The Hill asserted some "surprise[d]" "liberals" did not resist Obama's "sudden turn to tax cuts," ignored his campaign pledge to cut taxes
SUMMARY: In an article about President-elect Barack Obama's meetings with members of Congress to discuss a stimulus package, The Hill's Mike Soraghan asserted, "To the surprise of some, congressional liberals offered up little initial resistance to the sudden turn to tax cuts." But in referring to Obama's purported "sudden turn to tax cuts," Soraghan ignored Obama's promise of tax cuts during the campaign, nor did Soraghan quote or name one person expressing "surprise" that "congressional liberals" would support tax cuts as part of a stimulus plan.
In a January 5 article about President-elect Barack Obama's meetings with members of Congress to discuss a stimulus package, The Hill's Mike Soraghan asserted, "To the surprise of some, congressional liberals offered up little initial resistance to the sudden turn to tax cuts, which has been a conservative mantra since Ronald Reagan beat Jimmy Carter." But in referring to Obama's purported "sudden turn to tax cuts," Soraghan did not note that Obama, as he reportedly pointed out in response to suggestions that he was trying to win over Republicans, promised tax cuts during the campaign. Additionally, Soraghan did not quote or name one person expressing "surprise" that "congressional liberals" would support tax cuts as part of a stimulus plan.
On January 6, The Washington Post reported, "After a lunchtime session with his economic advisers, Obama rejected suggestions that the tax cuts were designed to win over GOP votes." The Post quoted Obama saying, "The notion that me wanting to include relief for working families in this plan is somehow a political ploy, when this was a centerpiece of my plan for the last two years doesn't make too much sense." Indeed, during his campaign, Obama proposed, in part, to "[c]ut taxes for 95 percent of workers and their families with a tax cut of $500 for workers or $1,000 for working couples," as well as to "cut taxes overall, reducing revenues to below the levels that prevailed under Ronald Reagan."
From Soraghan's January 5 Hill article:
But the overall size of the package remains a big question mark, and a potential disagreement between the two chambers. House aides say there's a general agreement around the amount of $775 billion.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), pressed for a figure on the overall size, said that Obama was talking about much larger numbers from his discussions with economists.
"He has indicated that there's at least 20 economists that he's talked with," Reid said, "and all but one of those believe it should be from $800 billion to $1.2 trillion or $1.3 trillion."
To the surprise of some, congressional liberals offered up little initial resistance to the sudden turn to tax cuts, which has been a conservative mantra since Ronald Reagan beat Jimmy Carter.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who comes from the liberal wing of her party, spent the day repeatedly praising the changes Obama was making.
"I commend President-elect Obama for agreeing to work in a bipartisan way," Pelosi said.
One labor leader offered support for having 40 percent of the package go to tax cuts as long as the size of the overall package was large -- in the $675 billion to $775 billion range that has been discussed on Capitol Hill.
"It's not a problem if the package is big enough," said Bill Samuel, legislative director for the AFL-CIO. He noted that some have called for a larger stimulus package, and suggested the AFL-CIO would not be opposed to something bigger.
And Al Gore mentioned targeted tax cuts in 2000 to help the middle class. Pundits though consider tax cuts to be what the rich get.
Of course they're surprised. No liberal has ever cut taxes and no onservative has ever raised taxes. (sarcasm)
This notion that the Republicans somehow "own" the issue of tax cuts is absurd.
Modern liberals and the Democratic Party (not always the same) have always favored tax cuts, only for those who need them most, and only when the country can afford them.
Drastically cutting taxes in the middle of a billion-dollar war or a trillion dollar arms race is NOT a good idea. Neither is cutting taxes only for the wealthy while simultaneously cutting social programs for the poor.
The wingnuts are just in a snit because Obama's tax cuts are actually going to help more people and do more good for the country than anything Reagan, Bush 1 or Bush 2 ever did.
Cool. I didn't realize the good old USA was so flush with cash right now. Count me in.
Sure, but its in the hands of those who already had most of it anyway. Safe in tax havens world wide where it rightly belongs.
So let me dissect your liberal logic. Tax cuts are only good if the "country can afford them"? By that you mean if the "country" has cash on hand and is able to give back our money to us, those who earned it, then we should be grateful for their tremendous generosity in returning money to it's rightful owners? Got it.
Give your owigie board a break. Indications are its overheating and giving truly random outputs.
Tommy
How dare you? You did not earn the money. The govt allowed you to make it, and as a result you owe it to them. Any crumbs they give back is a bonus.
