Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Obama should "pull a Clinton," but what does that mean?

By Greg Sargent

Many commentators have responded to Tuesday's bloodbath by arguing that Obama now needs to "pull a Clinton." This appears to mean that in order to engineer his comeback, he needs to tack to the middle the way Clinton did with welfare reform and school uniforms, and maneuver GOP leaders into betraying their extremism.

But on a conference call with reporters, two top Dem thinkers made a counter-intuitive case: Clinton's comeback, they argued, was also driven by his success in persuading struggling voters that he was "on their side," by drawing bright lines in defense of popular programs like Medicare and Social Security, and clearly articulating an expansive vision on the economy. "Pulling a Clinton" is as much about populism as it is about centrism.

On the call, Dem pollster Stan Greenberg unveiled a post-election poll designed to show that -- despite the public's deep dissatisfaction with Dems on the economy -- there's no mandate for conservative economic ideas. The poll, he said, shows the public is still receptive to an expansive government role in job creation -- provided it's articulated better than Dems did this year -- particularly on infrastructure spending and reviving manufacturing.

For instance: Greenberg tested messages asking 2010 voters whether they could support Congressional action to rebuild infrastructure via a National Infrastructure Bank that would use public and private money. He also asked whether they'd support Congressional action to "launch a five year strategy to revive manufacturing in America, providing companies incentives to make it in America" and "ending tax breaks that reward moving jobs abroad." Both had solid majority support.

Greenberg also tested various GOP and Dem messages on how to deal with the deficit. A majority supported ending the high-end Bush tax cuts, while only a bit more than a third supported huge cuts in domestic programs, raising the retirement age for Social Security, and turning Medicare into a voucher program.

This suggests a new way to "pull a Clinton," the Dem thinkers suggested: Draw bright lines against the GOP on popular programs, and lay out proposals for a clear, expansive role for government in job creation, and dare Republicans to kill them.

"It's truly imperative that he drive a big, optimistic vision and challenge Republicans to support it, knowing that they won't," said Bob Borosage, the head of the Campaign for America's Future, who sponsored the poll.

Borosage also argued that Clinton succeeded because he cast himself as a defender of Social Security and other popular social and environmental programs against the Gingrich Congress. It's unclear where the Obama administration is heading on Social Security.

How does this new polling square with the shellacking Dems took on Tuesday and the apparent rejection of big-spending policies? Democratic candidates lost because the public never bought the idea that Dem policies were genuinely on their side. A majority of those angry at the big banks voted Republican. The poll shows the central Dem message -- that the GOP would return to Bush policies -- was a miserable failure.

All of this isn't to say that welfare reform, the Oklahoma City bombing and various Clintonian cultural positioning efforts didn't also play a big role in his comeback. Rather, the point is there's a lot more to "pulling a Clinton" than this.

By Greg Sargent  | November 5, 2010; 11:52 AM ET
Categories:  2010 elections, 2012, House Dems, House GOPers, Senate Dems, Senate Republicans, economy  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Why White House may cave on Bush tax cuts
Next: Pelosi's gamble: She's running for Minority Leader, ratcheting up tensions with moderates

Comments

Rather, the point is there's a lot more to "pulling a Clinton" than this.

******

Too true. Part of "Pulling a Clinton" was hiring Mark Penn. That man is a reptile and I will be disappointed with Obama if he hires Penn.

Posted by: nisleib | November 5, 2010 12:01 PM | Report abuse

nisleib, I don't think that's going to happen, given what happened in the Obama-Hillary Dem primary.

:)

Posted by: Greg Sargent | November 5, 2010 12:05 PM | Report abuse

Greg - Good lord I hope you are correct.

By the way, you should name your first (next) child after Kevin, his troll blocker is going to save this blog.

Posted by: nisleib | November 5, 2010 12:11 PM | Report abuse

Great post Greg. This is exactly the type of thing the administration needs to be doing. Rather than using a disparate collection of speeches, statements to the press, or assorted messages to Congress about what types of legislation are preferred and which aren't, the administration needs to take the initiative going forward to show the public exactly what the Democratic vision is for how we're going to turn the economy around. Obama has yet to use the strategy of making a big showing by sending a bill or even a package of bills to Congress for their approval. Instead, he's generally deferred to Congress to set the tone, which has left him and democrats, more generally, looking weak and indecisive. Even if Republicans refuse to go along on pieces of legislation like this, isn't this exactly the type of thing that democrats ought to be pushing for? By taking the initiative on sensible measures like this, Obama automatically puts himself above the fray of partisan posturing that has defined Congressional action for the last two years (and as you point out, this is exactly the type of thing that Clinton was masterful at).

