Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

White House pounds Mitch McConnell as deficit fraud

Dems think the war over the Bush tax cuts is a political winner for them because it lets them paint Republicans as stooges of the rich, but there's another reason they like this fight: It gives them a weapon to use against Republican pieties about the deficit.

Case in point: Today the White House opened up a new front in the war over the tax cuts, pounding Mitch McConnell as a deficit fraud over a new report saying his aides have only been able to come up with a way to pay for $300 billion of the $4 trillion cost of the GOP plan to make all the Bush tax cuts permanent.

Today's Post reported that the GOP plan to make the cuts permanent would cost more than $4 trillion and nearly double the deficit over the next 10 years. When the Post asked McConnell aides how they would pay for this, the aides noted that McConnell has backed a spending freeze that would save only $300 billion -- which the paper noted is "drop in the bucket compared with his $4 trillion-plus plan."

In a sign of just how intense this battle has become, the White House immediately circulated talking points on the Hill and to outside allies instructing them to hammer McConnell over the new report:

* Today's Washington Post provides further evidence that the Republican Party, after turning a record surplus under President Clinton into record deficits, still cannot be trusted to come up with a serious solution to control spending and reduce the nation's deficit. Instead, the only thing they're willing to offer are the same failed economic policies that created the mess we're in.

* Outlining Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's tax plan, the paper finds that his call to permanently extend the Bush tax cuts for America's millionaires and billionaires would nearly double the projected deficit by adding $4 trillion to it over the next decade. And they're pretending that they would pay for it through a projected spending freeze, that fails to mention what they would freeze or cut, and that would only save $300 billion over that same period of time....

* Unfortunately, this lack of seriousness shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone...Are these really the people we want to put in charge of our economy?

The problem for the White House and Dems, of course, is that an uncomfortably high number of people have begun answering Yes to that last question. And some polls show more trust in the GOP on the deficit.

The battle over whether to extend all the Bush tax cuts, as the GOP wants to do, is a gimme for Dems because it allows them to draw a direct link between today's GOP and Bush's economic policies -- even as it gives Dems a way to paint the GOP as fundamentally unserious about deficits and about the economy overall.

UPDATE, 5:06 p.m.: A senior GOP aide responds that Obama's plan would add to the deficit, too:

It must be tough to have to work in their press shop and explain that letting people keep their own money is bad, and having to explain why you think the Bush administration economic policy is bad, but you want to make it permanent. Though I'm still curious: how much does their plan add to the deficit? Is it three trillion or 3.3 trillion?

By Greg Sargent  |  September 15, 2010; 3:33 PM ET
Categories:  2010 elections , Senate Republicans , economy  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: A Blue Dog Dem explains why he doesn't want vote on middle class tax cuts
Next: Happy Hour Roundup

Comments

The question is in response to the first two points. They lay the groundwork for the question. The question is to be answered after people are aware of the first two points, not before people are made aware of the first two points.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 15, 2010 3:46 PM | Report abuse

The TRUTH


Obama is proposing a 700 BILLION TAX INCREASE -

While most Americans will see their income taxes stay the same -


OBAMA is STILL INCREASING TAXES 700 BILLION DOLLARS - money taken out of the economy and which Obama wants to use for his SOCIALIST SPENDING WAYS.


Isn't that right ?


.


_____________________________

Some of this WILL impact HIRING - not Obama's strong suit.


The truth of the matter is that Obama may see this whole thing as a way to get votes - but one must call his judgement into question if that is actually the case.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 15, 2010 3:47 PM | Report abuse

Thank you Greg, great post.

I'd add two fairly substantial things:

1) DEFICIT IMPACT:

The deficit impact of the McConnell/Far-Right plan is equivalent to FOUR TIMES the impact of the Stimulus and HCR combined.

FOUR TIMES the deficit impact of Stimulus and HCR combined.

2) NATIONAL DEBT INTEREST:

The interest payments on the National Debt would skyrocket to $950 billion.