FYI Coulter will be on the today show on Wend 07, during the 7 and 11 hour. Drudge got the job done!!!!!
Wow. pointedheadview is really posting stupidly today.
Pointy, if you hate America so much that you're this angry about doing your part, why don't you go start your own country? Who gave you the idea that you're entitled to a free ride ?
I love the standard liberal argument for taxes. As soon as someone even whispers that taxes may be too high, that means that we want a free ride, bam, no taxes at all, dismantle the police and fire dept, zero money to the govt. Come on Col, you don't need to argue extremes. What % is exactly "doing your part"? How much do you think that will be?
I wasn't arguing extremes, Pointy was. Implying that the gov. takes all of our money and gives a few crumbs back is hysterical wingnut-bait, and you seem to find it reasonable.
For about the 1,000th time at this site, I don't have the time nor inclination to write a tax code for anybody who thinks that those who aren't crying constantly about paying taxes are somehow expected to have a universal perfect tax plan worked out.
Taxes were a burden to me when I had my first on-the-record job as a kid. I was pumping gas making 4 bucks and change an hour, and the 20 or 30 bucks taken out was very noticeable. I decided to work hard and make more money. It was either that, or spend the rest of my life whining about paying the dues for being an American citizen (and registering Republican).
But since you brought up the subject, what do you (or any of you other free-lunch cons) think is a reasonable percentage of your income to pay in doing your part?
"the gov. takes all of our money and gives a few crumbs back is hysterical wingnut-bait, and you seem to find it reasonable"
Really, you thought that? Wow, I thought it was an "exaggeration".
You seem to be having some trouble today with subtleties in the language. This may help...
http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exaggeration
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Let me help you, and you won't even need Wikipedia. When someone says "Any crumbs they give back is a bonus", they are exaggerating to make a point. It's not subtle at all, it's common sense.
Not common sense and not subtle. But I am not the one having trouble following simple english.
Good day :)
here is tommy's original statement: "tax cuts are only good if 'the country can afford them'? by that you mean if the 'country' has cash on hand and is able to give our money back to us, those who earned it, then we should be grateful for their tremendous generosity in returning our money to it's rightful owners?"
the fact is that we all make money, my last few thousand are taxed at the 25 rate, and we make money because we have a government that provides an infrastructure that allows us to make that money. if you want to go live in a cave, raise your own crops, catch your own fish, and do it all without using any roads, or government services of any kind, then you might have an argument. but, i doubt you do. we have to decide what we want and pay for it. all we keep doing is running up debt and pretending there's a free lunch. i do not necessarily buy the argument that tax cuts are the end all solution now. when clinton raised taxes on the wealthy in 94, all the conservatives predicted recession even depression. in fact, we went on an unprecented economic expansion. i do not want a big spending government, we can probably not afford any more than a bare bones universal health plan, but we need to decide what we want and pay for it. that doesn't always mean a balanced budget every year, but an overall trend of living within our means. and paying for it. we are approaching a point where the interest on our accumulated debt is eating up a huge portion of our yearly budget.
I am not advocating a free lunch, or a society without services or taxation. For you to suggest we have a choice of either living in caves and catching our own dinner, or just sighing and agree to pay whatever tax hike is thrown at, is ridiculous. Our government has plenty of our money to fulfill it's obligations to us and keep us safe, which is their job. Their job is not to fund every program to the hilt at the expense of holding necessary services hostage in elections or at budget planning time.
I have no problem paying my fair share, or paying to keep our infrastructure sound, our streets safe, our national parks thriving, our environment clean and essential services up and running. But I will not sit idly by and watch politicians tell me we don't have money for cops, or basic education. Because we do. So I go back to them and tell them to cut spending elsewhere, because these services - police, fire, infrastructure are priority.
When I don't see financial accountability and I do see waste in government, I say no more. The gravy train ends.
but when you say the tax cuts are returning money to "it's rightful owners", then i would say you are not acknowledging the role that government plays in you earning that money. and i agree there is waste in government, a lot of crop subsidies for instance, but when a budget is passed, they we pay for it or we don't. you're saying i won't pay for what i don't like. the problem with that is that we just keep running up deficits, which in the long run are costing us even more money in interest costs. and you're really mixing state, national and local here. most state and local governments have balanced budget requirements.