Posted by: pollibido | November 5, 2010 12:13 PM | Report abuse

Here's what Obama should do: His deficit commission is due to report on Dec 1. He should take their report and dump it in Boehner's lap. Obama should tell the American people that: A.) it's a bi-partisan recommendation, B.) it reduces the deficit, and C.) and we need to pass it now.

That would put the GOP on the spot.

Unfortunately, I don't think Obama will do that because there will be spending cuts in the bill that Obama won't like. It's likely that he will muck with recommendations by gutting the spending cuts and adding more taxes. At that point, the GOP will be in the driver's seat until 2012, because they will be able to correctly claim that Obama only cares about growing government, not balancing the budget and fixing the economy.

Obama and Pelosi are already running around claiming that the election was not a referendum on their failed policies. Their delusional state doesn't bode well for Americans over the next two years.

Posted by: jwpegler | November 5, 2010 12:19 PM | Report abuse

Yes yes yes. It is time for the President to lead on the issues that matter. He needs to propose specific new tax cuts for the middle class and increases for the rich. The White House needs to write new legislation and submit it to Congress for infrastructure and jobs.

It is time for the President to lead.

Posted by: pragmaticstill | November 5, 2010 12:21 PM | Report abuse

"troll blocker is going to save this blog"

*tweety bird voice*
It did, it did!

"He also asked whether they'd support Congressional action to "launch a five year strategy to revive manufacturing in America, providing companies incentives to make it in America" and "ending tax breaks that reward moving jobs abroad." Both had solid majority support."

Hello? Is this thing on? Tap tap...Why can't liberals listen to the huge red middle of the country? Just look at that map of house districts in the formerly industrial heartland of the USA.

If Obama had done a whole bunch of precisely targeted economic programming, the Republican Rising! would not have happened. Instead, he has all but destroyed his Presidency with a brutal (boring) and ultimately futile 18 month debate on a bill that served only to put the health industry on steroids.

This health bill is reform in disguise and it had to happen it was just poorly sold..that narrative is false. He could have done many, many things to help out homeowners and stimulate domestic job creation - that is all people really wanted, that is not what they got.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 5, 2010 12:24 PM | Report abuse

Well, seeing how he is not an Arkansas "gobo" and black, I doubt he will be able to.

Posted by: Mighty7 | November 5, 2010 12:34 PM | Report abuse

@nsleib:

"By the way, you should name your first (next) child after Kevin"

No thanks, too many Kevin's out there, already. How about naming the next born after my father-in-law (now, sadly, passed), who was named Lowell. Lowell Thomas, actually, after the famous writer and broadcaster. Lowell as a good name, highly under-utilized in this modern world.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | November 5, 2010 12:43 PM | Report abuse

"He could have done many, many things to help out homeowners and stimulate domestic job creation - that is all people really wanted, that is not what they got.

Posted by: shrink2"

Like what? Keep in mind that Obama did try to get more stimulus, but was thwarted by the Senate.

Posted by: DDAWD | November 5, 2010 12:49 PM | Report abuse

As for "pulling a Clinton," that is a narrative based on the myth that the balanced budget was driven by the Republicans. Remember, the GOP shut the freakin government down. That wasn't meeting in the center. Republicans wanted Clinton to cut Medicare so that the GOP could hammer him for cutting Medicare.

Posted by: DDAWD | November 5, 2010 12:58 PM | Report abuse

Thanks, pollibido.

And many thanks to Kevin for saving the site, though I'm embarrassed to admit I have no idea how that troll whacker really works. :)

Posted by: sargegreg | November 5, 2010 12:58 PM | Report abuse

And the drum beat of denial pounds on unabated.

the liberals here and perhaps many of the Democrats in congress simply don't get the message that was sent.

Two years of relentless liberalism, coupled with arrogant high handed treatment of dissenters, has soured the populace on the government and the Democrat party.

People want LESS government. idiotic new programs like an "infrastructure bank" are, in the minds of many Americans, simply a way to rearrange the deck chairs on the titanic. The ship is sinking in a sea of debt. Instead of all this inside baseball nonsense designed to help liberals deny the repudiation they just experienced, why not focus on what the people really want? Less government. Less government, less government.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | November 5, 2010 1:02 PM | Report abuse

BREAKING NEWS

Nancy Pelosi says she is staying on as House democratic leader.