Almost $100 B per year. That interest payment is 10 times the cost of HCR itself ($1T over 10 years). 10 TIMES the cost of HCR.

What did that woman from Alaska say?

Oh right.

THANKS BUT NO THANKS to the GOP's plan to foist the United States with permanent debt and deficits.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 15, 2010 3:48 PM | Report abuse

Oops! "Almost $100 B per year. That interest payment is 10 times the cost of HCR itself ($1T over 10 years). 10 TIMES the cost of HCR"

Damn, I used to be able to do math.

Interest payments EQUAL HCR.

That's still absurd.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 15, 2010 3:50 PM | Report abuse

Ethan

Thank you for your insight

However, Obama is still increasing taxes 700 BILLION DOLLARS.


That is correct, right ?


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 15, 2010 3:51 PM | Report abuse

I hope he doesn't hurt Mitch's fee fees.

Posted by: BGinCHI | September 15, 2010 3:55 PM | Report abuse

words have meaning Mr Sargent. In this case you tell us exactly what you mean:
"...$4 trillion cost of the GOP plan to make all the Bush tax cuts permanent."

The pivotal word is "cost". What you are clearly saying is that you believe that all the money belongs to the government and that letting people have some of it is a "cost".

this is dramatically different from the rational point of view, which is that the money people earn belongs to them. Allowing the citizens to keep their money doesn't "cost" the government anything.

Liberals make this mistake frequently. Are you sure that you want America to see your position quite so clearly Mr Sargent?

In addition, why does the American left completely ignore the spending side of this? It was earmarks and pork by the Republicans that lead to their downfall in 06 and 08. Americans haven't become any more enamored of reckless spending now that it is being done by Democrats. If nothing else the anger of the public should tell you this.

Perhaps a chance to see the forest, instead of each individual tree would help you. I recognize that you're an inside baseball insider, but maybe getting out once in a while would improve your perspective.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | September 15, 2010 3:55 PM | Report abuse

The Bush Tax Cuts have already impacted hiring.

Before The Bush Tax Cuts, Clinton added 22 Million Jobs, and created an annual budget surplus.

After Bush gave Tax Cuts to the Fat Cats, no jobs were created. Those Fat Cats still have those Lower rates now, so where are the jobs that they were supposed to create.

They are not creating them now, so there is no reason to borrow four trillion dollars, just to keep pampering The Republicans Fat Cat Pets.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 15, 2010 3:57 PM | Report abuse

Greg - How about a breakdown of what it will cost to extend the middle class tax cuts?

Generally speaking I think trying to balance the budget by giving Paris Hilton a tax cut is like trying to fly to the moon on a moped.

Also, below is a poll from February showing that the debt issue is REALLY not as important to Republicans as tax cuts. The GOP tends to justify their "just say no" strategy by pointing towards the debt, but they are just playing politics:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/taxes/february_2010/41_fine_with_budget_deficit_if_taxes_are_cut

Posted by: nisleib | September 15, 2010 3:58 PM | Report abuse

Since Christine O'Donnell does not believe in Evolution, but instead believes in Creationism, then she must be blaming God for all those diseases that human babies are born with.

She must now accept, that her position requires that her God take the blame for creating all those babies, born with physical or mental defects. Her God created them that way, and therefore she should be campaigning to block all medical efforts to alter the will of her God. Right?!

Posted by: Liam-still | September 15, 2010 3:58 PM | Report abuse

Christine O'Donnell just might pull this out.


I can tell you one CLEAR winner - Kendrick Meek.


Rubio is pulling ahead of Charlie Crist - and those voters will SLOWLY find their way over to Meek -


Rubio is in a strange position in Florida - he really NEEDS Crist and Meek to split the remaining electorate.

I say it that way because Rubio is the one candidate whose support is relatively stable - UP AND DOWN.


So for Rubio in a two-man race, it will be difficult.


Rubio needs Crist to maintain his viability - if Crist slips, especially on money - then the path opens up for Meek to run up the middle.


This year is going to be crazy - people you expect to win are not going to win - and people you expect to lose are going to LOSE.

