Who Said This?
Time for a pop quiz. Who said the following:
We’ve either got to fish or cut bait. Either we get some changes out of the administration or we have to go in a different direction.
I would think the… cause… would be better served if the president doesn’t run for re-election
[He] has surrounded himself with too many pragmatists who believe in government by negotiation rather than by leadership. To get any lasting changes, the president must be more forceful in asserting his views and his policies. I would like to see it change, but the whirlpool of pragmatism is very strong.
With his base deeply disillusioned, many… are starting to believe that… has little chance of winning reelection unless he enthusiastically embraces a… agenda and worldview – soon.
Who was the recipient of this tirade?
…confronted him, saying here is one of the countless poor people who looked to you for leadership—you were their last hope. Now they feel utterly disillusioned and abandoned. Can you look into this face and name one thing you have done to help? Or one principle you won’t compromise? One cause you will uphold? One believe you would die for?
The answers are in the links.
Tags: pragmatism, President Obama
Great argument that Obama is as bad as his predecessors.
Reagan damn near beat the incumbent Ford in 1976 by running as a purist. Reagan lost but set up his 1980 win. The primary can’t be said to have weakened Ford, because Ford was already screwed. Obama is screwed in a similar way:
Perception of illegitimacy – check.
Check.
Failure to prosecute BushCo or Wall Streeters – check.
Enthusiasm gap in base, independents leaning away from incumbent – check.
Date certain for Afghanistan withdrawal – check.
Plenty of time for Obama challengers to weigh their options – check.
False confidence, living in bubble – Check.
VRWC, and new secret corporate funding – check.
Obama is chasing voters that will never vote for him anyway.I don get that strategy. The Broder-esque holy “middle” of American politics does not care about policy. They care about personalities. Right now Obama is losing on all fronts.
Any time I agree with Hannity something has gone terribly wrong:
Nice quote cropping. The next line goes onto call Obama a rigid leftist who failed bcause his rigid socialistic overreaching.
Well, I just took the quote from dKos without reading the whole thing. There is only so much Hannity I can take.
Nobody ever accused Hannity of being logical. It just shows you that the right will now attack Obama for being a socialist AND a hypocrite.
During and right after the election, Repubs were attacking Obama for being weak and being a hypocrite. It wasn’t true at the time, but Obama has now grown into it.
If you are talking about independent voters, you’d be quite wrong. Obama’s long term problem is losing independent voters. And the compromise tax deal was focus grouped in a couple of swing districts in PA on Monday, and among the “middle” the compromise was a hit. And much like Clinton did — Obama seems ready to piss off both parties in order to look like the reasonable guy in the room. And he doesn’t have any better hand to play here, really.
But lest you fall too far into the usual left delusions, John Cole at Balloon Juice has found an illuminating bit from The Clinton Tapes book. It won’t stop the wailing and rending of shirts here (and in other places), but there are genuine lessons for us here that I’m expecting that no one will pay attention to.
among the “middle” the compromise was a hit.
The right will win them back by slamming the deficit 24×7, and by flogging the upcoming expiration as an Obama “tax increase.” And you know what? They will be 100% correct.
In 2010 the tax increase was on Bush. But in 2012 it will be on us.
Not to mention, if this deal passes, the catfood commission recommendations get a turbo-boost.
I feel like I am walking all the streets with a lamp looking for a Democrat who won’t vote for tax cuts for the rich.
When do I get to say my party has left me?
Primary challenges:
1976 – Reagan vs. Ford. Winner: Ford. Winner of 1976 election: Carter
1980 – Kennedy vs. Carter. Winner: Carter. Winner of 1980 election: Reagan
1992 – Buchanan vs. GHW Bush. Winner: Bush. Winner of 1992 election: Clinton
Perhaps you can argue – cause or symptom?
I agree with Cass, I think he was trying to get the best deal from the hand he was dealt. I sure wish people had been showing this passion back in September when Congressional Democrats punted on this issue.
