"I Won"
| Fri Jan. 23, 2009 11:49 AM PST
"I WON"....Jonathan Weisman reports on today's bipartisan stimulus meeting at the White House:
Challenged by one Republican senator over the contents of the package, the new president, according to participants, replied: "I won."
The statement was prompted by Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl of Arizona , who challenged the president and the Democratic leaders over the balance between the package's spending and tax cuts, bringing up the traditional Republican notion that a tax credit for people who do not earn enough to pay income taxes is not a tax cut but a government check.
Obama noted that such workers pay Social Security and Medicare taxes, property taxes and sales taxes. The issue was widely debated during the presidential campaign, when Sen. John McCain, the Republican nominee, challenged Obama's tax plan as "welfare."
Good. Obama's efforts to maintain good relationships across the aisle may mean that he's wiser than me in these matters, but I still don't think it's going to work and I hope he doesn't waste too much energy on it. This is the right response for something that's already been hashed out a hundred times before.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Comments
My impression of Obama is that he is efficient and expedient. He has patience when it gets him somewhere, when the issue and discussion merit it, and even slightly beyond that to cajole people when needed. But his patience runs out, and runs out quickly, when it is no longer accomplishing anything.
Submitted by Eric Ferguson (not verified) on Fri Jan. 23, 2009 12:01 PM PST.
"I won" might not have been the best response, but he had the right comeback to that common conservative talking point about people who don't pay taxes. Besides knocking down the specific point, he showed Republicans they can't just spit back the drool from the Limbaugh clones.
"Obama noted that such workers pay Social Security and Medicare taxes, property taxes and sales taxes."
This is a very stupid point, easily refuted by a child of even average intelligence. Social Security is supposed to be linked to future benefits. Medicare is supposed to be linked to future medical care. Property taxes and sales taxes don't even flow to the federal government. So in what sense are we cutting these taxes by instituting refundable tax credits paid from income taxes? Does this mean future Social Security payments will be proportionally reduced since you're getting a "tax cut" in payroll taxes? Of course not. Kyl is right. The revenues used to fund the "tax cuts" come from income taxes. To the extent you don't pay income taxes, it's a welfare check.
Submitted by Yellow Dog (not verified) on Fri Jan. 23, 2009 12:24 PM PST.
Ample evidence that Obama's repug outreach efforts are very subtle rope-a-dope.
Do we really think Obama hasn't known all along what every other person with half a brain figured out in 1998 - that repugs are knee-jerk obstructionists who will never, EVER cooperate with a Democratic president?
It appears the repugs, after decades of severe ideological inbreeding, are no longer capable of understanding, much less dealing with, such subtlety.
"Ample evidence that Obama's repug outreach efforts are very subtle rope-a-dope."
Yup. He knows the GOP is going to oppose the stimulus plan, and is nicely giving them a can of paint to paint themselves into a corner.
I'd hate to play chess with him: I'd bet he's the kind of player where you go a knight and a pawn up and think you're going to walk all over him, and three moves later your king is checkmated.
Conservative politicians such as President Nixon and thinkers such as Milton Friedman have a long tradition of supporting a negative income tax. We already have a social consensus that there should be some government benefits for those who are temporarily down on their luck. That is why we have unemployment insurance, food stamps (now Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)), and TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families), among other programs. Given the social consensus that there should be some government benefits for those who are temporarily down on their luck, and a long tradition of intellectual support from conservatives for the negative income tax, it's embarrassingly inconsistent for conservatives to chirrup now that "a tax credit for people who do not earn enough to pay income taxes is not a tax cut but a government check." Of course it's a government check. We already have a social consensus that this is one of the functions of our government: to ensure social and economic stability by offering a hand to those who are down on their luck.
Yes, Joel and David. And I would add that if Brad thinks a stimulus check in the form of a tax rebate, even for those who don't pay income taxes, is such a 'give-away' or 'free lunch' there's nothing stopping him from quitting his job and joining the ranks of the unemployed so that he too can enjoy this windfall.