Connecticut may be one.

Alvin Greene is going to make a run.


Keep an eye on West Virginia.


I think Feingold is toast, as is Patty Murray.


California - I think Jerry Brown will win - and Barbara Boxer is a maybe.


,

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 15, 2010 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Paris Hilton needs a tax cut. The poor women has been forced to borrow handbags from her friends.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 15, 2010 4:00 PM | Report abuse

OT:

This is a few days old but has everyone seen this ad for Chris Coons?

http://www.chriscoons.com/blog/entry/our_new_television_ad_finances

Stellar.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 15, 2010 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Breaking News:

This Just In;

Mitch Kevorkian McConnell and John Kevorkian Boehner announce plan to add Four Trillion Dollars to the national debt, in order to fund the establishment of Rescue Shelters for Distressed Fat Cats.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 15, 2010 4:04 PM | Report abuse

The GOP scheduled ALL income taxes to go up on January 1.

The President wants to give everyone but the top 2% a tax reduction rather than allow the GOP tax increases to occur on January 1.

Posted by: cmccauley60 | September 15, 2010 4:05 PM | Report abuse

Liam-still - "in order to fund the establishment of Rescue Shelters for Distressed Fat Cats."

Most rescue organizations insist on spaying and neutering the animals in their care...

Then again, this could really help O'Donnell's war on m@sterbation!

Posted by: nisleib | September 15, 2010 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Obama isn't raising anyone's taxes. Congress is just not lowering the tax rates on incomes over $250,000. Everyone gets a cut on their adjusted gross income up to $250,000 per couple, and it goes up 2% on the next $100,000 or so and another 2.5% on income over that. These people can afford the taxes. Period.

Posted by: Mimikatz | September 15, 2010 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Repeal The Republican's Tax Increase On The Middle Class, before it kicks on January First.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 15, 2010 4:09 PM | Report abuse

Oh boy - White House talking points!

Posted by: sbj3 | September 15, 2010 4:11 PM | Report abuse

Hey wbgonne, Obama is planning to weigh in on letting the Bush tax cuts expire and extending his tax cuts to the middle class indefinitely at 4:30.

Lemme try some Jedi mind trick stuff on you....

This is the leadership you were looking for.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 15, 2010 4:11 PM | Report abuse

hen again, this could really help O'Donnell's war on m@sterbation!

Posted by: nisleib | September 15, 2010 4:08 PM
...................

Even if she has never touched herself, she is still A Virtual Wanker, in my book.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 15, 2010 4:11 PM | Report abuse

I would love to see Obama come out with letting the high end expire and lowering income under 250k by another 5% for 5 years. That would be pretty funny imho.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 15, 2010 4:13 PM | Report abuse

STRF,

Your comment about Meek is dead on.

Rubio and Crist are bombing each other right now in the FL market. And that fight is only going to get worse.

Meek has also sharpened his message considerably and has a GREAT ad running in several major metro areas in FL. Check it out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-Woa84xgaU&feature=player_embedded

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 15, 2010 4:15 PM | Report abuse

Sbj3: "Oh boy - White House talking points!"

Snort!  Yeah Greg, that took some digging. 

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | September 15, 2010 4:15 PM | Report abuse

wow, is this wrong:
==============
Obama isn't raising anyone's taxes. Congress is just not lowering the tax rates on incomes over $250,000. Everyone gets a cut on their adjusted gross income up to $250,000 per couple, and it goes up 2% on the next $100,000 or so and another 2.5% on income over that. These people can afford the taxes. Period.

===================

The above can be summed up in a single word: sophistry.

This must be national let a liberal fake themselves out day on this board. If Americans pay X amount in taxes now, and the tax cuts expire, they will be paying X+N amount of taxes. Sorry to have to point this out to you, but that's a tax increase.

You can salve your conscience with sophistry all you like, but taking more money from anybody is a tax hike.

