dagblog - Comments for "The Rich Already Had Tax Cuts: Who Knew?"

If even you think that is a

AmericanDreamer — Fri, 10 Dec 2010 15:04:03 +0000

If even you think that is a bit verbose, requiring more of the listener than is reasonable to hope for, decader, then we're in even more trouble than I thought. I wasn't sure it was possible for me to think that. Verbosity when I'm worked up about something is one of my worst faults. I hadn't thought words like that are too hard on the ears, but maybe so. I get the affective thrust of your comment, that you're royally po'd. As am I.

I think Obama's idea of progressive Dems is that they are family and, well, you know, sometimes people are rough with members of their own families in ways they wouldn't be with others.

Until the divorce. Even when that happens, some don't learn from it.

He certainly gets plenty of editorial page praise for "standing up" to his liberal supporters. David Broder in his column yesterday lauding Obama the Emerging Centrist is, as usual, helping to set the dominant MSM meme, and in case it wasn't clear, the editorial page cartoon in yesterday's Post showed Palin being sworn in with liberal Dems off to the side saying "See, we really showed Obama."

The politician's assumption is, as always, that their disappointed base has nowhere else to go. Many progressive Democratic activists are somewhere beyond sick and tired of being treated like what my former boss, an African American former member of Congress now retired, on occasion used to refer to privately with his staff as plantation n******, whose job in this context is to bust our asses and empty our pockets to elect people who spit in our faces. Justifying same to themselves as what a bunch of utopian, inflexible purists deserve.

Sadly, I'm afraid that

Decader — Fri, 10 Dec 2010 14:11:00 +0000

In reply to Good post. Case in point. I

Sadly, I'm afraid that Democrats probably think the wording is fine.

And yours is a bit verbose.

"Eat the rich" - that works.

"Eat only the guys making more than $1 million a year" - bad bumper sticker

But the biggest thing is - Obama always consults the Senate and tells the House Democrats to bugger off.And then it's their fault?

He had Boehner or McConnell or someone in his office, a pleasant camaraderie.

Then he brings in one of the House Dems and tells him, "Take it or leave it".

What a jackass.

Good post. Case in point. I

AmericanDreamer — Fri, 10 Dec 2010 13:28:06 +0000

In reply to The Rich Already Had Tax Cuts: Who Knew?

Good post.

Case in point. I was listening to the radio this morning and heard the following news item (paraphrasing from memory but accurate, I think):

"The White House announced it has reached agreement with the Senate on a package of [...tax cuts, I don't recall the exact words used to describe it.] House Democrats oppose the bill, saying they will not support it until tax cuts for the wealthy are scaled back." (last two words spoken in a slower cadence with a Scrooge-ish tone of voice)

As I listened to it, it was not difficult for me to imagine many listeners hearing the House Democrats' message as being vaguely petty and spiteful.

Now imagine the second sentence read: "House Democrats oppose the bill, saying they will not support it until additional tax cuts that benefit only the wealthy are scaled back."

First point is that this is more accurate. It adds 3 words, which in the news business isn't nothing, but it probably would add about a second to the report.

Now the question is how did the words the announcer read come to be written in the way they were? Was this taken verbatim from a House Democrats' press release that characterized the House's position using those words? Was this a paraphrase constructed by someone at the radio station based on what they read?

Democratic politicians don't control the words the media uses to report the news. All they control is what they say. But I think with the second set of words, the message many listeners hear is substantially different, and more appealing, than the words they actually heard. In addition to being more accurate.

In general I am a fan of "murder boards", wherein politicians or their media spokespersons deliver their planned message and get grilled privately by staff or advisors with framing improvement suggestions, and also anticipating the toughest talking points the other side is going offer, hearing first responses, and refining better responses. With the press of the 24/7 news cycle there is a premium placed on speed, getting one's message out first, even if one is not having a microphone thrust in front of one's face on leaving a hearing or a building. So this often is not something that is possible, even if desired.

Maybe an end of year message refinement boot camp for members of the House Progressive Caucus, with extensive use of murder boards? It might help improve consistency as well as quality of message. The Republicans and their media partisans have enough message consistency effectively to have a pretty straightforward national script where one knows before they respond what they're going to say.