.

Posted by: PolarBearMadness | November 5, 2010 1:13 PM | Report abuse

First things first: Obama's gonna have to swallow his pride and work with the GOP to pass some of the least-objectionable aspects of their agenda. I think folks are mostly disgusted with rank partisanship (the poll backs me up). Daring the GOP to block the Obama agenda is not what people want to see right now - this will only further cement the idea that partisanship is ruining the middle class.

Prior to the election, the GOP was in a position to obstruct without consequences. *But now they aren't*. I would argue that right now it is also in the GOP's best interest to agree to some bipartisan solutions and that they realize this. The time is right for both sides to compromise. (The contrasting that Greenberg calls for here can wait a year.)

Posted by: sbj3 | November 5, 2010 1:15 PM | Report abuse

And the drum beat of denial pounds on unabated.

the liberals here and perhaps many of the Democrats in congress simply don't get the message that was sent.

Two years of relentless liberalism, coupled with arrogant high handed treatment of dissenters, has soured the populace on the government and the Democrat party.

People want LESS government. idiotic new programs like an "infrastructure bank" are, in the minds of many Americans, simply a way to rearrange the deck chairs on the titanic. The ship is sinking in a sea of debt. Instead of all this inside baseball nonsense designed to help liberals deny the repudiation they just experienced, why not focus on what the people really want? Less government. Less government, less government.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | November 5, 2010 1:16 PM | Report abuse

Didn't Clinton sign NAFTA?

Posted by: obrier2 | November 5, 2010 1:18 PM | Report abuse

All, this is huge: Pelosi running for minority leader:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/11/pelosis_gamble_shes_running_fo.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | November 5, 2010 1:18 PM | Report abuse

OK, Skip, but what would you cut? What government agencies need to be de-funded? And what would you do with the people that are going to lose their jobs due to your cutting of government agencies and departments (and, no, I'm not saying that gov't should be a jobs program, but you're going to throw a lot of people out into the private sector which isn't growing jobs as fast as would be needed to absorb them. So are you going to extend unemployment? Create a hiring incentive program? Throw them to the wolves?)?

Governing is hard work. What would you DO?

Posted by: Michigoose | November 5, 2010 1:18 PM | Report abuse

sorry for the double posting. I know not how it happened

Posted by: skipsailing28 | November 5, 2010 1:20 PM | Report abuse

Comment on "pulling a clinton"

First, Greg you really need to refer to this differently ...........

Second - there is a major component here which you are not considering. With Obama, the ignoring of the Economic Crisis has "made it personal."

Also, Clinton ran in 92 towards the center, and although Obama talked up a centrist platform in 08, Clinton was regarded as a centrist, so a move to the center was believable for him. With Obama, a move to the center will be seen as an attempt at deception, and something he is being "forced" to do.


.

Posted by: PolarBearMadness | November 5, 2010 1:23 PM | Report abuse

DD, the thing that saved the Clinton reputation for balancing the budget was bubbles and borrowing, the dot com bubble, lately we had the real estate bubble, there was the service economy boom (no one does anything on their own anymore) and of course, everybody living off credit cards...but during the past few decades, America was and is now losing the free trade war.

How strange the administration is now promoting his trip to India as somehow on behalf of the American economy: bizzaro, how, to sell them more weapons of mass destruction?

When he was elected, it seemed clear to me and many others on the left, there could be no more bubbles. No amount of printed/borrowed money could be spilled into the supply side and then suddenly consumers would spend again. This economic recovery was going to be different if it was going to happen at all. And it has not happened because Obama's people (and Paul Krugman) still can not figure out why spilling more free money on the banks has not and will not work except of course for the rich who are doing just fine thank you.

I used to argue with people two years ago about this, on through our Summer of Recovery that didn't happen. We were assured job growth was a lagging indicator, as if it were inevitable once the stock market went up and the rich started getting richer again. Well, it isn't, it just isn't.

There needs to be a driver for job creation and that has generally been consumer spending on product consumption. But if consumers spend borrowed money on products created elsewhere, how does that work for us in the end? This is why we are in trouble and why Obama's supply side approach has not worked, no amount of banking and monetary policy tweaks will cause jobs to happen in America, not in the "free" trade era.

