TheCruxOfTheBiscuitIsTheApostrophe: Since this has now devolved to the predictable..."you disagree with my political position so you must be a troll"....meme, .

Actually, there's no better self-outing.

cryinoutloud: Oh, I sold my refrigerator. It's winter now, I don't need it. Got $500 for it, too.



thus proving that cryinoutloud is in the 1%

bugontherug: billinder33: really changes the long-term position of these unemployed people. Many of these jobs are gone and not coming back.

Extending the tax cuts was a major-league stupid decision by Obama.... it is what it is.

Objective reality is what it is. Obama said he would delay rescinding the Bush tax cuts in the event of recession.

Link (new window)

Then, after a recession, he did exactly what he said he would do, by delaying rescinding the Bush tax cuts. At the same time, he used the tax cut issue to negotiate an extension of unemployment benefits that the Republicans did not want.

Temporarily extending the Bush tax cuts was sound economic policy, and for several reasons, sound politics. It is what it is.


I don't care whether he said he was going to do it or not.

I don't recall whether you are the "opinion guy" or not, but whether it was a sound economic decision is your opinion. It is not mine.

nevirus: bugontherug: To say he got what he wanted with just an extension of unemployment comports with repeatedly cited evidence that that's exactly what happened.

Remember, Obama also got the repeal of DADT and the START treaty with Russia right after giving the Bush tax cuts an extension for the ultra wealthy as the Republicans wanted. The Republicans said at the time "there are no more pressing matters than the expiring tax cuts and those must be resolved before considering any other legislation." (not verbatim) Seeing as it was right after getting the 2010 election results, they had a very limited time window to pass that legislation.

So, if I recall correctly, Obama had to give the Republicans their ultra-wealthy Bush tax cut extension in order to get an extension of unemployment benefits, the START treaty, and the repeal of DADT. If he didn't agree, he wouldn't have gotten any of that.


That's like trading a Cadillac for a Yugo.

It was a shiat trade then, it's shiat trade now.

ultraholland: thus proving that cryinoutloud is in the 1%

Another smug elitist outed.

CPennypacker: Obama put tracking Bin Laden on the front burner, and risked his political career on that raid. He deserves credit.

And as far as the stimulus goes, I'm going to side with the CBO over you.


Brainsick: You're not waiting in a bread line for a $20 loaf are you? It was successful. As for OBL..."the intelligence to track him was actually gathered under the Bush administration"...is a pretty hollow argument when you consider it was Obama and his staff who used that intel successfully, regardless of when it was gathered.

So spending a shiatload of money we don't have to put us further in debt to maybe avoid a depression was a success? I disagree. And of course the CBO is going to say it was a success; they voted for it.

And the intelligence gathering started under Bush, but they didn't get the break they needed with it (the intercepted call) until 2010, which really had nothing to do with who was in the white house. source. I will agree he put his ass on the line with the raid, but any president would've probably done the same, including Bush.

nevirus: bugontherug: To say he got what he wanted with just an extension of unemployment comports with repeatedly cited evidence that that's exactly what happened.

Remember, Obama also got the repeal of DADT and the START treaty with Russia right after giving the Bush tax cuts an extension for the ultra wealthy as the Republicans wanted. The Republicans said at the time "there are no more pressing matters than the expiring tax cuts and those must be resolved before considering any other legislation." (not verbatim) Seeing as it was right after getting the 2010 election results, they had a very limited time window to pass that legislation.

So, if I recall correctly, Obama had to give the Republicans their ultra-wealthy Bush tax cut extension in order to get an extension of unemployment benefits, the START treaty, and the repeal of DADT. If he didn't agree, he wouldn't have gotten any of that.

In other words, Obama got a hell of a lot more than just unemployment extensions out of the deal. Other than your implication that Obama only extended the tax cuts because he "had" to, not because he wanted to, as he said he would in the event of a recession, what you're saying strengthens the case that Obama snookered the Republicans big time.

What happened here is that Obama faked out the Republicans in 2010, by pretending to oppose extending the Bush tax cuts when he really supported temporarily extending the Bush tax cuts. How do we know he really wanted to extend the Bush tax cuts?