And why did they punt on this issue? Because too many Dems would not support expiring these tax cuts for those making over $250K. And if you were counting votes over the weekend, there are enough of them who still don’t that the bills designed to make them expire did not pass.
Obama is always and everywhere hobbled by the fact that his own caucus does not predictably hold together. And there aren’t any outside forces (read:progressives) capable or motivated enough to deliver enough pain to those who don’t stick together.
Ford, Carter, GWHB were already doomed.
Reagan would have been the stronger Repub candidate in 1976 and would have beaten Carter.
Kennedy would have been the stronger Dem candidate in 80 and would have made it close.
Buchanan is a wackadoodle who did not weaken GHWB. Bush lost because of an enthusiasm gap in his base caused by his own policies (“check”). Remember George Will calling Bush a lapdog?
Plus, Clinton ran a helluva campaign, and still only won because of Perot.
Anybody remember what Perot’s main issue was?
Because too many Dems would not support expiring these tax cuts for those making over $250K.
And why did those Dems feel free to withhold their support? Because Obama assured them they would have a second chance to vote for a tax bill that would include tax cuts for the rich. Without that assurance, the vote on the middle class tax cuts would suddenly have become meaningful. If they thought it was their last chance, Republicans and conservadems would have been split in two with sweat pouring off their brows.
Would the Senate filibuster have held if Obama had given an address Friday night promising there would be no further tax bills? No it would not. Instead he was on the plane to effing Afghanistan.
Because Obama assured them they would have a second chance to vote for a tax bill that would include tax cuts for the rich.
NO.
This failed — even with the upper limits — because there are a good handful of Democrats who don’t need anything from Obama and are free to be independent from him. Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, Joe Lieberman, et al occupy their offices largely independent from *anything* that the President does and have no need to be part of any discipline.
I wish I could be as sure as you, anon. (And I’m not being snarky.)
Every time conservadems withhold their support all I can think is: This is the 50 state strategy’s fatal flaw.
If Obama had assured them that the House bill was their only chance, both R and D supporters of the upper income tax cuts would have faced the prospect of voting against middle class tax cuts. I am sure 7 Senators would have cracked under that pressure to break the filibuster, whether R or D.
And if they didn’t – we still win – because the tax cuts for the rich would be dead.
What Senator would go home at Christmas having voted against middle class tax cuts? I mean apart from the DeMint loonies.
Now the tax cuts for the rich belong to us. We can no longer talk about the “Bush tax cuts.”
In anon’s scenario, the Blue Dogs & ConservaDems really rolled the progressives by making sure the tax vote didn’t come until the lame duck session. Instead Obama had to wait until his hand was much weaker with a big election loss.
You may be sure, but that would make you a very bad reader of your opposition. Which includes most of those 7 Senators. I’d be willing to bet a very great deal of money that neither Lieberman or Nelson would have voted to break the filibuster. If there was any possibility that those votes could have been gotten the work would have been done to get them. But this is a big part of why these votes never came up before the elections too. Those votes simply were not there before the election and they were not there afterwards.
Cassandra’s right – the tax cut fight was lost when Dems punted the vote in September. The reason they punted the vote is because they didn’t have the votes.
You may be sure, but that would make you a very bad reader of your opposition.
In my “last chance” scenario, I can afford to be wrong. Either way is a win. Passing the middle class tax cuts is preferable, but Plan B is “Full expiration plus fix-it-later.” Paradoxically, that level of commitment is exactly what would put the pressure on to break the filibuster. It doesn’t work if you signal capitulation.
I believe that is the same logic you guys gave for supporting HCR even after it was
guttedsubverted.Your scenario is an just an alternative narrative — it has nothing to do with counting votes. Ben Nelson voted against extending UI benefits at least once this year. If he can do this once, he won’t have any issues doing this just before Christmas.