But you asked, what Obama could and should have done. I'm just setting up that answer, so it makes sense. Are you still there?

Posted by: shrink2 | November 5, 2010 1:32 PM | Report abuse

"But you asked, what Obama could and should have done. I'm just setting up that answer, so it makes sense. Are you still there?"

I'd like to hear it shrink.

Posted by: lmsinca | November 5, 2010 2:06 PM | Report abuse

I'd like to hear it too, shrink.

Posted by: pragmaticstill | November 5, 2010 2:09 PM | Report abuse

It means he should hire a white house intern.

Posted by: omega5081 | November 5, 2010 2:14 PM | Report abuse

Ok I'll go for it. America has had a fantasy about what value means for a long time. There is no service economy in the sense that we can not all walk each others dogs, bank each others' money, cook dinner for each other, teach each others' kids and deliver health care to each other.

At the base of every economy underlying all wealth is stuff, real tangible stuff. I am not even talking about gold, or what was once called specie. Precious metals and jewels are similar in that they are worth more than they are worth just because they are shiny and rare.

Wealth has to be fungible, it has to be able to be turned into hard assets ultimately like land, food, water, oil and value added products. If we don't produce anything, we are a nation of borrowers at best, opportunistic scavengers like rats at worst.

So the American recovery that is sustainable will have to be driven by resurgent American production, people making stuff other people want. Unless we want to compete directly with the labor forces of the so called developing world, we will need to protect our world, our lives from their lives. Sounds terrible, but it is pretty obvious. Otherwise, what is the point of a national border?

Free trade was fine during the brief period after the cold war when we had the upper hand. But the command economies, the one party crony capitalist countries like China learned how to use "free" trade.

They allow Americans to think free trade is free. Well just like freedom, it isn't. We are in a trade war that we are losing, but the pain of that loss is not felt now, because they are propping up our dollar even as they import our manufacturing base. It is like high blood pressure which kills millions of people, but there are no painful symptoms, so people tend not to worry about it, deal with it later, too much later.

Free trade can only happen with states and companies with whom we share a relationship we consider advantageous. Yes this means open trade wars with other countries and their companies. Prices on some things will rise to their actual level, the level not associated with borrowing part of their value.

I have to work some. But what Obama should have done, what still has to happen, is direct investment in manufacturing industries. The Government Motors bailout had to happen and it worked, but that is not what I want to talk about. I am talking about appreciating the future of what the world wants to buy and placing America squarely in the sourcing loop, not the supply chain, the source.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 5, 2010 2:58 PM | Report abuse

"although Obama talked up a centrist platform in 08"

Yeah...I remember that centrist platform of closing Gitmo, getting out of Iraq, reforming health care so everyone had it, Cap and Trade.
And I remember the Republicans recognizing and calling Obama a centrist as they pointed to his Liberal voting record, his "spread the wealth around" comment and saying he hung out with terrorists and his centrist Church.
Either that or Republicans are revising history.

Posted by: ashotinthedark | November 5, 2010 3:15 PM | Report abuse

Oh and Obama could have and should have done a direct intervention in the toxic assets disaster, which is still evolving, still getting uglier. Real estate is a hard asset, houses and land, my goodness, how can all these people become homeless when all the industries holding their paper got bailed out with the BushObama administration's free/borrowed money?

People who lost their jobs are losing their homes, their equity, wonderful. The people who made all that money in the industry that created the toxic assets, well they still gotta get paid. No Obama could have and should have used the tremendous political capital he brought to office on this country's real estate debacle.

All he did was finish what the Bush team wanted to do, bail out the banks and the car companies, which again is fine, had to happen and all that. But you only get to do a few things when the opposition party (for which I have nothing but contempt, just be be obvious) is acting as speed bump.

The health industry expansion was the wrong priority. Someone on another thread just said free health care visits for seniors kicks in pretty soon. "Seniors are making appointments now for FREE checkups, effective Jan. 1 via Obamacare." Stupid liberals, nothing is free, there is no free anything, no free trade, no free healthcare, no free anything. Someone pays.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 5, 2010 3:37 PM | Report abuse

Thanks shrink

I pretty much agree with everything you said and in that context what is the goal of Obama's trip to Korea? I don't particularly trust him anymore when I see this.

"Obama hopes to be able to announce concrete progress on a Korea free trade agreement, which has long been stalled in Congress primarily because of opposition from Democratic lawmakers over barriers to sales of U.S. autos in Korea. A more heavily Republican Congress could be more amenable to the deal."

