Andrew Sullivan: The Democrats And Their Second Stimulus

[dennis4868]

In what appears to be an almost epic attempt at political suicide, some Democrats appear so exercized by the very idea that the very rich should continue to enjoy the tax rates of the Bush era that they are willing to push their president, and their own political prospects, over the cliff.

I made my case pretty clear soon after the deal was struck. It was staggering to me how many tangible concessions Obama was able to get for one symbolic give. The GOP got to protect the very rich to the tune of $120 billion for two years. In return, Obama got the $360 billion tax cut for the middle class he wanted, plus $450 billion on extended unemployment benefits, the pay-roll tax cut and EITC and college tuition funding. In the process, he got the GOP to endorse a huge fiscal stimulus for Obama as he runs for re-election - a stimulus that could, according to Morgan Stanley, push economic growth to as much as 4 percent next year. That might be an overshoot - but it's surely salient that no one thinks the package won't boost growth at all.

Charles Krauthammer gets it:

Barack Obama won the great tax-cut showdown of 2010 - and House Democrats don't have a clue that he did.
Bill Clinton gets it. The markets get it. The only question is: why doesn't the House move swiftly to pass this as-good-as-it-will-get deal, and then move forward on START, DADT and the DREAM Act? A week is a long time in politics. Two weeks - which the Democrats could give themselves if they want - could turn a coup into a year-end triumph for the president and this party.

The rest of the article is here...http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/12/the-democrats-and-their-second-stimulus.html

I NEVER THOUGHT I WOULD SEE THE DAY THAT I WOULD AGREE WITH Charles Krauthammer. I THINK I NEED A SHOWER....I FEEL DIRTY :-)

[Hello_Kitty]

1. FFS, it's not a concession if the Republicans WANTED IT.

They've wanted a payroll tax cut for years.

[CakeGrrl]

11. Having unemployment benefits and middle-class tax cuts IS a concession by the Rs because

they specifically voted down those two things in and of themselves. They weren't going to come back into play unless the Rs got something as well.

Why do people think that if you play chicken with Republicans, they'll totally give the Left what it wants out of some sense of shame? They've already showed us their intent.

[Hello_Kitty]

30. I'm talking about the payroll tax cut. NOT a concession.

Neither are several of the other things on that stupid WH chart you guys keep pimping.

[niceypoo]

25. It is a wet dream list for Republicans

They get EVERYTHING they want

In 13 months they will want even more. Most likely NEW tax cuts for the rich.

[dennis4868]

28. No....according to verything I have read and seen on TV....

is that the repubs wanted a PERMANENT extension on the tax cuts....they did not get that. They also gave Obama alot of stuff that will grow the economy (even according to Paul Krugman).

[Hello_Kitty]

31. They'll get the permanent ones in 2 years.

And, once again, if it's something the Republicans wanted, it's not a concession from them.

Payroll tax credit
Child tax credit
Accelerated depreciation

Those things do NOT belong in the "things we got" column.

[DontTreadOnMe]

2. The FIRST STIMULUS didn't create jobs!

And this "SECOND STIMULUS" is NOT going to create jobs... BECAUSE WE ALREADY KNOW THAT TAX CUTS DOESN'T CREATE JOBS!

Can someone bitch slap Andrew for me?

[avaistheone1]

3. True.

[elleng]

7. These DO create jobs:

'450 billion on extended unemployment benefits, the pay-roll tax cut and EITC and college tuition funding.'

[RaleighNCDUer]

13. The so-called payroll tax cut is a DEFEAT, not a WIN.

Republicans have been trying to get one since at least 94 under Gingrich - it's THEIR idea. The ultimate aim is the unfunding of SS, and its subsequent privatization.

That's like winning a lottery and them choosing a 750,000 immediate payout rather than collecting 100,000/yer for 20 years. It feels good now, but really SUCKS in the long term.

Yeah, I know, it's only for a year. And next year they will be saying "The Democrats want to raise your taxes!!!!" And then, a year after that when the 'temporary' extention of the Bush cuts expires, they'll be saying "The Democrats want to raise your taxes!!!!!!!!!"

We will have to FIGHT to not allow these cuts to become permanent, because you know damn well the repukes will be fighting to make them permanent.

And you know what? The cuts that WE got will go into paying bills, keeping the house from foreclosure and the car from being reposessed. They won't create jobs. They might, just might, keep a few jobs from being lost, but I guarantee you they will NOT bring back any jobs from overseas. The cuts the RICH get, however, will enable them to invest in shipping more jobs overseas, just as they've done for the past ten years.