And I love the way you blithely dismiss the additional burden you so willingly place on others. Still I have to give you kudos for being the first liberal here to offer some response to my question about the morality of progressive tax rates. Your explanation amounts to "they can afford it".

And it seems that deciding who can afford what is the exclusive province of America's liberals and their lap dogs in congress, right? So much for the concept of private property, eh?

Posted by: skipsailing28 | September 15, 2010 4:16 PM | Report abuse

"Obama is still increasing taxes 700 BILLION DOLLARS. That is correct, right?"

Correct but only on the rich so who cares?

Obama would "like to extend only tax cuts for every American making less than $250,000. That will add more than $3 trillion to the deficit over the next 10 years."

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/09/what_id_like_to_hear_obama_say.html

Posted by: sbj3 | September 15, 2010 4:18 PM | Report abuse

"This is the leadership you were looking for."

The magic word is V-E-T-O.

Posted by: wbgonne | September 15, 2010 4:18 PM | Report abuse

skipsailing28, just think as Bush's massive giveaway to the top 3% as a Christmas sale. Eventually, it just goes away and prices go back to "normal" rates.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 15, 2010 4:18 PM | Report abuse

OT - This is, well, why don't I just post this without comment...

http://www.fitsnews.com/2010/09/14/how-republicans-party/

Posted by: nisleib | September 15, 2010 4:19 PM | Report abuse

And yet, it was The Republicans, under George W. Bush that slated for Taxes to go back up on January 1, 2011. In other words, a Republicans legislated Tax Increase on all the Middle Class, and The Fat Cat Class.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 15, 2010 4:19 PM | Report abuse

The Republican Election Campaign Rallying Cry.

Borrow Four Trillion Dollars, So That We Can Continue To Pamper Our Pet Fat Cat Billionaires.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 15, 2010 4:21 PM | Report abuse

still more sophistry:
===============
skipsailing28, just think as Bush's massive giveaway to the top 3% as a Christmas sale. Eventually, it just goes away and prices go back to "normal" rates
=====================

Let's be sure we're getting this right. Allowing people to keep the money they earned is a "give away"? Once again a liberal states things too clearly. Once again we see the underlying theme: all money belongs to the government. Letting people keep what they earned is a "give away".

The only thing that's been given away here is the dirty secret of the liberal mind set.

I remember the old joke about the Democrats' tax simplification program. The 1040 would have two lines:

(1) How much money did you make last year?
(2) Mail it to us.

Please stay with this rhetorical approach. It is helping us conservatives a great deal.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | September 15, 2010 4:23 PM | Report abuse

"Just think [of] Bush's massive giveaway to the top 3% as a Christmas sale. Eventually, it just goes away and prices go back to "normal" rates."

But then you can't argue that the expiration of the tax cuts is a "GOP tax increase."

Posted by: sbj3 | September 15, 2010 4:24 PM | Report abuse

@skip,

You missed the great nondebate over the morality of progressive taxes. Only quarterback and Scott are as pure as Caesar's wife, in that their advocated position on taxation has nothing to do with whether it would benefit them or not. At least that is what both of them told me and I want to take them at their word.

As for me, I openly admit my view IS influenced by whether it benefits me or not, so I don't think I could enter the fray with a clear conscience.

If you want a pure debate, you should debate with qb and Scott.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 15, 2010 4:25 PM | Report abuse

Fat Cats do not earn money. They just rake in dividends. It is called Unearned Income.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 15, 2010 4:26 PM | Report abuse

OT:

Enthusiasm to Favor Hodes in NH?

Hodes Favorability Amongst Obama Voters:

66% fav
13% unfav
21% unsure

Ayotte Favorability Amongst McCain Voters

58% fav
25% unfav
17% unsure

Also, like DE, neither Palin nor Tea Party are any help to Ayotte:

Would you be more or less likely to vote for a candidate who was endorsed by Sarah Palin, or would it not make a difference?

More likely 18%
Less likely 52%
Makes no difference 30%

Do you consider yourself to be a member of
the Tea Party?