Not acknowledging? I just told you I am not for some free lunch and of course we need taxes. As for paying for programs I don't like, it isn't about like or dislike, it's about what's necessary and what is not, what we are entitled to and what we are not. I am not entitled to somebody else's money. State, local, national, I don't care. It's all about accountability.
you say you're not for a free lunch, but as i pointed out, your original statement was about returning any money to "it's righful owners", as if government had no role in you making that money. i think you're doing your usual "i didn't say what i said". and i've already said from the beginning here that i don't want "a big spending government". but i also think we have to pay for what we spend. you on the other hand, say there's too much waste, so i don't care if we keep running deficits. just saying "accountability" solves nothing.
Let me be clear, the money we earn is ours, that is a fairly simple concept, if you can't grasp it, that is your fault. However, that doesn't mean we as citizens don't have responsibilities to the society in which we live. Which is where responsible and fair taxation is necessary to maintain law, order and safety for all citizens. You keep throwing up your strawman that I am saying that government has no role therefore I am greedy and want every penny for myself. If that is your argument, then I am not surprised you can't argue it honestly and have to twist my words, so be it.
And if accountability solves nothing for you, too bad. I hope you manage your personal finances better than that.
actually i manage them very well. but saying "accountability" as if it's the answer to everything, relieves you of any responsibility. deficits? not my fault, i'm for accountability.
"But since you brought up the subject, what do you (or any of you other free-lunch cons) think is a reasonable percentage of your income to pay in doing your part?"
I am not about to give a number for the spenders in government to work up too. I expect every penny spent wisely and to be accounted for. If I have to pay more, I am fine with that. I just don't reward waste nor should I be taxed to fork over more without proper stewardship. If you aren't as concerned about it as I am, that is your business.
I expect every penny spent wisely and to be accounted for
That's a bold stance, Tommy. And so much more sensible than my suggestion that we throw money down storm drains with no accountability at all.
There, is that what you're looking for?
When liberals tell conservatives they just want a free lunch and they should pony up more money without specifying specifics, then a storm drain is just as good as any appropriations committees.
I realize there are few conservatives on this site, so you need to band together, but pointofview is exaggerating to make a point, and Col. is arguing extremes?
You DO see how this shows YOUR bias right?
So, perhaps both are exaggerating to make a point by arguing extremes. If that shows my bias about not wanting taxpayer dollars wasted, so be it.
When liberals tell conservatives ...they should pony up more money
Where did that happen?
When you tell a conservative they hate America, are angy, should start their own country and don't want to do their part, that easily translates into saying they should pony up more money and behave themselves. If you meant something else, let us know.
I have no idea how much POV pays in taxes. I don't even know him/her, how could I possibly make a judgment about his taxes?
I was only commenting on the whining. That was on full display.
Maybe you shouldn't trust your "easy translations", Tommy. "easy" isn't always "good".
Well Colonel, you know enough about him to tell him he hates America, he wants a free ride, that he is angry, and he should start his own country. Seems pretty presumptuous, don't you think?
Notice the words "if" and "why". I was asking( not telling) some pretty reasonable questions, based on pointy's screamimg bloody murder about taxes. If POV wants to share personal info. about his income & taxes, then we'll have specifics. Until then, I only had some general whining to go on.
Do you guys throw this type of tantrum when you go to the grocery store and they don't give you back as much change as you think you deserve?
I throw a tantrum at those pesky little change receptacles spilling out my coins in that little tray, that really irks me. I want the checker to hand me my money, and not on top on the receipt and the paper bills, then I have to use my other hand and it's already fumbling for car keys and putting my Preferred customer card back in my wallet. That stuff really ticks me off :)
It's humorous when you try to play the reasonable one. Must have been a New Years Resolution but it's only the 6th.
;-)
And you weren't arguing extremes and waxing hyperbolic in your response to my comment?
WITH: Why Is Tommy Here?
Tommy
And notice that through it all, no one ever suggested how much was enough, how much was to much. The Col translates my wanting to pay less of what I earn in taxes to hating America. I don’t mind paying my fair share. I make a good living and can afford it. The point remains however, that the dems have traditionally been against tax cuts. They have been against letting people keep the money they make. Nothing demonstrates this better than the dems refusal to work to eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax that is killing many in the middle class.
but they're been raising the level on the amt every year, so more people are excluded from having to pay it than would otherwise have to.
they've been, or they're, raising. your choice.
Way to just make things up there pointyview! Dems have consistantly tried to revise the AMT so that it does nto expand to hit the upper and middle middle class tax brackets. It has been Republican obstruction that has kept any permanent reform from occuring by demanding that the revisions be temporary and tied to their own pet tax projects.
with: why is tommy hounded?
Wrangle in the head?