Obama decides Bush's tax cuts are not so bad after all

[elucidator]

Whether my ideas are “cherished”, or merely reasonable doesn’t much matter at the moment. The situation is dire and rapidly approaching desperate. Is there a “liberal” solution and a “conservative” solution? I don’t know, and what is more vexing is the sheer impossibility of knowing. When you have a situation wherein highly trained and respected experts disagree totally and fundamentally, you don’t get much to go on. So, either way, we are gambling.

The single most personally annoying thing about Obama is my sense that he is clearly and unequivocally smarter than me. This is offset by my sense that, in a general way, his commitment to the common good and the common people is much akin to mine own. He is not at progressive as I am, he hasn’t a radical bone in his body. But if he were, he would not be where he is.

That the Bushiviks fostered and encouraged an economy of white-collar looting is offensive, and must be stopped. But that, by itself, won’t fix things. Its too late to close the barn door, the horse thieves have already made off, and they burned the barn in the process. They’ve sold the horses, and spent the money on hookers and blow, hanging them will offer a fleeting satisfaction, but won’t help much of anything.

Soaking the rich won’t do it, even if we wrung out every last dime and rendered them into Soylent Gold. They are parasites, true, but of minor importance in a major crisis, when your dog has rabies, you don’t worry about fleas.

I think the rough fundamentals of Obama’s plan are sound: let’s build stuff. No other plan is demonstrably superior, and even if we are wrong, we at least have built stuff to improve our chances on the next gamble.

I don’t require leadership from the ruling class and their jackals, I’ve seen their ways too often for my liking. But that still leaves “follow” or “get out of the way”.

[The_Flying_Dutchman]

@Shayna

Nice spin there.

1.) Axelrod isn’t Obama, and he’s one of the few who came with him from his tight-lipped campaign. As such, he knows better than to answer a question that Obama may have to ultimately answer differently, making Obama look like a hypocrite. “Those considerations will be made” is pretty much on par with saying “no comment”.

2.) Bill Daley is an “advisor”, that hardly makes him qualified to give details of Obama’s plans. That he speculates that it looks more likely than not, is still not evidence to support your claim that “Obama decides Bush’s tax cust are not so bad after all”.

I thinks these guys are just preparing the populace for the inevitable.

The Bush tax cuts were not neccessary at the time they were introduced and up until the crisis.

But now they are needed expecially for the rich.

Many of us in the lower income brackets that are fearful for the economy are curtailing spending. Additional funds from tax breaks will be hoarded as long as possible Not the rich. They will spend the additional funds on investment and consumer goods and services keeping the economy rolling. Obama just has to take this into account especially if he is the pragmatist that I’ve taken him for.

[John_Mace]

@elucidator

Whether my ideas are “cherished”, or merely reasonable doesn’t much matter at the moment. The situation is dire and rapidly approaching desperate. Is there a “liberal” solution and a “conservative” solution? I don’t know, and what is more vexing is the sheer impossibility of knowing. When you have a situation wherein highly trained and respected experts disagree totally and fundamentally, you don’t get much to go on. So, either way, we are gambling.

The single most personally annoying thing about Obama is my sense that he is clearly and unequivocally smarter than me. This is offset by my sense that, in a general way, his commitment to the common good and the common people is much akin to mine own. He is not at progressive as I am, he hasn’t a radical bone in his body. But if he were, he would not be where he is.

That the Bushiviks fostered and encouraged an economy of white-collar looting is offensive, and must be stopped. But that, by itself, won’t fix things. Its too late to close the barn door, the horse thieves have already made off, and they burned the barn in the process. They’ve sold the horses, and spent the money on hookers and blow, hanging them will offer a fleeting satisfaction, but won’t help much of anything.

Soaking the rich won’t do it, even if we wrung out every last dime and rendered them into Soylent Gold. They are parasites, true, but of minor importance in a major crisis, when your dog has rabies, you don’t worry about fleas.

I think the rough fundamentals of Obama’s plan are sound: let’s build stuff. No other plan is demonstrably superior, and even if we are wrong, we at least have built stuff to improve our chances on the next gamble.

I don’t require leadership from the ruling class and their jackals, I’ve seen their ways too often for my liking. But that still leaves “follow” or “get out of the way”.

Here I was about to agree with you 100%, then you have to go off and say that the rich are parasites. I’m sure I would qualify as rich, by most standards. I am not a parasite. I am thankful to have been born in this country, but I’ve given plenty.

[XT]

You really agreed with the rest of that? I would say about the only thing there I agree with is the part about ‘the ruling class and their jackals’…but I doubt 'luci and I would agree on who exactly that is. I see it as the career politicians and the special interest groups/PACS…he probably sees it as The Republicans and Big Business.

Other than that I agree with this part “The single most personally annoying thing about Obama is my sense that he is clearly and unequivocally smarter than me”…though I’d say that Obama isn’t necessarily smarter than 'luci but perhaps wiser and less a slave to his own ideology.