And the same logic for HCR involved counting votes — not getting investing in some fantasy alternative realities. The numbers are the thing.
What? Every failure is now an “alternative fantasy reality?”
Failure to pursue the better realities is what makes Obama weak, and confirms he is working against Democrats.
Instead of putting Repubs on the spot, Obama is now giving Dems the “last chance” choice of voting on tax cuts for the rich. Obama chose the wrong door.
The Repub vote will be whip-managed to make sure the minimum number of Repubs vote Yea to assure passage. The rest of them will go home and attack the deal from now until 2012.
The numbers are the thing.
The numbers right now are against the deal. By your argument, we should give up now and go home, because whip counts are immutable things.
But now watch Obama get to work to change the numbers. Unfortunately he is working for the wrong side. If he applied the same effort to the House bill it would be law today.
Oh and by the way, when Obama says he couldn’t get Republicans to budge – I don’t believe him.
Your alternative woulda and couldas are the alternative fantasy reality and not one of them relies on counting votes.
There were no scenarios where there were enough votes for this especially in the Senate. If there were, they would have taken those votes before the election.
Your argument:
You to child: “Go do your homework.”
Child: “No” (keeps watching TV)
You: (shrugs) “What can I do? He won’t do his homework.”
I wouldn’t count on the numbers being against the deal. I hear alot of voices against it, but I wouldn’t bet that enough Democrats will just walk away wholesale against this thing.
And whip counts are immutable to those who can’t count. There is nothing reality-based about pretending votes are magic beans and that 53 of them can be 60 by wishing hard enough.
You to child: “Go do your homework.”
And here is your problem right here. If your operating metaphor for getting the US Senate to get to 60 votes relies on them being children (with Obama being the Dad? jeez), NO WONDER you can’t grasp how this works.
I wouldn’t count on the numbers being against the deal. I hear alot of voices against it, but I wouldn’t bet that enough Democrats will just walk away wholesale against this thing.
But vote counts are immutable, right?
Watch Obama and Biden get to work. The fighting spirit suddenly emerges – on the wrong side.
I’m buying the argument that this cut in SS taxes is a Trojan horse. It puts the system on shakier financial footing (do you really think the GOP will allow the rate to increase again on its watch?), which Republicans will then use as ammunition to demand privatization.
Dad=Leader is not an unreasonable analogy. If you can’t broaden your scope to understand it, and insist on focusing on the extraneous connotations, too bad for your analytical skills.
And besides, maybe the parent in my analogy is a Mom. 🙂
I’m buying the argument that this cut in SS taxes is a Trojan horse.
I don’t buy it. For one, the SS tax holiday is not being taken out of the trust. Will Republicans try to gut SS, yeah maybe. We’ll see. Also, last night on Twitter several people were pulling up dkos articles from 2008 & 2009 calling for this very thing.
12/9
Pay attention, fool. Vote counts are only immutable to those who can’t count.
Children=Congress is the stupid analogy. But way to get your David Anderson on by moving the goalposts. So much for analytical (much less metaphorical) skills.
Dad=Leader is not an unreasonable analogy.
I don’t get this either. The same people who got mad and said stop telling us to clap harder are now saying we have to obey the leader.
The Payroll tax cut gives those paying it money back, but the deal intends for the General Fund to keep making the payments into the system. There would have to be another Congressional vote to maintain the cut (rather than let it expire) and Congress would have to choose to not pay for this tax cut at that point. Which isn’t to say that the repubs won’t try to use this payroll tax holiday as a launching point for something else they want to destroy — but I’d bet that they’ll use this to try to make the case for a payroll tax holiday or cut for employers — pretending that this will somehow create jobs where demand doesn’t.
“several people were pulling up dkos articles from 2008 & 2009 calling for this very thing.”
That makes it OK? I’m not saying this isn’t a nice gift. But it would be nicer if it were accompanied by lifting the income ceiling. Otherwise, this is a “concession” by the GOP that actually does them a favor.
