NYT: "Senate (so-called) Allies Fault Obama Stimulus Plan." Dems vs. Clinton II

[Captain Hilts]

I CAN'T believe they're not backing Obama on this. Just the way the didn't back Bubba in '93 and his first budget passed by ONE vote - GORE's.

I can't believe this crap.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/09/us/politics/09obama.html?_r=1&hp

President-elect Barack Obama’s economic recovery plan ran into cross-fire from his own party in Congress on Thursday, suggesting that quick passage of spending programs and tax cuts could require more time and negotiation than Democrats once hoped.

[Thrill]

1. Not a surprise. Thats why this party doesn't stay in full power very long

Even if you disagree with some of the things, talk about it behind close doors. Not run to the nearest microphone.

As Jack Cafferty said this afternoon. "These guys, have a 10% approval rating, and they have the nerve to attack Obama's plans in the media"

[Captain Hilts]

2. This is an ugly repeat from '93 and between Reid's stupid comment, now this. nt

[ProSense]

4. No it isn't n/t

[Thrill]

5. They have a serious problem running their mouths. Pelosi knows damn well

Obama doesn't want to freak out the markets by messing with the Bush tax cuts right now? And what does she do? Runs out there saying "put me down for wanting to repeal the tax cuts ASAP". Does she remember what happened with Clinton's Stimulus package with tax increases? It had no Repuke support. And then mid term elections Republicans went all around the country claiming all the Democrats wanted to do was continue with the tax increases. And they found their asses back in the minority.

The Dems had owned the House for 40 yrs until then.

You're going to have popular President. And a pissed off public at Congress

[ProSense]

6. Obama isn't a friggin dictator. Congress should have a debate and let their views be known. n/t

[Thrill]

7. No problems with the debates. But why do we need to air it out in the media

When you do that neither comes out looking good. Obama or The Party

[Captain Hilts]

8. You don't make announcements about it. nt

[ProSense]

9. Nonsense. Obama doesn't own their tongues, and they don't need to operate in complete secrecy.

They're a separate branch of government, and should stay that way. They work with each other.

[Thrill]

23. Thats why nothing meaningful ever gets done too

Because they talk too damn much. Always wanting to be the first ones to jump out in front of a camera and either toss blame or take credit.

[Hippo_Tron]

39. Americans didn't elect a congress to pass a stimulus package

They elected a President to push it through congress. That's the way it works in the modern era. Congress may be a separate branch of government but Obama is the one who is going to get all of the blame if it doesn't get passed.

[BeyondGeography]

30. Yeah, that was extremely lame

No one with half a functioning brain would impose higher income tax rates in the bowels of a recession, doesn't matter what bracket you're talking about. Especially when all they have to do to raise rates is let the intial tax cuts expire, and it turns out they expire right when the political and economic argument for restoring the Clinton tax rate structure will be much stronger.

[city wolf]

17. Krugman just called the plan "somewhat disappointing"

In the last paragraph:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/09/opinion/09krugman.html?_r=1

Krugman hints that the fact that the Obama team wants to compromise too much with the Republicans has resulted in a not-strong-enough plan.

[Captain Hilts]

22. It is, and it's fine if Krugman wants to say so. But not Dem leaders, right now. nt

[BeyondGeography]

27. Krugman has always found Obama "somewhat disappointing"

Nothing new there. :eyes:

[RandomThoughts]

3. My guess

Is he wants to get the tax cut idea into the minds of most people from the beginning. Politically people are paying attention now, and he wants the first impression to be both following through with campaign promises, and looking after middle class.

However, if it turns out to be a bunch of R's trying to give money to the well off, that is just wrong.
According to his speech, which I thought was good, he spoke of 1000 dollar credit to middle class, but also hearing things about business tax cuts, which seems to me to be more shareholder bonuses, if directed at big business.

It makes sense to do a tax cut now, then in a few months raise tax on upper brackets.

This whole tax cut thing is not really that complicated. If you give a tax cut to the rich, some how that is suppose to then trickle down to middle class. But tell me this, when have you known a rich person to just give his profits to his workers. They say the cuts to rich make jobs, because they can invest. But the truth is, only demand makes jobs. And the rich also spend half of it on spas and toys.

So wouldn't directly creating jobs by works projects and funding things that need to be done be a better way to send all of it to economy, without the 'special cut' going to rich, so they can buy more media outlets and more servants?

And if you want to stimulate trickle down, then just support unions, that will create trickle down. And if you worry about foreign competition, then make the foreign competition treat their workers, environment, and trade, in a equal way that we do. If they don't pay a living wage in a third world country, we don't buy their product without a surcharge. Otherwise the country/companies that treat workers and environment the worst, are the most efficient, and the dreaded race to the bottom occurs.

Just my thoughts on it. also I think some of this might be just a bit of posturing.

[BlueCaliDem]

10. Very good post. Good reasoning. This is how I feel too.

I think it's a lot of posturing. Dems have to look as if they're fiscally responsible, and Pres.-elect has to look as if he's not trying to hurt business. He needs Repub support so they don't go out whining in front of media microphones that are dying to bury Dems for another generation.

I don't like giving more tax cuts to already fat big business, but politically, this will get Repubs on board if they want to look credible so that when the stimulus package is finally signed into law Repubs can't whine that they were against it - at least, not with any credibility.

[Armstead]

32. Good points. I agree /nt

[blm]

37. Exactly - Obama wants to be seen as the OPPOSITE of Bush who couldn't handle DISSENT, especially

from within his party.

This whole past week has been Obama establishing himself as a grown up who can handle criticism and LISTENS to opposing viewpoints. And Dems are on that same page with him and doing exactly what Obama is encouraging them to do.