This is a very stupid point, easily refuted by a child of even average intelligence. Social Security is supposed to be linked to future benefits. Medicare is supposed to be linked to future medical care. Property taxes and sales taxes don't even flow to the federal government. So in what sense are we cutting these taxes by instituting refundable tax credits paid from income taxes? Does this mean future Social Security payments will be proportionally reduced since you're getting a "tax cut" in payroll taxes? Of course not. Kyl is right. The revenues used to fund the "tax cuts" come from income taxes. To the extent you don't pay income taxes, it's a welfare check.
This would be so much more persuasive if Al Gore had won in 2000 and we had the "lockbox." Alas, he didn't, and Congress and the Bush administration spent the past eight years comingling social security and general fund dollars. Anyone who argues that social security taxes don't fund general government expenses is a liar, pure and simple.
Excuse me but why are we talking about taxes at all? The Republican destruction of the economy is a gigantic tax on all of us. I'm looking at my mutual funds and feeling like the Republican party has taxed me at about 50% per annum, in addition to income taxes.
If the Democrats get the economy going again, as history suggests they will, a few percentage points here or there in tax rates is essentially meaningless.
I care much less about taxes than I do about whether I, and my fellow Americans, have jobs.
Submitted by Neil B ☺ (not verified) on Fri Jan. 23, 2009 4:28 PM PST.
Won: the triumph of hope and change over fear and greed.
"The revenues used to fund the "tax cuts" come from income taxes."
Gee, Brad must know something we don't about payroll taxes being segregated from income taxes in the federal budget.
Just when did that lock box get put in place?
Dope.
Listening to David Brooks today, it sounds like Dems are actually passing non-stimulus lib programs like education, contraceptive aid, etc., under the guise of stimulus--spending that is mostly at least two years off in the future. Seems to me the quickest way to get money into the economy would be to distribute time limited credit cards, sort of like the HD TV cards, that you would spend or lose, and the unspent going back into the pool. Not that I have a great deal of faith in economists, but if they say quick is good where stimuli are concerned, it ain't rocket science to figure out how to get money into the economy. The Dems obviously have other agendas.
Repeat after me: "GOP policies and proposals on the economy have been disastrous and totally discredited." You are totally disgraced. Please shut up, step aside, and let the will of the people prevail. Rational, intelligent people are now in the decision-making roles.
Submitted by Maynard Handley (not verified) on Fri Jan. 23, 2009 7:02 PM PST.
"To the extent you don't pay income taxes, it's a welfare check"
And you apply the same philosophy to companies taking advantage of various loopholes that they lobbied for?
To hedge fund managers who don't pay income tax because they claim they should only pay cap gains tax?
Submitted by Sam W (not verified) on Fri Jan. 23, 2009 7:03 PM PST.
In addition to the obvious point that Social Security and Medicare are paid from taxes, wasn't there a kerfuffle over Tim Geithner's failure to pay his self-employment tax in full? That's equivalent to FICA.
To put it together: When it makes Obama look bad (Geithner confirmation), these are taxes. When it's cited in regard to a policy Obama wants, they don't count.
IT'S GOOD TO BE THE KING RAP
From the film "The History Of The World Part 1" (1981)
(Mel Brooks / Pete Wingfield)
(Ah Ooh Ah Ooh Ah Ooh Ah Ooh)
Now get down people and listen to me
Gonna tell you how I made history
You can call me Louis, I'm the king of France
Check out my story while you do your dance
Now in seventeen hundred and eighty-nine
The peasants were starving, but I was fine
We were hanging out, down in old Versailles
That's the week end pad of my Queen and I
In the alleys of Paris they was eating rats
But it was fillet and ????? for the aristocrats
There were Dukes and Counts and Barons and Earls
I gave them the titles but I kept the girls
Blondes, red heads, wild brunettes
Ladies-in-waitin', I didn't wait to get
There was truffles for breakfast, toast for brunch
The line of the Follies Bergères for lunch
(Ooh yes, it's good to be the King)
(Ooh La La)
(Gee, but it's good to be the King)
Say it girls
(You can be sure about one thing)
(Ooh La La)
(Mais oui, it's good to be the king)
It's good to be the king
Luther, that's roughly what the government of Taiwan did last week. They issued coupons in various denominations worth about US$100 to every man, woman, and child who was a citizen or a resident alien married to a citizen ( a lousy 100 bucks for 20 years of marriage- ow, ouch, sorry, dear, just kidding!)