If tax cuts create jobs, why, after the past ten years cuts, don't we have 2.5% unemployment?

[pnwmom]

9. Where is your evidence for that? My nephew got an engineering

job with a green company which was able to hire him with money from the stimulus bill. And since then the company has lined up enough customers to keep going without the government funds. From what I can see, these stimulus funds worked as intended.

[pnwmom]

16. The first stimulus did indeed create jobs.

Green jobs, for example. A relative of mine got one at a company that was able to hire him specifically because of stimulus money. And the company is doing well enough now that they will be able to continue on after the stimulus money runs out.

While tax cuts for the rich tend to go into savings, tax cuts at lower income levels do help to stimulate the economy, as do unemployment insurance benefits.

[mcar]

32. Got a link to prove this right wing talking point?

The first stimulus most definitely created jobs.

I never thought I'd see this kind of crap on this board. Some here hate Obama so much they'll repeat RW lies to continue the hate.

It's just sad.

[bluestateguy]

4. It won't stimulate if the rich keep all of their money locked up

Then we won't have a stimulus, but rather, a chastity device.

[CakeGrrl]

10. That's already assumed. The President knows that, but that was

the "give" to get what he wanted for the unemployed and middle class - the things that the Republicans already said "NO" to in previous votes.

Give them the TEMPORARY tax cut so we can GET those things that they simply rejected before.

[pnwmom]

17. Most of the money is going to people at lower and middle levels

and to unemployment benefits -- and most of that money will go right back into the economy and act as a stimulus.

[Pisces]

5. The negative posters here have already made up their minds. They don't

want to read the proposal, or look at any possible benefits. It doesn't fit their bash Obama narrative.

[dennis4868]

6. sad but true!

[elleng]

8. Just tried.

'nite.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hardrada]

19. I have been infiltrating for six years!!

Down with Tory Democrats!

[RaleighNCDUer]

14. Here's a clue - if krauthammer likes it, it is WRONG. nt

[burning rain]

15. One can at least argue that this was as good a deal as O could get.

But the position that it's good is untenable. This tax cut deal aims to create a consumption bubble, and another bubble is the last thing we need. Tax cut-fueled deficits enable the conservative "Starve the Beast" strategy. And then there's the undermining of Social Security. All in all, there's a lot to loathe from a Democratic point of view.

[Hardrada]

18. The fix is still in to get the SSI funds. The goal, I believe,

is to make most Americans dependent on the Super-Rich as serfs and slaves with the spirit beaten out of us so any kind of organization will be emotionally and physically almost impossible.

[watrwefitinfor]

20. K&R n/t

[Honeycombe8]

21. This isn't a stimulus, unless you consider the tax rate for the last 2 years a stimulus.

It merely continues what has been in effect for many years, now, and INCREASES the estate tax breaks. There is no evidence whatsoever that increasing the estate tax breaks stimulates the economy.

They're insulting my intelligence by trying to convince me this is a stimulus. It's not.

[dennis4868]

22. It would help if you understood the full bill..

The extension of the Bush tax cuts is NOT the stimulative part of the bill... The stimulus comes from all the things that Obama got in the bill (even DU's hero Paul Krugman agrees to this).

[dionysus]

23. the top 2% cut is not the stimulative part of the deal. the other parts are.

[Phx_Dem]

24. Sullivan is right again. n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

26. Another Sullivan observation:

"I believed there were weapons of mass destruction. I actually bought the argument that if we democratized Iraq, we could create a space for venting some of the stuff that's going on in the Middle East in these autocratic regimes that is expressing itself through jihadism, because it has nowhere else to express itself."

So that Sully, he's always right! I loved his piece about how comforting it was to have Cheney present during 9-11. Again, he's batting a thousand!

[QC]

27. Another of Sully's greatest hits:

The middle part of the country—the great red zone that voted for Bush—is clearly ready for war. The decadent Left in its enclaves on the coasts is not dead—and may well mount what amounts to a fifth column.

This was published right after 9/11, of course, back when Sully was the Bush regime's most enthusiastic cheerleader.

[mikekohr]

29. Stop it with all these figures and inconvienent facts.

I can't handle the truth! :x I like being pissed off and cranky. Because that's what accomplishes things, mindless anger and foaming at the mouth. :sarcasm: