said that extending the Bush era tax cuts on the wealthy is not stimulative, nor is the break on the estate tax. The only things that are stimulative in the Obama/McConnell framework are things like the extension of an earned income tax credit, the extension of unemployment benefits, payroll tax reduction, etc. When you say, “it was just on the news…”, was that news “fair and balanced”? Because claiming that the “Bush tax structure” extension is stimulative sounds like another elitist distortion.
John we don’t really believe unemployment benefits are a stimulus to the economy do we?At the most it is treading water.And I agree with you in a sense that not any one thing- will stimulate the economy.Or may be down the list on important things to do.But taken as a total it is all important.TO recover we must make this country…your state….your city…your town thee most hospitable place to run a business big or small.WE must remove all obstacles possible toward that end.REmove all obstacles to ultimate achievement.Obama like to say when is enough enough.Would 1 million have been enough for BIll Gates?Steve JObs?Henry Ford?George Sorros?If it was…we would of lost their massive input .Someday I want to see this country has the lowest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world instead of among the highest.Then in the natural course wealth will be realized and yes the schisim between the haves and have nots will become obvious.Obama lives in the White house, his brother lives in a hut and his aunt in a project.THe goal can not be to move OBAma out of the white house for the sake of his kin who have not accomplished as much.The goal is to keep open the ability of people like BArrack Obama to achieve his dreams out of the whole cloth he came from.HE made his millions under George Bushes administration.HE achieved. Curbing his achievements through any sort of government intervention to level the playing field is just not smart work.The people having the wealth redistributed upwards are earning it.IT is not being taken from the poor or the middle class and handed to them.I Always love the quotes of all the tax breaks they receive.JOhn they are not paying 2% of all taxes.THEy are paying the great majority already.At best you could say it(Money) is staying up thar in that rarified air because the government is allowing them to keep more of what is theirs already.LIfe is not fair.THE rich have more.The poor have less.Yup that is about how it works.IM not sure short of a socialist implementation of redistribution how that can ever change.
And as far as claiming the “Bush TAx structure extension would be stimulative”…I did not say that.BArrack Obama just told us all this past week that it would be.
michael e.
The profit motive and the public good have become conflated in your mind, I am sure much to the delight of those who would like to supplant the latter with the former. Giving priority to either profits or the public good can lead to different courses of action. Markets are good for many things. But to imply that they are therefore good for all things is to measure distance in liters, because there can be only one true way to measure things. I would say that your philosophy has a specious appeal, but that ultimately your ideas are vapid and silly, only it’s not your philosophy and their not your ideas. Good luck.
John you may say my ideas which I would enumerate as capitalist,Free market,constitutionalist,etc are vapid and silly.I would say what is it you believe in?What has proven a better system?
I do not see a profit motive as anything more that one aspect of ultimate freedom to realize your dreams without government oversight.Yet I see the public good better served by a system that has that benefit.
MICHAEL LINDEN, a Tax Policy Analyst at the Center for American Progress: “…for every dollar that you spend on unemployment insurance benefits, you get about $1.50 in wider economic growth.
Linden estimates a dollar spent on high end tax cuts returns only about 40 cents. Cutting payroll taxes falls somewhere in the middle, providing a smaller boost to the economy than unemployment benefits, but a bigger payoff than tax cuts for the rich.
Linden argues if the government used the $120 billion it plans to give to wealthy taxpayers and instead provided a bigger payroll tax, it could fuel half a million more jobs for the same price.
http://www.npr.org/2010/12/08/131913198/Obama-Looks-To-Sway-Skeptical-Democrats-On-Tax-Deal
In a interview with NPR, the President said that the Bush tax cuts for the top did not create a single job.
Sounds as if everyone was unemployed that we would be doing just fine according to those figures.:)
How does the government “fuel”even one job outside the government sector?Answer it does not.They cannot create jobs.Look at the trillions spent to CREATE supposed shovel ready jobs.What are we averaging now…a million per job or some such insane figure?And If Linden used the words “to give” in relation to money already theirs- we have a disconnect from the get go.He may of meant “to return”.
I believe the president may even believe that leaving more money in the hands of the business owners does not create jobs.HavIng never had a job ,let alone ran a business in the private sector I am never surprised by such left field statements by our president who has not a clue. Everyone who owns a business would like to expand.Having a better cash flow is the only way to do that (short of government bailouts)This is not even economics 101.As far as cuts in payroll tax….anything that helps put money back into the hands of people ,business,and away from government is going to be good moving forward.In the end government will be forced to tighten its belts for a change,for a time before the cash registers start ringing and they can renew their dreams of expansion.
For now I see congress has passed a bill loaded with pork.Just dont get it do they?
All sorts of business have plenty of money to expand, they just don’t have any customers. We are not dealing with a supply-side problem, it is a demand side problem.
