Interesting. I’m a liberal who could agree with what you think is the “Conservative” view. Your description of the “liberal view” doesn’t ring true to me either.
And to jump into the debate, this “deal” he cut is okay with me. I’m much more disappointed in his failure to get (or even try real hard) single payer heath care.
Laws, yes. M-O-O-N, that spells “Democrats suck at messaging”.
The phrase “tax cuts for the rich” should not be in a Democratic politician’s vocabulary. With the Democratic plan, everyone retains some of Bush’s tax cuts.
Rather, the phrasing should be “tax bonus for the rich” (courtesy of Center for American Progress, I think). That’s a bit more clear that everyone has tax cuts preserved – just that high income earners don’t receive a disproportionate amount (in absolute dollars…see Goolsby’s whiteboard).
Or, what I think might’ve been the phrasing if it were a Republican talking point, “tax bailout for the rich”. “Bonus” isn’t bad, but “bailout” has a more visceral effect.
I think you’re misinterpreted the liberal mindset. Put aside wild-eyed claims that the Democrats are socialists and/or communists. Both parties are fully committed to the right of personal property.
And the Democrats don’t want to raise taxes anymore than the Republicans want to cut government services. Both sides agree that taxes are a necessary evil that is required to maintain necessary government serivces. The difference between the two parties lie in what they consider necessary (or desirable) government services.
Conservatives tend to support the principle that the government should get out of the way and let (or force) people to take care of their own needs. Liberals tend to support the principle that the government should help people in need and act as a force for good.
I disagree. For example, Democrats are committed to an aggressive foreign policy, the garrisoning of the world, to a program of surveillance and statism at home, a policy of militarizing the police and subjugating individual autonomy to the false prerogatives of security, and helping their friends in the financial, pharmaceutical, and insurance industries. Republicans, in contrast, just wish to knit socks for their grandchildren.
Socks of DOOM!
Sure, but they knit those socks from the blood of the working class! I mean, wool made from the blood of the working…wool made from sheep that grazed on the blood of…
Well, anyway, they suck.
The projected deficit is not much larger than before the recession. We have had the better part of ten years of Republican rule. There isn’t a lot of fat in budget. Among the people who have to take the hit are the taxpayers, its really that simple. No matter how much they kick and scream that they can’t possibly survive under a Clinton era tax regime (which is significantly lower than the tax regime we had under MOST of the Reagan years), they can not only survive, they can flourish if the years between 1981 and 2000 are any indicator.
I don’t think liberals see government that way but it is how you see liberals. Its telling.
I don’t know how to tell you this but when you spend money on the poor you have passed a tax, maybe not now but eventually that spending has to be paid for and it will likely be paid for in taxes.
I love these arguments where somebody puts the stupidest thing they can think of into the minds of their opponents, and then argues against that. It is almost impossible to lose!
Shayna, you know I think you’re great, but the Making Work Pay credit was expiring. In the absence of a deal, working families would have gotten neither the credit nor the payroll tax cut.
Consequently, between that fact and the unemployment benefit extension, it seems clear to me that this deal, distasteful as it is, is better than just letting everything fall through. And while better compromises can be written, this one has the backing of the GOP leadership, which is a precondition to getting it through the Senate. I can call my Democratic congresscritters from dawn to dusk, and it won’t change the fact that at least some GOP acquiescence is required for any compromise, and nobody’s produced a better deal that they’ve also demonstrated the existence of GOP votes for in the Senate.
This is really a take-it-or-leave-it deal. The GOP is quite willing to throw the unemployed and the working poor under the bus. That’s not how I’m made.
The bad news? The Republicans are barking mad. Worse? Next month, they go off their meds.
There are meds for what they’ve got? Who knew?
Well, did you ever see “Old Yeller”?
A great postby Kevin Drum who examines an argumentmade by Krugman that this deal is bad politically for Obama. Krugman argues that forecasts show the deal is expansionary in 2011 but contractionary in 2012 and what matters is how the economy in 2012 compares with 2011. As Drum points out, it’s a bit more complicated than that especially because the forecasts assume a baseline in which some but not all of Bush’s tax cuts are extended. Compared to the real alternative of all the tax cuts expiring the deal is likely expansionary in both 11 and 12.
Overall given the circumstances this is a pretty decent tax bill both for the economy and Obama’s re-election chances. Of course it would be possible to design a better bill repealing the tax cuts on the top brackets and compensating with a bigger stimulus targetted at the middle class. However that is not on the table and Obama did a pretty good job of negotiating with what he had.
And will only get worse, once the Bachmann-Palin Overdrive gets into town. Cowbell. Lots of cowbell.
I didn’t mean you personally. There are exceptions to all generalizations. They’re only true in general (at best).
Possibly you are someone who would not view the “tax cuts for the rich versus unemployment benefits” issue solely in terms of “rich versus poor”, to the exclusion of any consideration of the fact that one is people keeping money that they themselves have earned and the other is forcefully taking money from some people to give to others. Possibly you are someone who would not refer to tax cuts as “giving” people something.
But there are quite a lot of liberals who do view these things that way, as evidenced by the discussions of the issues on this MB and elsewhere. I’m talking about all those people. They seem to be the predominant liberal viewpoint.
No, it doesn’t. You know perfectly well that no liberal thinks that. Communists think that. Most liberals do agree that a portion of an individual’s earnings rightfully belong to the people.
I think everyone agrees that some amount of tax is necessary.
My point is not about the actual positions of liberals, but rather about the way they frame the issues.
Hey, how about you name a single real person who holds the positions you ascribe to ‘liberals’, instead of railing against your straw man.
Seriously, it makes for a much more satisfying debate for participants and lurkers alike.
The liberals you’re imagining are extremely rare. They’re as uncommon as the conservative extremist fringe who are living in bunkers and talking about secession. These people exist but they have no influence on the political mainstream.