-XT

[carnivorousplant]

@John_Mace

Here I was about to agree with you 100%, then you have to go off and say that the rich are parasites.

That does seem a bit extreme, but when I see the three mansions on the horse farm on the way home, a neuro surgegon and perhaps two for his children, I can see how the revolutionists of 1918 drug 'em out into the street.

[Measure_for_Measure]

@Rand_Rover

I like how Obama is at least ackowledging that high taxes on the rich are bad for the economy. I’m not sure why they are only bad when the economy is in the “crisis” it is in now but not at other times…

Ah. Perhaps you might be interested in taking a semester of macroeconomics then.

I know that sounds snide, but most haven’t taken (say) a year of introductory economics. Then again, most don’t make pronouncements upon subjects that they have little training.

Tax increases tend to repress consumption. That’s fine if the economy is overheating (or if you are attempting to increase national savings) but it is harmful during times of recession. During recessions, budget deficits are a good thing and higher private savings is (paradoxically) harmful. See the paradox of thrift.

[Measure_for_Measure]

@xtisme

I’d say the relevant question is…how are ya’ll going to feel if Obama decides that it’s in the best interest of the country as a whole not to soak the rich? If he decides to let the Bush tax cuts lapse, but put in his own measures which keeps taxes on the ‘rich’ relatively static to how they are today? Or if he decides that taxes need to go up for everyone by a small amount, instead of a huge increase on only the ‘rich’?

Wah? McCain wanted the top rate to be 36% Obama proposes 39.6%, like it was in 2000.

Now I understand why a politician running for election or an hysteric might characterize one as Marxism and the other as America First. I just don’t get why they typical modern conservative goes along with it, except to the extent that they are unable to reign in their fantasies.

@xtsime

From some of the things Obama or his representatives SEEM to be saying, it sounds like a lot of the cherished ideas from the left for the past 7 or so years are either under serious reconsideration or at the least not going to be implemented in the first couple of years (or even in the first term).

That’s not my interpretation. I think that there will be a push for both health care and energy reform within the next 4 years.

One of us will be proven correct.

[foolsguinea]

@xtisme

I’d say the relevant question is…how are ya’ll going to feel if Obama decides that it’s in the best interest of the country as a whole not to soak the rich? If he decides to let the Bush tax cuts lapse, but put in his own measures which keeps taxes on the ‘rich’ relatively static to how they are today? Or if he decides that taxes need to go up for everyone by a small amount, instead of a huge increase on only the ‘rich’?

From some of the things Obama or his representatives SEEM to be saying, it sounds like a lot of the cherished ideas from the left for the past 7 or so years are either under serious reconsideration or at the least not going to be implemented in the first couple of years (or even in the first term).

-XT

If he does that, he’s a putz. I didn’t vote for Democrats to get flat-taxers. Want to see a third party form on the economic left?

[foolsguinea]

@The_Flying_Dutchman

But now they are needed expecially for the rich.

Many of us in the lower income brackets that are fearful for the economy are curtailing spending. Additional funds from tax breaks will be hoarded as long as possible Not the rich. They will spend the additional funds on investment and consumer goods and services keeping the economy rolling. Obama just has to take this into account especially if he is the pragmatist that I’ve taken him for.

Wrong.

Top marginal tax rates are below 40%. That is not high by historical standards. The difference between Clinton’s tax rates & Bush’s is puny, a few percentage points. Saying that superrich consumers desperately need to keep 5% more income is silly in general, but out of all proportion in the current climate. Now of all times, we should see through that fallacy.

Bringing more tax monies into Federal coffers means less money borrowed & a better funded, stronger government. It also means that money can be injected on a nationwide, planned level instead of only in the activities of the lucky few.

[foolsguinea]

@Measure_for_Measure

I just don’t get why they typical modern conservative goes along with it, except to the extent that they are unable to reign in their fantasies.

Being a “Consurvative” is all about living in a fantasy world, where the Defenders of the Faith make sure Good Decent Christian Peeple only have to pay 10% of income in tax & tithe combyned. :rolleyes:

[Chief_Pedant]

The purpose of political campaign promises is to appeal to enough voters to get elected. There is a secondary purpose of establishing some general themes that represent the politician’s philosophies, but since it’s generally well-known that enacting legislation involves much more than a Presidential decree, only the most naive of voters would consider campaign promises some sort of absolute commitment.

In every election cycle, the percentage of voters who seem to think those promises do represent some sort of ability to execute them does surprise me, though.

Every President, Mr Obama included, will have available multiple excuses for not enacting legislation commensurate with their promises. Among those excuses are constraints imposed by predecessors, involvement of other legislators, and dynamic events.

[XT]

@foolsguinea

If he does that, he’s a putz. I didn’t vote for Democrats to get flat-taxers. Want to see a third party form on the economic left?

Either you misread or misunderstood what I was saying or you don’t know what a flat tax really is. And I seriously doubt that the left will ever product a splinter economic party of any note so it’s and idle threat…after all there is already a US socialist AND communist party (several actually…just ask BG some time).