The coupons are only redeemable in stores- you can't use them to pay bills, though you could give them to your landlord if he/she'd take them; you can't get change back so you have to spend at least that amount; and they are only valid until June, I believe.
Since this is the week before Chinese New Years' most people spent them right away- the stores were packed the first two days.
However, I'm skeptical about the overall effect- personally, I used them to buy groceries I would have bought anyway, so no net stimulus. I'm sure there was some kind of boost, but how much remains to be seen.
I don't WANT another lousy little cheque!
I want my mortgage rate reduced to 3.5% !
I want YOUR mortgage rate reduced to 3.5% !
(See yesterday's Nationalization discussion.)
And I want an END to usurious loan interest rates; bring back the banking regulations we had before Graham & McCain stole them.
These actions would bring back real stability to the Markets -and an on-going (not pan-flash) boost to the whole economy.
Luther, it's not too difficult to see how money for education or family planning are helpful to the economy in a fairly immediate sense. As property tax revenues decline due to falling real estate values, federal funding for education means more teachers, school custodians, and cafeteria employees remain employed. Kids get educated to boot! I suppose a dollar spent on "contraceptive aid" might not have as an immediate an economic impact as education funding, but in about nine months a poor woman will not be going on the dole because she can't work and take care of her new baby. Oh yeah, and she won't be getting an abortion.
Geez, Luther. You're missing the forest for the trees.
One would think that you of all people would be a huge supporter of contraceptive aid (if not outright forced-sterilization) as an effective way to reduce the non-Anglican population in this country. John Gibson would be very disappointed in you.
I mean, you are the same Luther who posted the following here just two months ago, on Kevin's 11/19/08 "OOGEDY-BOOGEDY" thread, right?:
"You people are idiots. The Democrud's Anchor Voting Breeding Program has been going on for hundreds of years because of illegal infiltration. First is(sic) was the damn Irish, then the Italians, then the Poles, Jews, Japs, Chinese, and now La Raza has grown up to be the new league of jackpot babies. If you aren't a White Anglican Man, you need to get the the hell out of my country (Halle Berry and Jennifer Lopez can stay as long as we get them spayed first).
Submitted by Neil B ☺ (not verified) on Sat Jan. 24, 2009 9:27 AM PST.
Dwight, remember that right-populists have the cognitive dissonance of being anti-contraception/abortion and yet hating the breeding of non-aglo populations. CD blows right thru them since logical consistency is despised "intellectuality."
Obama wins a higher share of the pop vote and electoral vote than Bush won in 2004 and dems win bigger majorities in both chambers of congress than the 2004 republicans.
Yet according to the GOP 2004 Bush had a mandate and the dems had better step aside ("political capital"). In 2008 Obama needs to reach out to the GOP?
I just had an aneurysm trying to find the logic....
I know there are few Bush fans here, and it is late in the thread, but what is the basis for disagreeing with this pro-Bush column:
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.bush25jan25,0,16581...
Good thing J Lo's got some
Submitted by CampbellP on Mon Nov. 30, 2009 1:58 AM PST.
Good thing J Lo's got some padding when she fall during her performance at the American Music Awards. But don’t worry, J. Lo’s fall wasn’t a bad one. She didn’t get injured, but when J. Lo falls at the AMAs is kind of a big thing, regardless. Luckily, the same part of her body that helped her become uber-famous has not only made her millions, it protects her when J Lo falls down on stage. She's just fine. Anyway, she has a hefty insurance policy on that piece of real estate of hers, so if she did need medical attention she wouldn’t need quick personal loans or anything.
Post new comment
MoJo Comments: Send Us Your Feedback
We changed our spam software to better filter comments. Should you encounter any issues, please let us know.