I'm not a protectionist but it seems we've taken free trade on the chin much to the detriment of our middle class. Everything being done by both R's and D's seems to be strengthening corporate profits over all else. The health care bill and HAMP are both perfect examples and now that we're so far behind our bargaining power is gone as well, as a nation and as individuals.

It's clear from polling that Americans want to return to "made in America" but I don't see how to get there. I don't think renewables or green technology will get us there especially with the resistance and skepticism I see everyday.

It's pretty depressing.

Posted by: lmsinca | November 5, 2010 3:57 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for the input shrink

I pretty much agree with everything you said. I'm still trying to figure out how in the hell we get out of this mess. I wish I knew what Obama was trying to accomplish in a free trade deal with S. Korea. I read a comment somewhere that now that we have a Republican congress it'll be easier to get it through. Sheesh

The health care bill and HAMP pretty much destroyed the Democratic brand and now with the Bush tax cuts looming on the horizon I figure we're about finished, although I'll keep fighting.

Literally the only light I see on the horizon is renewables and green technology although as 5446.... pointed out yesterday, it's not much to base our future on.

My husband has been with the same company for 30 years, 20 as employee and the last 10 as owner. We're a small fish in a big pond of predators and it's more difficult every year to compete. They're sending just about all their manufacturing to Taiwan or Mexico. We still manufacture our main product here about 30 minutes from our business. When our patent ran out about 15 years ago, out two biggest competitors copied it and had the tooling made overseas. Luckily for us they're engineers weren't quite as talented as ours and their product doesn't actually work, otherwise we'd be toast by now. LOL

Posted by: lmsinca | November 5, 2010 4:08 PM | Report abuse

It is depressing. We are behind the curve and the partisan struggles are not focused on this that matters.

If there were such a things as America's corporations, then trickle down would work, after all, if they were healthy, whom else would they employ? But America's corporations can do just fine with a high unemployment rate and no American middle class. Countries all over the world throughout history have had high unemployment rates and no middle class, but their rich people are plenty rich.

No, we don't want "free" trade with Korea. We don't need their Kia's. Korea's chaebol form of crony capitalism makes our examples of corrupt, pay to play capitalism look like a paragon of virtue.

Technology will have to get us there, it is the only thing we have that we are really, really good at.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 5, 2010 4:08 PM | Report abuse

shrink

My first response disappeared and so I made a second one, forgive me if I've duplicated some thoughts.

Anyway, thanks for the response.

Posted by: lmsinca | November 5, 2010 4:15 PM | Report abuse

Well I think we can still do whatever we want in this country, we are not done yet. We just have to focus and we have to deal with serious austerity, which is not necessarily depressing, it just isn't easy. Fair trade does not equal protectionism, which is when backward, subsidized or corrupted domestic industries are protected from reality (that better stuff is made by other people working in comparable conditions). "Free" trade is almost never fair trade. This is because there are no free markets.

All markets are regulated (one can try to go to the local street corner and to sell something, anything, from cocaine to milk to real estate...then later feel free to explain to the corrections workers the virtues of free market capitalism). All markets are set up for the mutual benefit of the buyers and the sellers. But when the buyers and the sellers are also the regulators, traders rule the market at the expense of everyone else. They trade peoples' jobs, even their lives.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 5, 2010 4:58 PM | Report abuse

DD, first I don't know where you got the idea I was advocating more tax cuts. Your response, the Krugman view, that we need even more government stimulus is predicated on a fallacy. Borrowing for stimulus is a stopgap, it is a temporary device, a way of bridging the gap, government creating or sustaining artificial demand when the consumer can not. We are monetizing our debt, printing money borrowed from others, a very dangerous game if it does not actually work and it is not working.

This recession is different from the others, this is not the down side of the a business cycle. We are in real trouble this time. We have been borrowing and cutting taxes and running deficits for years, well over a decade and the jobs just keep on going away.

We needed to use this our last chance to borrow heavily for domestic investment, not for stimulus, it is too late for that. We are not going to go back to consumer/consumption driven growth, not for a long time, if ever. Sustainable growth is different, it is very slow, it is not about consuming more and more stuff.

For now, we need domestic jobs and we need the housing devaluation cycle to be stopped. Obama has done almost nothing to help the upside-down homeowner. The American manufacturing sector is what needed to get stimulated and he did with GM and it worked. That was Exhibit A and that company was bankrupt, not just struggling.