I’m with you Geezer–lift the income ceiling. Who are we kidding? Americans have forgotten (or of late, never been taught), how to save–and what the heck, it’s only meant to come back to them or theirs in future payouts.
So on 12/7 there was triple-digit opposition. And on 12/9 the votes still aren’t there but a grudging fatalism is developing.
My, Obama and Biden have certainly been busy the last two days lobbying for tax cuts for the rich. Too bad they didn’t put the same effort into breaking the filibuster.
What if he told all those grudging acceptors that they would have another chance to vote for a bill they liked better? Oh wait – Obama only makes that soft bed for Republicans, not Democrats.
No, only now does Obama say “This is your last best offer.” Except unfortunately he is saying it to Democrats, not Republicans.
Democrats get hard choices, and Republicans get capitulation. WTF, Mr. President???
The same people who got mad and said stop telling us to clap harder are now saying we have to obey the leader.
You don’t have to “obey” the leader. You just need to act in your own interests and respond to the situation he presents you. Unfortunately Obama is not setting up their choices to lead them to the right conclusion.
Jesus, what a crock.
On Saturday there were two votes on tax packages congenial to progressives: the “middle class” package lost 53-36 (Webb, Nelson, Manchin, Feingold, Lieberman voting with repubs); the higher limit plan lost 53-37 with a different mix of Dems voting with repubs. These were the bills we wanted (at least the first one was) and it failed. And really, the canary in the coal mine here is Feingold. If you could have gotten past his objections you might have been able to get the rest to go along. This wasn’t going to happen. The people who voted against weren’t ever available to being “led to the right conclusions”.
If there are some of us who don’t get how the Senate works, there also some that don’t understand how the Presidency works.
Nelson is going to follow Feingold’s lead?
*guffaw*
Those two votes were held at the very moment Obama was not only failing to fight the filibuster, but was negotiating behind Pelosi’s back to undercut “the bills we wanted,” and signaling to the filibuster crew that they would get a better deal next week.
A “last best offer” promise from Obama would have bought at least seven votes.
How many times does Obama have to call you a retard before you stop making excuses for him?
I think Obama should fly to Afghanistan or somewhere and let Nancy take care of business for the rest of the year.
I think this in-fighting isn’t helpful or productive. I also think a little less drama would be beneficial.
Nice rationalization, but it doesn’t wash.
These were the *right* bills and they couldn’t make it. There were NO scenarios where the bills would get better than those. So if the ones that were just right couldn’t make it, the only way to get the filibuster crew on board would be to make the deal worse. Just wrap your mind around the fact that Senate Democrats were their own worst enemy here — and they weren’t better before the election, either.
And those who don’t get how the Senate works shouldn’t pretend to know how the Presidency works, either. Because they’ve failed to deal with the fact that the Constitution never preserved King George’s powers for the President of the US.
There were NO scenarios where the bills would get better than those.
That is what I am hoping for.
the only way to get the filibuster crew on board would be to make the deal worse.
No, the other way is to give them no alternative.
the Constitution never preserved King George’s powers for the President of the US.
Tell it to the teabaggers.
The power to table bills, or not introduce them, or veto them, is clearly in the Constitution. Obama just needs to pick up the tools and use them. Pelosi clearly has the appetite to fight; Obama needs to lead, follow, or get out of the way.
Cassandra, I think we can agree that one of us is in deep denial. I hope it is me.
The teabaggers/Republicans are 100% willing to burn down the entire country. I guess the question is… are we?
Because that’s the option on the table, and I’m not very comfortable with it. Sure, a part of me says eff it, but I’m not on the front lines. If the goal is beating Republicans (and conservadems) at their own game then we’ll have to play that game.
I think this in-fighting isn’t helpful or productive. I also think a little less drama would be beneficial.
Agreed. Democrats should shut their mouths, fold their arms, and watch Republicans break out in a cold sweat. Let them come to us with offers of what they will give up if we pass their damn tax cuts.