Yes 18%
No 69%
Not sure 13%

“Kelly Ayotte’s negatives have doubled over the last five months,” said Dean Debnam, President of Public Policy Polling. “She still starts out favored in the general election but this has the potential to be a very close race.”

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_NH_915513.pdf

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 15, 2010 4:27 PM | Report abuse

skipsailing28 would like to pretend a Govn't role in providing a stable and well functioning society is free!

Once again, another case of conservatism in denial. It's all lala land in the world of conservatism where everything works perfectly!

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 15, 2010 4:31 PM | Report abuse

Liam:

As Matt Taibbi has said:

The FatCats are like a Giant Vampire Squid sucking the life out of the American economy.

Posted by: wbgonne | September 15, 2010 4:31 PM | Report abuse

Hands up all those who favor adding Four Trillion dollars to the national debt, in order to renew the Bush Tax Cuts for Fat Cats.

Before you decide; remember, that they have been receiving those Tax Cuts for quite some time, and yet the have created no jobs, and have turned an annual budget surplus into a massive annual deficit.

So; clearly, renewing the Bush Tax Cuts for Fat Cats will further increase the national debt, and not create jobs.

Keep that in mind, so who still wants to borrow Four Trillion Dollars from China, to Keep our Billionaire Class Gruntled?

Posted by: Liam-still | September 15, 2010 4:32 PM | Report abuse

and for free!

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 15, 2010 4:32 PM | Report abuse

It does have a nice ring to it. It should appeal to the working poor, and make them loose sleep over the plight of our Billionaire Class.


The Republican Election Campaign Rallying Cry.

Borrow Four Trillion Dollars, So That We Can Continue To Pamper Our Pet Fat Cat Billionaires.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 15, 2010 4:35 PM | Report abuse

and wbgonne, this is the moment you've been waiting for, please tell me you won't miss it!

http://www.whitehouse.gov/live

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 15, 2010 4:35 PM | Report abuse

mikefromArlington:

Already there. Just waiting on the O-Man.

Posted by: wbgonne | September 15, 2010 4:37 PM | Report abuse

OT - As often happens following a win by a wackadoodle, er, Tea Party, candidate, O'Donnell's website is now totally blank:

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/09/15/odonnell-website-stripped/

Posted by: nisleib | September 15, 2010 4:37 PM | Report abuse

So, Obama is STILL in favor of a 700 BILLION DOLLAR tax increase, that is correct, right ?

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 15, 2010 4:37 PM | Report abuse

@liam,

My hand is not up.

On a slightly different tack, is there an argument here from the purists, that there should be a flat tax for C-corporations? Or is progressive taxation ok there? Is there some moral principle for IBM, Oracle, Microsoft and GE?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 15, 2010 4:39 PM | Report abuse

Trickle down poverty already worked guys. Time to try something new.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 15, 2010 4:39 PM | Report abuse

neislib-

Apparently, she's having a Come To Jesus moment with Them Who Have $. Or, they forgot to feed the hamsters.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | September 15, 2010 4:44 PM | Report abuse

when all else fails, lie:
===========
skipsailing28 would like to pretend a Govn't role in providing a stable and well functioning society is free!

Once again, another case of conservatism in denial. It's all lala land in the world of conservatism where everything works perfectly!

=======

Where did I say anything of the sort pal?

this is just symptomatic of the fact that the left has lost this argument. I've pointed out the meaning of the words that are used and in response this guy just plain lies.

Are you horning in on Ethan's turf now buddy?

Posted by: skipsailing28 | September 15, 2010 4:44 PM | Report abuse

Here it comes. Tax relief. GO OBAMA!

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 15, 2010 4:45 PM | Report abuse

Skip,

Do you believe in ANY kind of investment?

Or is it just government investment that you don't "believe" in?

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 15, 2010 4:47 PM | Report abuse


@liam,

My hand is not up.

On a slightly different tack, is there an argument here from the purists, that there should be a flat tax for C-corporations? Or is progressive taxation ok there? Is there some moral principle for IBM, Oracle, Microsoft and GE?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 15, 2010 4:39 PM

...................