Because that's exactly what he said he would want to do in the event of recession:

Link (new window)

This happens in negotiations all the time. People ask for things they don't really want so they can bargain them down in exchange for things they do want. That's what happened here, and your comment suggests the Republicans got scammed out of a whole lot more than an unemployment extension.

billinder33: I don't care whether he said he was going to do it or not.

It's fine to disagree with Obama's economic policy on the issue. But the perception that Obama "caved" in the 2010 tax cut negotiations directly contravenes objective reality. It is spin designed to make Obama look ineffectual, when in reality it was a political masterstroke. Obama outsmarted Congressional Republicans, and got a lot of policy he wanted without giving up anything. That's not ineffectual. That's the opposite of ineffectual.

I don't recall whether you are the "opinion guy" or not, but whether it was a sound economic decision is your opinion. It is not mine.

It was sound economic policy because raising taxes, even on the wealthy, has an anti-stimulative impact. There's room to disagree over whether the anti-stimulative impact of reversing the Bush tax cuts would have been enough to break the recovery. But there's very little room to disagree over that raising them posed that risk.

billinder33: That's like trading a Cadillac for a Yugo.

It was a shiat trade then, it's shiat trade now.

It wasn't even really a trade from Obama's perspective. He wanted to temporarily extend the Bush tax cuts, and got exactly that. And "in exchange," he got unemployment extension, START, and DADT repeal.

Agree or disagree on the public policy issue. But the perception that Obama handled the negotiations ineffectually is false. The Republicans gave Obama what he wanted, and got nothing they otherwise would not have gotten anyway in exchange.

bugontherug: nevirus: bugontherug: To say he got what he wanted with just an extension of unemployment comports with repeatedly cited evidence that that's exactly what happened.

Remember, Obama also got the repeal of DADT and the START treaty with Russia right after giving the Bush tax cuts an extension for the ultra wealthy as the Republicans wanted. The Republicans said at the time "there are no more pressing matters than the expiring tax cuts and those must be resolved before considering any other legislation." (not verbatim) Seeing as it was right after getting the 2010 election results, they had a very limited time window to pass that legislation.

So, if I recall correctly, Obama had to give the Republicans their ultra-wealthy Bush tax cut extension in order to get an extension of unemployment benefits, the START treaty, and the repeal of DADT. If he didn't agree, he wouldn't have gotten any of that.

In other words, Obama got a hell of a lot more than just unemployment extensions out of the deal. Other than your implication that Obama only extended the tax cuts because he "had" to, not because he wanted to, as he said he would in the event of a recession, what you're saying strengthens the case that Obama snookered the Republicans big time.

What happened here is that Obama faked out the Republicans in 2010, by pretending to oppose extending the Bush tax cuts when he really supported temporarily extending the Bush tax cuts. How do we know he really wanted to extend the Bush tax cuts?

Because that's exactly what he said he would want to do in the event of recession:

Link (new window)

This happens in negotiations all the time. People ask for things they don't really want so they can bargain them down in exchange for things they do want. That's what happened here, and your comment suggests the Republicans got scammed out of a whole lot more than an unemployment extension.

"Democrat Barack Obama says he would delay rescinding President Bush's tax cuts on wealthy Americans if he becomes the next president and the economy is in a recession, suggesting such an increase would further hurt the economy.

Nevertheless, Obama has no plans to extend the Bush tax cuts beyond their expiration date, as Republican John McCain advocates."

Dude this isn't hard to comprehend. "Rescind" is not the same thing as "let expire". In fact, if you're just going to let them expire, there's no need to do anything but piddle your pud. Obama made a campaign promise to rescind the cuts, which can only mean that he wanted them repealed before expiration. Instead he decided that wouldn't be wise in a recession (remember this was all said in 2008) and "nevertheless" had no plans to extend them, or in other words, he would let them expire. He didn't want them in 2008. He didn't want them in 2010. And he doesn't want them now.

You have got to be the only person on the planet that thinks extending the Bush tax cuts was a win for Obama. In fact, it says a lot about your lack of confidence in his successes that you must try to spin a clear political defeat for him as a win.