See comment above your’s for my response. Hey, I’m psychic! 😉
I guess the question is… are we?
Back that up. What evidence do you have that full expiration will “burn down the country?”
Whereas the Social Security funding cuts in “The Deal” will definitely light the match.
Whatever trouble awaits in 2011 will be impossible to overcome without that revenue from the wealthy. Where is your “We’ll fix it later” spirit?
Instead of tax cuts + UI, we should be making the rich pay for all the people they threw out of work.
Back that up. What evidence do you have that full expiration will “burn down the country?”
Sorry, I wasn’t specifically referencing the tax cuts. I was referencing the Republican game plan in general. This is the way they fight – all or nothing. So my question stands. Are we willing to play this game?
You know what? The most corrosive thing of all is the extension of the 15% capital gains and dividend tax. If those expire to 20%/39%, companies will immediately begin investing and hiring to hide their booming profits from the tax man. There’s your certainty right there.
But if they stay at 15%, the jobless recovery continues while the rich get richer.
In my fantasy world Cassandra’s quote looks like this:
Sending everyone home to their districts without any form of tax cuts (and no sign of compromise on the horizon) would have made for a lot of coal in uncooperative Senators’ stockings.
I would personally have left piles of coal at local Senator’s homes. I may do it at Carper’s just because…
I’m on record for wanting all of the Bush-era tax cuts to expire, however, this:
Sending everyone home to their districts without any form of tax cuts (and no sign of compromise on the horizon) would have made for a lot of coal in uncooperative Senators’ stockings.
Means that ALOT of Americans would be paying more in taxes at a time when people are working on reducing debt (if they have a job) and aren’t creating the kind of demand that would regenerate the economy. So you are taking money out of the hands of people who need it most. So remember that while tax rates might go up, the child tax credit gets reduced again, the marriage penalty gets reinstated, the EIT gets reduced, dependent care tax credits go away and others that will increase the tax bill specifically on the people this economy needs to be spending money. And who knows how many of these people are looking at increased tax burdens from their states or municipalities. The is the ONLY reason why I’m sympathetic to keeping the tax breaks in place for people making $250K or less NOW.
And I’ll ask you to look at that list of the uncooperative again. Nelson is ALREADY on record for voting against UI benefits. Why would he have any issues with not voting for limiting the tax cuts?
Not only Democrats would return home to those piles of coal. You think Scott Brown would want to go home to Massachusetts standing up for the wealthy? The Maine ladies? F* Nelson and Lieberman.
All of the middle-class cuts could be made retroactive in January. But I doubt it would even get there. I bet Scott Brown and a few others would be sneaking up the back stairs to talk to Harry Reid in the dark of night to see what they can do to make this happen.
Means that ALOT of Americans would be paying more in taxes…
This is hardly a doomsday scenario. That is a Republican frame.
As wingnuts keep reminding us, 40% do not pay Federal taxes.
For some of those who do, each week there would be a small extra bite taken out of withholding. The pressure to do a deal would be unbearable. And because tax bills must originate in the House, the pressure would be on the House.
The President would have to make it clear he wants a clean middle class tax cut and will not accept further tax cuts on the rich. Republicans will be forced to explain why they are holding out for tax cuts for the rich. The clock will keep ticking each month. There are many Republicans and only one President. Eventually enough Republicans will crack.
If Obama cracks first, we are no worse off than we are today.
And if a deal is reached by April 15, all that extra withholding comes back to the taxpayer.
Not only Democrats would return home to those piles of coal. You think Scott Brown would want to go home to Massachusetts standing up for the wealthy? The Maine ladies?
Even the reddest Senators would have a hard time explaining why they voted against middle class tax cuts.
You think Scott Brown would want to go home to Massachusetts standing up for the wealthy? The Maine ladies?
