Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry


I haven't made a political post in a long, long time.

I'd make one now, except just thinking about it depresses me. I was not happy about the results of the midterm, needless to say... and I am even less happy, if possible, about this "compromise" that Obama has made with the GOP on taxes. From where I sit, it smells more like capitulation than compromise. Give a lot, get almost nothing.

Obama is the most intelligent president we've had since Jimmy Carter... and, sad to say, he is looking more and more like Jimmy every day. A good man, but not a good leader. At least not so far. He doesn't seem to have the stomach for a fight. We need another FDR, another JFK, another LBJ. NOT Jimmy II. (And, yes, I know, Obama has accomplished some important stuff. But so did Jimmy. Camp David accords, remember?)

Yeats was writing about his own time in "The Second Coming," I know, but sometimes I think he was prescient:

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

And could that rough beast whose hour has come round at least be... Sarah Palin?

No, please. Tell me that's just a bad dream. Somebody wake me up.



Dec. 16th, 2010 01:06 am (UTC)
The compromise isn't the problem for me, as a Democrat. Its awful that it had to be done, but it was pragmatic. However, he did it too quickly. And that's what makes in capitulation.

The republicans need to be attached to the fact that they were willing to let unemployment benefits run out for millions at Xmas for the sake of keeping tax cuts for the wealthiest. People keep voting against their own best interests for a myth- the republicans are not what they say they are and that needs to be put out in bright lights where not even the main stream media can ignore it. I hate political theater as such but we really need some leadership demonstrated right now- you are dead on about that.
Dec. 16th, 2010 01:33 am (UTC)
You know what I think is funny?

For years Democrats attacked the Bush tax cuts as being "only for the wealthy" for years that was the rallying cry.

Then, suddenly when it comes time to renew the cuts, the Democrats want to only renew the portion for the middle class, which, up until now, they refused to admit existed at all.

Truth is, as we all now know since both sides admit it, the taxes were cut for everyone, and in fact the federal tax burden was shouldered MORE by the rich afterwards, than before. Meaning the top 5% of earners paid a LARGER share of the federal budget AFTER the cuts than before.

And as I said above, in a discussion of deficits, you need to use dynamic accounting, because a tax cut can actually result in more tax revenue.


Taxes were cut in 2003 (the tax cut act we're talking about extending now, not to be confused with the 2001 rebate stimulus) with revenue of 1.782 trillion. In 2004 revenue was 1.88 trillion. Those are the raw numbers from the CBO. If you just Google around you'll find lots of places explaining it further, but I figured a link to raw government numbers would garner less claims of bias.

No one is borrowing from their children to give a tax break to millionaires. If history is any indication, the increase in economic growth from lower levels of taxation will more than make up for rates being lower overall.

Dec. 17th, 2010 11:39 pm (UTC)
Yes, the tax cuts were for everyone. The thing is, while the tax cuts for the middle class were helpful, rich people didn't need them. So the tax cuts that the Democrats objected to were the tax cuts for the wealthy.

See how that isn't actually refusing to admit a damned thing? And is, in fact, kind of sensible?

As for revenues going up in 2004... there are an awful lot of things involved there. If you go into the actual CBO report, you'll find that they couldn't see evidence that the tax cuts helped any significant amount. The thing that helped in 2004-2007 was that the economy was going through a bubble, and some small amount of the bubble was being taxed. Not enough to make it worth the pain after the bubble collapsed, of course, but the revenues did go up a little bit with the bubble.


George R.R. Martin
George R. R. Martin

Latest Month

April 2018


Page Summary

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Lilia Ahner