And the Bush tax cuts didn’t spur investment or create jobs.
The evidence on the 2001-2007 expansion provides no support for the claim that the tax cuts generated especially robust economic growth. Rather, examination of a broad range of key economic indicators indicates that the economic expansion that began in 2001 was, on balance, weaker than average. In fact, with respect to GDP, consumption, investment, wage and salary, and employment growth, the 2001-2007 expansion was either the weakest or among the weakest since World War II.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=575
First I don’t really buy the idea that those at the top are hoarding and have plenty to spend.They are holding for dear life what they can in fear of what shoe will next drop due to governmental incompatance.Wise move.The economy is a balancing act between how much government can take before the “take” effects negatively growth.Your answer seems to be -it never does,and never will- even if they clean out the rich en total.As if it is a bottomless till.Helen We always come down to the same argument…Does the private sector spend its own money better than the government?Is that really even an argument?You talk about the Bush years yet you forget to leave out the massive governmental spending that was a drag on all that went on besides it on the credit side of low taxes.Under Obama the idea was to run with that faulty premise.WE could take 100% of all peoples worth and this government would spend it in a blink of an eye.We could cut taxes and explode the economy and the government would suck it dry like the leech it is.There lies your problem.Look at the Dem bill they are trying to shove through this lame duck session.Loaded with pork.LOaded with spending.Im at the point that I think the Rs should vote no across the board till the calvary comes with the new Congress.You just cant trust this bunch to turn down the spigot- let alone turn it off.
“First I don’t really buy the idea that those at the top are hoarding and have plenty to spend.”
Wall Street Journal 12/10/2010
Rather than pouring their money into building plants or hiring workers, nonfinancial companies in the U.S. were sitting on $1.93 trillion in cash and other liquid assets at the end of September, up from $1.8 trillion at the end of June, the Federal Reserve said Thursday. Cash accounted for 7.4% of the companies’ total assetsâ┚¬”Âthe largest share since 1959.
The cash buildup shows the deep caution many companies feel about investing in expansion while the economic recovery remains painfully slow and high unemployment and battered household finances continue to limit consumers’ ability to spend.
The buildup reflects the relatively few opportunities they see to deploy their cash more creatively.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703766704576009501161973480.html
PS
I’ve lost count of the times I”ve talked about Bush era spending that was put on the Chinese credit card.
PPS
“Your answer seems to be -it never does,and never will- even if they clean out the rich en total.As if it is a bottomless till.”
I’ve never said anything remotely resembling those remarks.
PPPS
“We could cut taxes and explode the economy. ”
I’m assuming you meant “improve, ” but there’s no evidence that’s ever happened. However, the Bush tax cuts did help blow up the economy.
—————–
Virtually every economics Ph.D. who has worked in a prominent role in the Bush Administration acknowledges that the tax cuts enacted during the past six years have not paid for themselves–and were never intended to. Harvard professor Greg Mankiw, chairman of Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers from 2003 to 2005, even devotes a section of his best-selling economics textbook to debunking the claim that tax cuts increase revenues.
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1692027,00.html#ixzz18KHEWdHg
Helen helen facts twisted and turned with no real baring on what has hurt us or benefited us.Not a thing written that does not have opposing viewpoints just as strong.Companies are scared because of obama!Simple no?Tax breaks help those who get them.Simple no?Helen you believe in what?What tax structure?i have never yet heard a lib mark a limit.I have listened to them dig up stats that says the amazing Regan years never happened just like the holocaust deniers.That the Carter nightmare years were great.That Clinton wasn’t the great benificiary of the R congress,and the Regan juggernaught.That the bush years(during which BAM made all his money )were a nightmare and that this nightmare is all somebody elses fault.By the way no economist as you say would ever say that.They were robust years though the progressive worm of fanny and freddy were ready to explode.See it comes down to that we have heard all this.And all you have written- and rejected it.America rejected it in november and will again in 2012.You will think in your beliefs that everybody else is wrong and just is not listening.
Michael e. GRRRRR, You are so full of s**T.
You talk about theft by the Government. What about the theft by the rich. For the tax cuts, to pay for them, which the whole population pays on, the rich get to keep free money they haven’t worked for.
Envy; I do not envy the rich, nor do I villify them, nor do I praise them either like you do. When you say they earned their money, whatever do you mean? Some may have, but you can’t say all did. Using Bill Gates as your example; he went to court, paid fines for his bad business practices; is known for shutting out competitors or buying them outright. He is rich and now through his power is trying to manipulate the educational system. You admire him so much? He has the market on operating systems, word processors, spreadsheets, databases for the majority of computers we use.
It is in the bronze age bible that many christians follow, that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle as it is for a rich man to get into heaven. JC hung around with poor people, not the rich. Greed, isn’t that one of the deadly sins? Corporations bottom line: make money no matter what. Rich people do not need a statue built for them. They, at least some of them exploited others less fortunate than themselves to get where they are, i.e., RICH. Yeah you git what you git.