I caught Paul Ryan on Charlie Rose the other night. I stayed up late to see if Craig Ferguson would have The Cussin' White Rabbit on during his intro bit. The best two minutes on TV, when ever he brings out the White Bunny.

So back to Ryan. In his Miracle Cure Concoction, to cure the ailing economy, he wants to eliminate all corporate taxes, and replace it with a Consumer VAT tax. That would be on top of all the local sales taxes, and income taxes that the working class now pay. Of course he also wants to go to a flat tax rate, where the lower incomes would pay the same rate as The Big Fat Pillbilly would for just flapping his Jowls for half a day.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 15, 2010 4:47 PM | Report abuse

LINDA SMACK-DOWN


Health insurers are asking for immediate rate hikes of more than 20 percent in Connecticut for some plans, citing rising medical costs and federal health reform laws as reasons.

Both issues — the new federal health care reform and rising medical costs — are significant drivers of the increases, according to filings by insurers


_________________________

Obama lied about health insurance going down


There is no reason to vote for another democrat.

Ever.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 15, 2010 4:48 PM | Report abuse

Well.

That was pointless.

How is it that the GOP can be holding anything hostage when there hasn't even been a bill introduced to kidnap?

Posted by: sbj3 | September 15, 2010 4:48 PM | Report abuse

Could have been stronger, no veto threat.

WB, I bet you're not happy, am I right?

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 15, 2010 4:49 PM | Report abuse

When you say "Allowing people to keep the money they earned is a "give away"?" you are ignoring the fact that without the stability and safety nets OUR GOVERNMENT HAS PROVIDED there wouldn't be the kind of earned money many make. That costs money. There was what was an attempt at temporary stimulus because of the .com crash caused bubble. The Govn't needs the revenue now according to the teatards. Or is the deficit not a big deal any longer?

If you're so upset at paying the Govn't taking your money then move to Somalia. They pretty much don't have a functioning Govn't.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 15, 2010 4:50 PM | Report abuse

My instant analysis: The most commanding Obama has seemed since becoming president. He said what he wants and why he wants it very clearly. What remains to be seen is whether the Cong Dems will get in line behind the Obama Middle Class Tax Cuts and, if not, what happens then. Good job, O-Man.

Posted by: wbgonne | September 15, 2010 4:52 PM | Report abuse

Obama on TV:

He framed it very well and clearly: Everyone gets a tax cut on up to $250,000 of income. This is 97% of people, and we agree so do it now. Only question is whether we should borrow to give millionaires and billionaires an additional average $100,000 tax cut. Very clear, very tight.

He wouldn't answer whether her would veto an extension of all the cuts. He was very forceful.

Posted by: Mimikatz | September 15, 2010 4:53 PM | Report abuse

re: O'Donnell and her virginity fetish (kind of a contradiction, eh?).

Apparently, viginity is also highly valued in Sharia Law. Creepy.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | September 15, 2010 4:55 PM | Report abuse

In his Miracle Cure Concoction, to cure the ailing economy, he wants to eliminate all corporate taxes, and replace it with a Consumer VAT tax.
--------------------------------------
That's what I'd call a corporate flat tax -- 00.00%. Then the only corporate taxes these companies will be paying is to other countries. Bwahahaha!!!!!!!!! Are we crazy here?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 15, 2010 4:56 PM | Report abuse

Wow WB, I'm kinda surprised.

I thought it was good, but imho could have been more direct in calling for an Up or Down vote on Middle Class Tax Cuts, or even employing a veto threat. I guess he's saving the big guns. I'll have to see it again.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 15, 2010 4:57 PM | Report abuse

I can't help but notice that Ms. O'Donnell is a marketing consultant. Then I read that she starts a group, SALT, which lobbies Congress. Do we connect those dots? Is her "marketing consulting" really means she is just a lobbyest?