Are you kidding me? THEY ALREADY HAVE! And let’s try this — if they weren’t feeling the political pressure to vote for the expiration of tax cuts for 98% or Americans last Saturday, why would they after January 1? Oh yes — after January 1, the tax cuts will be back n the table WITHOUT any of the (weak) stimulative portions of it. And there will be enough Dems who will vote to extend all of those tax cuts because guess who it is who will be getting the political pressure?
This is hardly a doomsday scenario. That is a Republican frame.
Awesome. A so-called progressive willing to live with the pain as long as it is outsourced. And you can’t get around the fact that money paying taxes is not creating demand for goods or services. And if this economy is going to employ people again, demand for goods and services has to come back.
demand for goods and services has to come back.
and that won’t happen until we create jobs by changing the tax structure on the taxes anon listed above. These tax cuts are part of the reason no one is hiring. As long as that money gets 3% better tax rate now compared to 2 years from now, that money is staying on the sideline.
Taxes=Pain. Would you stop with the Republican frames?
I don’t recall much pain last time we paid Clinton tax rates.
No matter how much Obama moves to the right, he ain’t getting away from being black.
Obama putting fear into the democrats. Sign on or the economy will collapse. Damn doesnt that sound like Bush and his 3 page memo with Paulson…whose doing the fearmongering now!
These tax cuts are part of the reason no one is hiring.
Talk about accepting GOP frames!
This economy is about lack of demand. Full stop. The tax rate has NOTHING to do with it. There has been alot of money on the sidelines for almost 3 decades — which is part of the reason why Americans haven’t seem much wage growth.
Take it from someone who does hire people — no one hires anybody just because they have the funds to create a job. You hire people because you have work that you can get them paid for. The uncertainty is not about the TAXES, it is about the DEMAND.
You guys are saying the same thing. The tax cuts for >$1 million are anti-stimulatory.
How is thinking that the tax rates should be higher to encourage reinvestment accepting a GOP frame?
The economy is about lack of demand, due to a lack of investment. there is now a built in 3% bias for S-Corps NOT to reinvest. If Capital gains or dividends are included, the bias is even greater. The higher tax will encourage your customers to invest in the work that you do and get you the job that will allow you to hire someone.
Or we can just wait until the Republicans decide they want to beat on Obama for extending the tax cuts while he had a Democratic House and Senate and blowing an even bigger hole in the deficit. That is coming. They are going to starve the beast and in the next 2 years we will have the Republicans screaming about how large the deficit is and how we have to cut this and that.
You and I will point to this deal and say “But this is the only way that we could get the seven votes!?!?” and the Republicans will say, “C’mon… you expect me to believe that you had control of the House, Senate and Presidency and somehow it’s the Republican’s fault that the tax cuts destroyed the federal budget?”
Yes, but the tax cuts for the middle class and especially the payroll tax holiday is stimulatory. Obama is taking this deal because of the stimulus, not because he love the tax cuts for the rich. He knows his job in 2012 relies on getting a recovery. If no tax cuts for the wealthy, no stimulus + no DADT + no START either. That’s why he agreed to the deal, IMO.
Getting rid of the tax cuts is stimulatory. If the wealthy decide that they would rather spin off the cash from their business instead of putting it back into the non-taxable business reinvestment, we won’t have a recovery (or at least not in the next 2 years). If we learned anything from Bush, it’s that tax cuts don’t trickle down.
The economy is about lack of demand, due to a lack of investment.
No. The lack of demand is because consumers aren’t buying. GM could invest all it wants in new plants everywhere, but if the demand for their cars is still weak, they would have invested in air. GM may do investments that increase their plants’ efficiency now(read: get rid of workers), but they aren’t going to be in the business of investing in NEW plant (hiring more people) until demand looks like it will pay off. Some (but not all) of that money will come off of the sidelines when that money is more productive in meeting demand.
Demand comes first — then investment. I’ve certainly never worked anywhere who hires employees because they hope customers will come through the door.