The US tax rate is the one of the lowest in the world, corporate or income, either one. Don’t believe it? Google “lowest tax rates in the world.”
The so called investors, the rich you think are holding on for dear life are actually hoarding for dear life. Luxury spending is up, while unemployed have trouble buying enough food.
Your so called free market and the rich investors that you admire, crashed the system in 2008. And you want to claim just like Boehner and Cantor that businesses are uncertain what to do because of Obama’s spending, not knowing what the Wall St Reforms will mean, and TAX cuts for the wealthy. Well, tax cuts have little to do with hiring people, it is just accounting that you have to manage. Jobs happen when there is demand, not when there are just tax cuts. If the whole of society is not buying and the private sector is not generating any demand then government has to. There is no other sources for creating demand. When unemployed people get their money, they spend it generating economic activity.
I had, for a couple of years a computer repair business, but it failed because I could not get any funding large enough to satisfy my business plan, or maybe I was just not able to generate leads for the business; it was not from lack of trying, I worked 12-14 hours every day.
About private sector spending money better. GE was one of the companies that was bailed out, along with GM, Chrysler, and others. Aren’t they considered private sector?The government through its wise business decision to fund these companies, I’d say they succeeded where the private sector failed.
Bank of America, ExxonMobile paid no income tax and got millions in subsidies, even though they made record profits in the billions. And you want them to pay less???
As for childhood, I was for a bit, along with my sister, on welfare, or rather my Mother was. My Father, a no account drunk did very little for us. Welfare and food stamps helped for a bit, but was taken away for reasons unknown to me. So, what happened, was that my sister and I, we were placed in orphanages, plural, because there was 2 of them and we were there for about 14 years total. I have pursued the so called American dream ever since childhood, you know the whole nine yards work long hours, keep your eye on the prize and all that. But I saw many people less qualified than I get the promotions and the advantages in spite of my hard work. To some degree it is who you know and whose ass you kiss, and I was not one of those.
I am not bitter that I have not been more successful, nor do I expect sympathy for my early childhood deficits.
A somewhat conservative slant on things:
When I think of government, it is not what reagan claims when he says, “the worst thing you can hear is: ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’ Contrary to the conservative view, Government for the most part evens the playing field for many people. If as some right wing people say, such as Rick Perry, that many federal programs would be better left to the states, I think of desegregation in the South. It was federal troops that held the states in check to allow for it. Jim Crow laws would still be in effect if the states were in control. It was at the urging of the federal government that equalized things for black people in the South. I’m from South Carolina originally, and I remember the signs that read “whites only.” I never agreed with all that racist nonsense and have, during childhood into adulthood been assaulted physically for my beliefs. Government has a role to play, humans are not necessarily known for their altruism at every turn of history. Does the federal government work 100% efficiently in all cases, of course not, there is always room for improvement; don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. Social Security and Medicare take very little in overhead to manage the system, but privatize it and someone will have to skim off a profit to implement the program. For programs to work, they need to be funded.
There is a line in Chinatown where Jack Nicholson says to a rich developer, and I am paraphrasing, But why do you need more money?You can only spend so much, and you will still have millions. The rich man says, For the future, my boy, for the future.
The 2010 elections did not choose conservative over liberal views, America rejected a bad economy and the Democrats were in the line of fire. The Republicans were actually less popular than the Democrats and polls showed that progressive ideas won out over conservative ones for most people, except for the “old white guys.”
“I have listened to them [liberals] dig up stats that says the amazing Regan years never happened just like the holocaust deniers.That the Carter nightmare years were great.That Clinton wasn’t the great benificiary of the R congress,and the Regan juggernaught.
I’ll admit I don’t remember “the amazing Regan years.” Who’s Regan?
Seriously though, I’m calling bullsh*t on the suggestion that anyone ever said “That the Carter nightmare years were great.” Cite examples by name.
As for Clinton and the “Regan Juggernaught,” did you forget there were four years between those two? The recession? The paygo rules? The tax increases?
Sheese, I knew conservatives liked to rewrite history, but that’s really silly…
As for the wonderful Bush years:
Under Bush the median income declined 4.2 per cent.
Under Bush the total number of Americans in poverty increased 26.1 per cent.
Under Bush the number of children in poverty increased by 21.4 per cent.
Under Bush the number of Americans without health insurance increased by 20.6 per cent.
As for the total failure of the Bush tax cuts to create growth click here:
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Issues/Taxes/2010/09/17/Bush-Tax-Cuts-No-Economic-Help.aspx
Read it and weep.
Raymond Says: “Michael e. GRRRRR, You are so full of s**T.”
While I usually refrain from language like that here at FAIR, i’ll admit it would look lovely embroidered on a pillow.