[fadedrose]

11. Maybe some people don't want Obama to win a 2nd term...

It's possible. All kinds of things go on that we don't know about.

The President-elect seems to be getting all kinds of advice that we who love him would not give him.

[AtomicKitten]

12. I tend to agree with John Kerry's point about the tax cuts.

Rather than looking for 80 votes, I say we find the 60 and tell the wingnuts to piss off.

[Captain Hilts]

20. I agree, in principle, but not in style. STYLE COUNTs. And R's will see us...

going after one of our own. So early. As was done to Bubba.

[flpoljunkie]

26. I agree. What's important is to get the stimulus right, not try to placate unplacatable R's.

Unlike Bush, Obama does have political capital, and he needs to have the courage to use it to help rescue our economy.

[firedupdem]

13. I don't get all the posturing for the media. They need to cut that shit out...

I want everybody to have time to look at it but guess what....if it's taking too long and they are bullshitting around....that's where we start calling, writing, and and yelling at our congress people! Those rich fuckers dem or republican will not hold up progress!

[Undercurrent]

14. It was stated many times that Rahm's selection had

more to do with herding the Democratic cats than with strong arming the Repugs. I don't know if he has been working the back rooms yet. If not, he'd better get to crackin' that whip soon.

[bluestateguy]

15. We dopn't have time for Capitol Hill bullshit

We don't have time for subcommittee C to to plan the implementation of the motion to recommitt to suspend the rules to move to a quorum...amendment to rewrite provision 7B to allow...

[liberalpragmatist]

16. The congresscritters are correct on this one...

... my hope is they nudge this plan such that the tax cuts go down by about half and the overall stimulus goes up by a couple hundred billion.

I love Obama, but I'm not crazy about these tax proposals, which seem like a sure way to water down the medicine the economy needs.

[Captain Hilts]

21. I agree they are, but THAT'S NOT THE POINT. Don't go after one of our own right off the bat...

so publicly. This is the same shit that got done to Clinton.

Dick Armey never said to GWB "I don't work for him" even though he HATED him.

[amborin]

18. the tax give back to business is a prob: it's to court rethugs...will have little stimulus value

[anonymous171]

19. They will cave. If they don't, they will all look like assholes.

Obama is popular, they aren't. Do the math.

[MadHound]

24. Sorry, but many of us have a huge problem with the big tax break for businesses

300 million dollars, c'mon, it's not like they haven't benefited from tax breaks in the recent past. We don't need to be reckless in running up the debt.

Plus I have a huge problem with Obama's wish to please everybody on every issue. What's the good of having a majority if you feel that on every bill you need to please the minority party?

[Captain Hilts]

25. I do too, but that's not the point. It's preening at the expense of the new Prez.

In Washington, style, protocol and the way you do things counts.

[MadHound]

28. What you see as preening others see as a healthy debate

What, the Congress should simply rubber stamp Obama's plan, faults and all? Sorry, but there are some big problems, like the tax cut for businesses I mentioned earlier, and they need to be addressed. Congress is the appropriate place for them to be addressed.

[Captain Hilts]

29. I said the opposite if you'd read.

I agree with the criticisms, but not the way they're doing it.

[MadHound]

31. Then if you agree with the criticism, what do you disagree with?

The fact that Senators are speaking to the press on this issue? Sorry, but that's called using the bully pulpit, a tried and true method of getting concerns out and about. Congresspeople speak to the press all the time about issues they disagree with, in fact I wish that they had done more of that with Bush. You can't expect them to stop simply because somebody with a D behind their name will be in the Whitehouse.

[blm]

38. Are you serious? Obama declares he reads bad press not good press, and you STILL think the dissent

as mild as it is, wasn't orchestrated to establish the perception that Obama is a grown up that respects DISSENT, the complete opposite of the dictatortot?

[flpoljunkie]

33. Obama, unlike Bush, does have real political capital and needs to have courage to use it to rescue

our economy. He could enlist his millions of supporters to persuade Congress to pass an effective economic rescue package. And, we would answer the call.

[MadHound]

34. Agreed, but he doesn't need to appease the Republican party and the right

Yet he feels the need to do so in some sort of spirit of bipartisanship. Apparently he hasn't learned that if you offer bipartisanship to the right, they use it to beat you about the head and shoulders. Adding 300 million of business tax cuts to the stimulus simply in order to get a few Republican votes on his stimulus vote is at best irresponsible, at worst grandstanding. That's more money that we can't afford to borrow, that our grandchildren will still be paying back. That's what I find so appalling, this need of Obama's to make everything acceptable to the right.

[flpoljunkie]

36. Republicans are already insisting that letting the Bush tax cuts expire, is same as tax hike.

The Rethugs cannot be appeased.

[depakid]

35. The reliance on tax cuts is stupid

and for once I agree with the Senate Dems.

So do a LOT of economists.

[karynnj]

40. Don't they even get to look at the actual package recommended?

When did Obama's team bring the package to the relevant House and Senate committees? I think it was yesterday. From the comments that came out of teh Senate Finance committee it seems to me like they are asking some good questions. Legislation is WRITTEN in the House and the Senate - and they will likely not just pass without change Obama's legislation.

As to Clinton's budget - only 2 Democratic Senators voted against it - one was Shelby, who became a Republican - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=103&session=1&vote=00083

In the House, the vast majority of Democrats voted for it. http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1993/roll127.xml

The one thing that might be like Clinton - is that little effort seemed to be made by the Obama people to work with the Senate or House on this - it is a two way street.

It might be good to at least wait to see what Congress does.