There isn't any excuse for progressive Dems not to have more message consistency, with better quality of what they are saying, recognizing, again, that they don't control what the media chooses to report in formats where their words are edited. Again, just a thought. I'm sure others have had similar thoughts, watching progressive Dems losing message battles time after time after time, year after year after year.

We know the numbers No need

Flavius — Thu, 09 Dec 2010 21:54:35 +0000

In reply to I see what you're saying.

We know the numbers No need to guess.

By agreeing not to raise the marginal tax rate Obama is foregoing $160 Bn over two years. That's the extra tax that would have been collected from those earning over $200K when that higher rate applied on their income in excess of $200K

Or put another way , that's the price Obama was willing to pay for the Republican agreement to $600Bn of badly needed additionaly stimulus.

My impression is that some of the commenters here would forego that $600Bn of stimulus if that was what they had to do to collect that $160Bn of extra tax from the rich.

That doesn't compute.

Very true. I've actually

Michael Maiello — Thu, 09 Dec 2010 18:13:22 +0000

In reply to But part of the meme is that

Very true. I've actually been wondering about and meaning to post about the use of the tax code to encourage work for a long time. Basically I've been pondering the question "does the government want you to be rich?" by which I mean rich enough that you can work if you want to but don't have to. I think most people would like that but if space aliens landed and offered some new technology where our needs would be met without working that the government would slyly say no thanks. Work is, after all, part of the social order. But I'm off on a tangent here. For another thread!

I see what you're saying.

Michael Maiello — Thu, 09 Dec 2010 18:10:14 +0000

In reply to Your point is valid (and I

I see what you're saying. But 2% make over $250,000. .03% make $1 million or more. You have to get to half a million before you're even paying the top rate on half of your income. Look, this is bad for Derek Jeter, I know. But it's not even that bad for most rich people!

But part of the meme is that

Atheist — Thu, 09 Dec 2010 18:09:51 +0000

In reply to But part of the meme is that

But part of the meme is that it is the motivation to create that "extra $5,000" which leads to economic growth.

The flip side of that meme is that it's well known in psychology circles that sometimes reduced pay motivates more. For example, if you need to earn $5k, and I'm paying you $100/hour, then you're very motivated to work 50 hours. On the other hand, if I'm paying you $50/hour, then you're very motivated to work 100 hours. This strategy breaks down at some point, of course. Unfortunately, this concept is not even close to being known as well as the meme you're citing.

LOL! Go ahead and say it!!!

we are stardust — Thu, 09 Dec 2010 18:09:19 +0000

In reply to the problem must be that too

LOL! Go ahead and say it!!! By the by, Bernie Sanders is for calling for street demonstrations; God love him!

But part of the meme is that

Elusive Trope — Thu, 09 Dec 2010 18:06:18 +0000

In reply to People actually don't

But part of the meme is that it is the motivation to create that "extra $5,000" which leads to economic growth. If I currently make $325,000 through my business, why should I go the extra mile (e.g. hire new employees) so I can make $375,000 if that extra $50,000 will just be taken by the government." But I don't think this is generally how things work. Businesses are generally driven by increasing their market share through retention of current customers and generating new customers. Usually these new customers are obtained at the expense of their competitors. A household spends $100 in entertainment expenses. They go see a movie or a sporting event. The movie theater doesn't grow the economy by taking the family from the sporting event. Moreover, whatever effort the movie theater will expend to retain and obtain customers will be the same whether their tax rate is A or B since there is no guarantee that they will make the same amount as the previous year. About the only people one could say that increasing the tax on the wealthy would disincentivize effort would be the one who make their primary income through investments. Here the government could easily set up programs that provide counter incentives to those who invest in things that will actually improve the economy (as opposed to gambling on things like derivatives). Sigh.

the problem must be that too

Elusive Trope — Thu, 09 Dec 2010 17:31:34 +0000

In reply to Get out those EZ Charts,

the problem must be that too many Dems either still believe it, or are paid to pretend to believe it.

I think it's both. The reptilian part of the brain responds to seeming logic of trickle down, while they override their frontal lobes with the lure of cash.

I hate to say it but the left needs to find its Palin. He or she must be out there, somewhere. One that preach the talk without resorting to a call for pitchforks and torches.