Or do I have that wrong?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 15, 2010 4:59 PM | Report abuse

Ethan: Our comments crossed. Yes, it would have been more powerful and certainly more dramatic had Obama threatened a veto but it isn't essential. As I mentioned above, if Obama has taken control of the Dem Caucus then they will expeditiously draft and vote on the Obama Middle Class Tax Cuts. If the Dems start squawking and whining then Obama will have another decision to make and that decision will define the outcome. But there isn't much time politically-speaking so this has to happen fast. One thing I'll predict for sure: If this tax debate descends into HCR idiocy the Democrats are going to get DESTROYED in November.

Posted by: wbgonne | September 15, 2010 5:00 PM | Report abuse

Concern over the deficit is a sham issue. No one really cares. I'm surprised the WH doesn't know this.

Posted by: zukermand | September 15, 2010 5:02 PM | Report abuse

Or, better yet, the White House drafts a bill and sends it to Congress in a matter of days.

Posted by: wbgonne | September 15, 2010 5:06 PM | Report abuse

Re Veto threats: When was the last time ANY President threatened a veto when his party was in control of Congress?

Posted by: nisleib | September 15, 2010 5:06 PM | Report abuse

just a couple of ripostes:
first this:
=========
Skip,

Do you believe in ANY kind of investment?

Or is it just government investment that you don't "believe" in?

==================

This is a pointless question. It makes zero sense. I have been discussing the fact that the rhetoric used by the left reveals their true attitude toward private property. What's this question got to do with the price of cous cous in colombo?

Then this:
===========
When you say "Allowing people to keep the money they earned is a "give away"?" you are ignoring the fact that without the stability and safety nets OUR GOVERNMENT HAS PROVIDED there wouldn't be the kind of earned money many make. That costs money. There was what was an attempt at temporary stimulus because of the .com crash caused bubble. The Govn't needs the revenue now according to the teatards. Or is the deficit not a big deal any longer?

If you're so upset at paying the Govn't taking your money then move to Somalia. They pretty much don't have a functioning Govn't.

==============

this is just further proof that the left has lost this argument. Next I'll be called a racist, or a hater or some such. It is just the way it is with liberals.

In addition, the stuff in quotes is a complete mischaracterization of my own words. Lies, just more lies.

And I love the invitation to leave the country. If one doesn't like the liberal agenda then one is invited to live elsewhere. Soooooo open minded.

Just too funny.

I've made my point. Thanks to both of you for proving how little grasp of the basics you have. It is much appreciated.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | September 15, 2010 5:06 PM | Report abuse

"When was the last time ANY President threatened a veto when his party was in control of Congress?"

When was the last time it was necessary?

Posted by: wbgonne | September 15, 2010 5:07 PM | Report abuse

Nice, wb, I totally agree.

Btw, this is hilarious.

Limbaugh is blasting Rove. He actually said this:

"Where was this anger directed at a Democrat ever?"

"Where is this criticism of Democrats? Where has it been?"

As if Karl's been on our side this whole time???!!! How much more evidence do people need that Limbaugh is totally full of sh*t??? Either way, funny funny stuff.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 15, 2010 5:07 PM | Report abuse

"This is a pointless question"

If it's so pointless, why not take 5 seconds and answer?

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 15, 2010 5:09 PM | Report abuse

Later, All.

Posted by: wbgonne | September 15, 2010 5:09 PM | Report abuse

Health care costs are still going up


That is Obama's issue.


Obama FAILED - he let the economy slide while he worked on getting health care costs down.


That is what Obama SAID - DOWN.


Obama failed - or lied - or both.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 15, 2010 5:12 PM | Report abuse


I can't help but notice that Ms. O'Donnell is a marketing consultant. Then I read that she starts a group, SALT, which lobbies Congress. Do we connect those dots? Is her "marketing consulting" really means she is just a lobbyest?

Or do I have that wrong?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 15, 2010 4:59 PM
........................


Her SALT thing was all about wanting to dissuade College age people from engaging in "impure thoughts". She is a case of arrested development. I had Nuns brain wash me, about that nonsense, when I was six years old. It all went out the window, after I experienced my first nocturnal emission, dreaming about a class mate named Bridget, before I had even reached a conscious awareness of having become attracted to girls.