-XT

[XT]

@Measure for Measure

Wah? McCain wanted the top rate to be 36% Obama proposes 39.6%, like it was in 2000.

As you say…wah? As in Wah has this got to do with the part of my post you quoted? Or with the OP?

Now I understand why a politician running for election or an hysteric might characterize one as Marxism and the other as America First. I just don’t get why they typical modern conservative goes along with it, except to the extent that they are unable to reign in their fantasies.

I made no statement that one candidate is a Marxist and one is ‘America First’, so that’s just a strawman on your part. I was asking a question there btw (note the question mark…it’s one if these thingies —> ‘?’) which seems to be relevant in light of some statements Obama or his minions have been making lately.

To rephrase the question, how are you going to feel if Obama doesn’t reign in conservative economic ‘fantasies’ but embarrasses some of them instead? What if he doesn’t decide to soak the rich, at least in the short term? What if he adopts an economic stance more like Billy Boy Clinton? How are you going to feel about that?

That’s not my interpretation. I think that there will be a push for both health care and energy reform within the next 4 years.

I guess it depends on how you mean push here exactly. If you mean he is going to go at it full bore, I have my doubts in the current economic environment…and I think if he DOES that he may only be a one term wonder, a la Carter. I think he’s a VERY intelligent man though, so I have faith he’ll do the smart thing, not just for himself but for the country.

As you say though ‘One of us will be proven correct’…though in reality Obama could straddle our positions. He could put some effort into a striped down health care plan in his first term and attempt to concentrate more on it in his second term, and he could put in place some fairly neutral energy reforms in the later part of his first term and try and concentrate more on that again in his second term. I guess we’ll see. Myself I’m hopeful…Obama doesn’t seem to read the SD and doesn’t seem to be in lock step with a large percentage of board Democrats. Of course, if he were not only would he not have gotten my vote but I have serious doubts he would have had A Kucinich Chance(patent pending) of getting elected (in case you don’t know, A Kucinich Chance is only slightly above a snow ball in hell or an alien invasion next Thursday at 4pm EST)

-XT

[Shodan]

One of the advantages that Obama enjoys that McCain would not have, at least on the SDMB and in the MSM, is that Obama can do the same thing that Bush or McCain would have done, and it will be hailed as brilliantly insightful and obviously necessary. This is true even if it violates one of his campaign promises.

So, if he was going to raise taxes on 5% of us so the other 95% get a cut, that is a great idea. If he then decides that the 5% can keep their money for the moment, this is just fine.

That’s one of the reasons why we get all these threads about how the bailout is Bush’s last desperate attempt to bankrupt the country out of sheer malice, and Obama supports the bailout because it is the obvious thing to do.

If Obama increases spending, the deficit, and the size of the federal government, that will be OK because we are in a recession. If Bush increased spending, the deficit, and the size of the federal government, then it is because he is evilrottenbadetc. and 9/11 was no excuse - he just wanted to suck up to his rich cronies.

Once we were out of the recession, Bush is bad because he did not eliminate the deficit and cut spending. Once we are out of this recession, Obama will not eliminate the deficit or cut spending. This will be Bush’s fault.

SOP.

[Ravenman]

@Shodan

If Obama increases spending, the deficit, and the size of the federal government, that will be OK because we are in a recession. If Bush increased spending, the deficit, and the size of the federal government, then it is because he is evilrottenbadetc. and 9/11 was no excuse - he just wanted to suck up to his rich cronies.

Well, for one thing, Bush continually said he was going to cut spending. He didn’t. He recklessly cut taxes and allowed spending to balloon. Obama has said all along that he’s going to increase spending on certain things. Which, to be blunt, makes Obama more honest than Bush.

[Shodan]

@Obama

[W]hat I’ve proposed, you’ll hear Senator McCain say, well, he’s proposing a whole bunch of new spending, but actually I’m cutting more than I’m spending so that it will be a net spending cut.

Cite.

[Gangster_Octopus]

A flexible President? I had almost forgotten what one of those was like.

[XT]

Yeah, me too…

-XT

[Shodan]

All it seems to take is a Democrat, and broken promises change to flexibility in the twinkling of an eye.

[XT]

I’d much rather see a President who isn’t chained to ideology or is going to try and stubbornly stick to some position he put forth during the campaign despite changing conditions. I have to admit that I’m a bit amused by the prospect that Obama may actually take a position more in line with my own economic philosophy (he may not of course), especially in light of some of our board members.

I’m totally psyched though that he may be smart and flexible enough to not just brainlessly bash his head against reality, or cowed enough to stay in lock step with his ideological base…or those idiots in the Congress and Senate. If Obama can walk this tightrope and do the right thing…well, as I say, I’m very encourage right now. Of course he hasn’t even started his job yet so I’m taking a wait and see approach to the next 3-4 years. After all, the gods themselves couldn’t rapidly get us out of our current predicament…

-XT