This is a repub frame because they’ve been everywhere pushing this bullshit. It is part of making their case for tax cuts — that somehow all of this money already on the sidelines will jump off of the sidelines just because it is joined by this tax cut money. This recession does not get fixed until more of us are spending again OR a hell of alot more of us are making stuff for other people to buy. That is when money comes off of the sidelines.
The economy is not only about a lack of demand and tax rates do make a difference in regards to hiring.
Why?
Investing in a business involves risk. The more money that an investor has, the more risk that they are likely to assume. For example, Jim with $10 is less likely to place a $1 bet than John with $100 because that $1 represents 10% of Jim’s assets versus 1% of John’s assets.
Hiring people people is risky, so businesses aren’t going to hire if they are pessimistic (worried about demand, for example) or feeling squeezed financially. Reducing taxes is one way of giving businesses more money so they don’t feel so squeezed, but it has a weak multiplier effect relative to collecting taxes and then re-investing in America through a stimulus (which will increase demand).
The problem today isn’t that taxes are too high for the wealthy (just ask Warren Buffet). The problem today is an increasing concentration of wealth and a system of government policies that are slanted toward emptying the pockets of the poor and middle class and enriching the most wealthy without any corresponding equivalent productive output by those getting paid the most.
Unfortunately, the major policies of the Obama administration, including HCR, Financial Reform, Military Spending, proposed Federal wage freeze, and now this obscene tax proposal, have done nothing substantial to address this fundamental injustice caused by government policy. In fact, they have made it worse.
And, don’t look now, but this Democratic President has just taken the first step toward defunding Social Security. Unbelievable.
If you think that imposing a tax on one thing doesn’t force money to something else isn’t real, I would direct you to oddly-shaped buildings in England, where homes were taxed based on square footage at ground level or to Amsterdam where it was based on linear frontage.
What the Republicans have done is give us this grand “if we cut taxes everyone will have more money to invest in all sorts of stuff” while in reality, capital has been collected like old magazines in an episode of Hoarders.
They are going to continue to hold that wealth back until the risk of investment is less than the imposition of the tax. I can’t change the risk model on the investment side, but I can make it a hell of a lot less pleasant to spin the cash out of the business. That is what would have happened if we had just let these expire across the board. It would change the equation for taking risks. Why take a risk now when the reward for NOT taking the risk is that you only pay 15% in taxes?
Shit, A1 and I are on the same wavelength.
The economy is about lack of demand, due to a lack of investment.
It is a vicious circle in a zero-sum game; a vortex that funnels the remaining money to the rich. The way to break the suction is to raise the capital gains and dividend taxes.
I’ll tell you what – if Republicans want to compromise, I’ll let them keep the Bush top PIT rate of 36%, while setting capital gains to 20% and treating dividends as regular income.
If you think that imposing a tax on one thing doesn’t force money to something else isn’t real,
This isn’t about taxes for one thing. The tax cuts that expire encompass a pretty large group of credits. It is very real for already stretched families to have to give up more of their funds to the treasury.
They are going to continue to hold that wealth back until the risk of investment is less than the imposition of the tax.
No. They will hold that money back until it is more *profitable* to put that money to work than to keep it parked. And even then, they won’t be all that profligate — large companies being fairly cash rich isn’t all that new. It is the smaller firms — without the cash cushion or credit facilities that are hurting. And while you are spinning this out, lets also remember that there is a great deal of business investment (mostly equipment) that is *highly* tax subsidized already. The risks right now are not about taxes — it is about weak demand (and an economy not especially turned to selling stuff to other countries) that no one can reasonably guess when it returns.
Giving up your core principals before the fight begins is a sure loser. And Caving when the majority is supporting you positing is a sure sign of weakness. Example polls show most of the country support the expiration of tax cuts Obama admitted this at his press conference and still he caved. Go Figure
The expiration of the tax cuts is an insurmountable opportunity.