But don't take my word for it. Take his.

"It's very stark. We can't get my preferred option through the Senate right now. As a consequence, if we don't get my option through the Senate right now, and we do nothing, then on January 1st of this -- of 2011, the average family is going to see their taxes go up about $3,000."

"Now, I have an option, which is to say, you know what, I'm going to keep fighting a political fight, which I can't win in the Senate -- and by the way, there are going to be more Republican senators in the Senate next year sworn in than there are currently. So the likelihood that the dynamic is going to improve for us getting my preferred option through the Senate will be diminished."

TheCruxOfTheBiscuitIsTheApostrophe: Nevertheless, Obama has no plans to extend the Bush tax cuts beyond their expiration date, as Republican John McCain advocates."

In September of 2008, Obama had no plans to extend the Bush tax cuts beyond their expiration date. At that point, the economy was not definitively in recession.

I can tell It really gets your goat that Obama outsmarted the Republicans.

I can't provide any citation for my assertion that Obama promised to pass a special bill to repeal the Bush tax cuts upon taking office, so I'm going to pretend like no citation was ever requested. Hopefully, no one will notice.

Your omission was noticed. But it's immaterial anyway, since no matter when he said he would rescind the Bush tax cuts, and even if he promised a special bill to do so, the fact that he didn't pass or lobby for such a bill is still wholly consistent with what he said to ABC news in September of 2008. You know, that interview where he said he would delay rescinding the Bush tax cuts in the event of recession. Here, let me post that link for you again, in case you didn't get it for some reason:

Link (new window)

"It's very stark. We can't get my preferred option through the Senate right now. As a consequence, if we don't get my option through the Senate right now, and we do nothing, then on January 1st of this -- of 2011, the average family is going to see their taxes go up about $3,000."

Which is wholly consistent with him assuming a false negotiating stance in order to get a better bargain. Which is my theory of the case, and which is better supported by the evidence than yours. Why is my theory better supported than yours? Because my theory explains all of his statements regarding Obama's action on the Bush tax cuts, while your theory wholly disregards his statement that he would delay rescinding the Bush tax cuts in the event of recession. Because your theory fails to account for all the evidence, it is incomplete, and reveals a fact selection bias that mine does not.

bugontherug: TheCruxOfTheBiscuitIsTheApostrophe: Nevertheless, Obama has no plans to extend the Bush tax cuts beyond their expiration date, as Republican John McCain advocates."

In September of 2008, Obama had no plans to extend the Bush tax cuts beyond their expiration date. At that point, the economy was not definitively in recession.

I can tell It really gets your goat that Obama outsmarted the Republicans.

I can't provide any citation for my assertion that Obama promised to pass a special bill to repeal the Bush tax cuts upon taking office, so I'm going to pretend like no citation was ever requested. Hopefully, no one will notice.

Your omission was noticed. But it's immaterial anyway, since no matter when he said he would rescind the Bush tax cuts, and even if he promised a special bill to do so, the fact that he didn't pass or lobby for such a bill is still wholly consistent with what he said to ABC news in September of 2008. You know, that interview where he said he would delay rescinding the Bush tax cuts in the event of recession. Here, let me post that link for you again, in case you didn't get it for some reason:

Link (new window)

"It's very stark. We can't get my preferred option through the Senate right now. As a consequence, if we don't get my option through the Senate right now, and we do nothing, then on January 1st of this -- of 2011, the average family is going to see their taxes go up about $3,000."

Which is wholly consistent with him assuming a false negotiating stance in order to get a better bargain. Which is my theory of the case, and which is better supported by the evidence than yours. Why is my theory better supported than yours? Because my theory explains all of his statements regarding Obama's action on the Bush tax cuts, while your theory wholly disregards his statement that he would delay rescinding the Bush tax cuts in the event of recession. Because your theory fails to account for all the evidence, it is incomplete, and reveals a fact selec ...