It would appear as if Ms. O'Donnell never went through puberty and is asexual.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 15, 2010 5:16 PM | Report abuse

Few people care about this

The democrats are desperate for an issue - so the American People see just that - the democrats ARE desperate for an issue.


So it really doesn't matter how Obama comes down on this issue - the ONLY person in the country who cares about the 250 K level for TWO INCOME HOUSEHOLDS is Obama.


Obama is the ONLY person.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 15, 2010 5:18 PM | Report abuse

Skip, 2nd try:

"This is a pointless question"

If it's so pointless, why not take 5 seconds and answer?

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 15, 2010 5:28 PM | Report abuse


Re Veto threats: When was the last time ANY President threatened a veto when his party was in control of Congress?

Posted by: nisleib | September 15, 2010 5:06 PM

>>>>.............

And just what is it, people want him to threaten to veto? Until he sees what form of bill might be emerging, what the hell is he supposed to roll out his big VETO Gun against?

Didn't we have enough of that premature bluster and chest beating from the last guy, with his "you are either with us, or against us" bullying.

People do not like to be threatened, about something that they have not even decided on yet.

I prefer the way President Obama is handling the situation.

Wasn't it Teddy Roosevelt that advised about "talking softly, but carry........

That is all President Obama is doing. I am sick of the left wing bed wetters, who want to have a VETO pacifier shoved in their mouths, so they can stop fretting over how how the political sausage making works.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 15, 2010 5:30 PM | Report abuse

Tax Rates:

A 39.6% top rate isn't outrageous. It's not socialism. It's lower than the top rate for most of Reagan's presidency, lower than Nixon's top rate, lower than Eisenhower's top rate, and lower than FDR's top rate when he pulled us out of the Great Depression.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_09/025679.php

Check out these two charts of top tax rates over history:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/top_rates.jpg

http://pol.moveon.org/budget10/chart/

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 15, 2010 5:36 PM | Report abuse

Liam @ 5:30 - I'm with you 100%.

Posted by: nisleib | September 15, 2010 5:37 PM | Report abuse

All, Happy Hour Roundup posted:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/09/happy_hour_roundup_88.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | September 15, 2010 5:45 PM | Report abuse

After almost two years of demonizing corporate America, holding a “boot to its neck,” and doing nothing for small businesses, Obama suddenly pretends to reverse himself with a “corporate tax break.”

http://pacificgatepost.blogspot.com/2010/09/more-erratic-economic-notions-from.html

America is looking for a firm policy statement such as immediate major cuts in government spending.

Posted by: JamesRaider | September 15, 2010 8:33 PM | Report abuse

I think this headline should read "Democrats plan on raising 4 trillion dollars in taxes to pay for their spending spree".

At the end of the day taxes will go UP 4 trillion dollars if the democrats have their way.

Posted by: dude1394 | September 15, 2010 8:46 PM | Report abuse

Greg, good column. Might I add that the Dems need to push the facts more and show who added what to the deficit. The Repubs like to claim it's Obamas deficit but as usual it's not true. The fact that most of the deficit is due to Republican adminstrations needs to be pounded home. Also to the geniuses who don't seem to understand, a 4 trillion deficit is larger than a 3.3 trillion dollar deficit. But Repubs never care about the deficit when they are putting money in their own pockets. To other clowns here, society can't function without government and a government can't exist without revenue. Taxes are the lowest now in at least the last seventy years. Those in the top one percent have the greatest share of income and wealth since the great depression and we have experienced the worst recession since then. It would seem to be that this inequity in income would be directly linked to the economic problems. So those of you continuously whining about taxes, get over it. Taxes are necessary for society to function. In addition the Repub party is responsible for most of the current deficit. Cutting taxes does not reduce the deficit or expand the economy.

Posted by: Falmouth1 | September 16, 2010 6:18 AM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company