We need to slap import duties on junk we don't need right now (not oil for example) coming in from all over the world. We are told we need inflation well the fastest way to get domestic production, wages and prices to rise, all three, is to make what we use and eat here, paying real wages to American workers. Why are people buying Kias for a fraction of what a car made in this country costs? I wonder, how does that help? How does "free" trade help Americans?


Posted by: shrink2 | November 5, 2010 5:46 PM | Report abuse

Shrink, I didn't say you said that about tax cuts. In fact, you said this...

"No amount of printed/borrowed money could be spilled into the supply side and then suddenly consumers would spend again. "

I took this to mean that you were equating stimulus with supply side economics. But it's really quite different. Sorry if I misunderstood.

But most likely the reason it's not working is that the stimulus wasn't large enough for the scope of the problem.

As for the deficits, it's a big fallacy that stimulus will be a major contributor to them. In 2010, stimulus was less than a trillion dollars, not all of it was spent, and government recoups some of it in taxes. Also, it's one shot deal, as opposed to something like Medicare or any tax plan which lasts indefinitely. You can hardly blame the $10 trillion deficit on the stimulus.

But I agree that we do need to be budget conscious. However, if my house if burning down, I'm going to run up the water bill to save it. Afterwards, I might consider not running my lawn sprinklers 24-7.

Posted by: DDAWD | November 5, 2010 6:01 PM | Report abuse

It is true, the administration's supply side ministrations are different from the stimulus. Sorry to have conflated the two.

The house burning down part was over a long time ago. But consumer debt takes a long time to defray. They could pour more water on the charred wreckage or not, consumption is not going to drive a recovery, not until there are jobs, not until people know what they have left is not going to lose value.

If the idea is (borrowed) consumption will "create" jobs, the verdict is already in, not this time. THe recovery will happen but it will be very slow and it will widen income disparity. Of course, nothing the Republicans are going to do will help, that is the stupid part about the voters punishing the Ds for the timing of the "affordable" health bill.

The confidence problem can not be solved by a borrowed stimulus. I imagine you are, I am doing great. I can wait for the price of that boat I want to buy to drop, I'm plenty confident. But most people, I believe are not in the category where the definition of wealthy includes them one day and not the next. When I drive around in the heartland, it looks really bad. Everything is for sale.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 5, 2010 6:43 PM | Report abuse

How is Obama going to draw a bright line when he still just wants everyone to get along?

Posted by: pj_camp | November 6, 2010 1:11 AM | Report abuse

So skipsailing28, no more government programs means no more money invested in building jobs for those who lost them, eh? OK. Sounds fine to me and especially fine to the Repubs. Cut those safety nets and let the people fall! I think it would be important for you and many of us to learn a bit more about macroeconomics. It is not like managing our home accounts! Gov is supposed to help us and that means that they spend money and put together programs. Not everyone of them is successful, but it is their job to put together their best estimate of what will work. Given the times, nothing is going to be particularly effective and all are going to take some time. I have not heard of a single republican plan to solve the problem...they do not have one!! Why do you think the Fed put together a 650B loosening of the money system. They may not be your favorite, but every economist worth their salt says this is all scary but only more money has a chance of pulling us out of this mess. Rich Repubs are just trying to get more of the money for themselves!

Posted by: leskruth | November 10, 2010 12:10 AM | Report abuse

The Feds aint got what we don't *give* them...Dig?

Unless the Chinese are investing in our taxes...

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | November 10, 2010 4:18 AM | Report abuse

This is not a comment about Clinton and I have not been able to confirm this, but a few days ago I heard someone who supports a 'tax increase' for the 'over $250k income' tax payers say that the $250k would be total TAXABLE income as opposed to total income. I am sure this would be more acceptable to me if this was the income I made. Just food for thought. And if this is true, why have I not heard any of the proponents make this distinction? My goodness!

Posted by: hcpep | November 11, 2010 8:53 AM | Report abuse

This is not a comment about Clinton and I have not been able to confirm this, but a few days ago I heard someone who supports a 'tax increase' for the 'over $250k income' tax payers say that the $250k would be total TAXABLE income as opposed to total income. I am sure this would be more acceptable to me if this was the income I made. Just food for thought. And if this is true, why have I not heard any of the proponents make this distinction? My goodness!

Posted by: hcpep | November 11, 2010 8:57 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