I think even Obama would be laughing at your theory. He probably ought to run on his false negotiating expertise. LOL

TheCruxOfTheBiscuitIsTheApostrophe:I still can't produce any evidence or logical argument to undermine the proposition that Obama delayed rescinding the Bush tax cuts, exactly as he said he would in the event of recession. So instead of offering a persuasive rebuttal, I'm going to pretend the whole idea is laughable. Hopefully no one will notice.

Oh, it was noticed.

1) Obama said he would delay rescinding the Bush tax cuts in the event of recession.

2) There was a recession.

3) Therefore, Obama delayed rescinding the Bush tax cuts.

4) Obama used the possibility of rescinding the Bush tax cuts to extract Republican concessions on unemployment benefits, DADT repeal, and more.

5) Obama owned the Republicans.

Not complicated. Wholly plausible. Explains all the evidence.

Your theory, by contrast, fails to account for Obama's statement that he would delay rescinding the Bush tax cuts in the event of recession. Your theory fails to explain all the evidence, is formulated on selection bias, and wrong.

bugontherug: TheCruxOfTheBiscuitIsTheApostrophe:I still can't produce any evidence or logical argument to undermine the proposition that Obama delayed rescinding the Bush tax cuts, exactly as he said he would in the event of recession. So instead of offering a persuasive rebuttal, I'm going to pretend the whole idea is laughable. Hopefully no one will notice.

Oh, it was noticed.

1) Obama said he would delay rescinding the Bush tax cuts in the event of recession.

2) There was a recession.

3) Therefore, Obama delayed rescinding the Bush tax cuts.

4) Obama used the possibility of rescinding the Bush tax cuts to extract Republican concessions on unemployment benefits, DADT repeal, and more.

5) Obama owned the Republicans.

Not complicated. Wholly plausible. Explains all the evidence.

Your theory, by contrast, fails to account for Obama's statement that he would delay rescinding the Bush tax cuts in the event of recession. Your theory fails to explain all the evidence, is formulated on selection bias, and wrong.

Do you always argue with yourself? Is it your common practice to change other's words to fit your argument. Who am I kidding, of course it is.

Obama delayed rescinding and in fact chose not to rescind, but then wanted the cuts to simply expire so that he could implement his own tax plan. Didn't work out for him as he said so himself in his press release I linked before (you know, evidence).

God, you're dim.

TheCruxOfTheBiscuitIsTheApostrophe: Do you always argue with yourself? Is it your common practice to change other's words to fit your argument. Who am I kidding, of course it is.

Obama delayed rescinding and in fact chose not to rescind, but then wanted the cuts to simply expire so that he could implement his own tax plan. Didn't work out for him as he said so himself in his press release I linked before (you know, evidence).

God, you're dim.

I'm an independent who leans conservative. Speaking as one without a horse in this race, and who is naturally more inclined to agree with conservatives than liberals, let me say first that your conduct of this discussion shows your dishonesty, and the weakness of your position. Instead of arguing facts and evidence, you've resorted to condescension, deflections, and personal put downs. If you are a conservative, you're an embarrassment to conservatives, because you argue like the overgrown child you are.

Moreover, speaking objectively, you've asserted the existence of a new fact: that Obama first believed rescinding the tax cuts was a good idea, then, after the recession hit, decided they were a bad idea, and then, for no clear reason, changed his mind again. Do you have any evidence that he changed his mind again? Did he make any public statement to the effect of "I'm going to delay rescinding the tax cuts, but only until they expire, at which time I'm going to let them expire?" Economic conditions did not materially change. There is no reason Obama would have changed his mind again.

His theory fits with the facts. Your theory assumes a fact for which there is no evidence. I would hate to admit it if I thought the modern Republican party was worth a damn, but the bottom line is, Obama duped them. He used a tax cut extension he did want to extract many concessions the Republicans did not want. If Republicans were smarter, they would have seen it then. But they're mostly like you, relying not on objective evidentiary analysis to guide them, but on wishful thinking, bullying, and dishonesty to push people around instead.

Yeah, right. So you had to use an alt to try and strengthen your position. How novel.

Doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is that Obama himself admitted defeat in his press conference on the tax cuts. You are dim and I have to say somewhat looney. Barrel of laughs though....barrel of laughs!

/wooly bully!