About those Bush tax cuts and whether they will expire
We’ve certainly been getting mixed messages today.
When I first saw this piece suggesting that Axelrod had put out the word that Obama was ready to capitulate on the complete list of Bush tax cuts, even for the wealthy, I was surprised.
I was about to write that this was a sign that there might be more compromise—at least on the smaller issues—ahead. That’s something I had thought might happen: a few compromises on smaller things so that Obama could point to his own “bipartisanship” and the terrible intransigence of the vicious Republicans on the larger things.
But now comes the denial from Axelrod: That is not what I meant at all. That is not it, at all.
Axelrod informed NationalJournal that the earlier report was incorrect:
Senior White House adviser David Axelrod said this morning that President Obama has not caved to GOP demands on the extension of the Bush tax cuts, despite a report to the contrary.
“We’re willing to discuss how we move forward,” Axelrod said in an e-mail to National Journal rebutting the Huffington Post story, “but we believe that it’s imperative to extend the tax cuts for the middle class, and don’t believe we can afford a permanent extension of tax cuts for the wealthy.”
So, which is it? The entire dance appears to me, at least so far, to be the usual sending out of purposely conflicting messages, designed to confuse and to give the appearance of conciliation to those who are hoping for that outcome, and the appearance of holding the line to those who are looking for that one.
Obama has done this before, notably on issues of gay rights. It often has had the effect of infuriating both sides.
Why would they stop?
The man who grew up under the Nazi’s and a Nazi uncle, counting property of Jews, and learning at the knee of different people in the regime, which is why they are following that script… (which no one believed me they were until maybe later)
he was a direct student of Karl Popper, and is very closely connected to the Fabians…
Why would they give up when they are now on the brink of one world communist government and the end of the US as a obstical to world peace
[and i said, they define peace as no obsticals to communism remaining]
by what reasoning would or could you make the leaps to them making any remediation?
ALL the ideas of compromise, move to the center, and everything you ASSUME, is not any reason to them.
I said, does it matter what the horse thinks as long as it moves where you want it to?
if you say they have to tack back to the center to hold power… whats your assumption, and how is it negated? the assumption is that they want to hold power, but since they work through proxies, what do they care if they use up the coin of their proxy? the dems lose power, not the progressives… and the dems are an alternative power base, so using them up serves the purpose two fold. three fold if you think how it plays on your assumptions.
if you say that they have to tack for compassion reasons, and the harm they cause. but since they measure progress by pain, damage, and all that, how can that stop them? did starvation stop Mao their idol? they believe that they are special, and only those who can grab what they seek without any care or guilt can achieve it. so that’s not going to stop them, or slow them down either.
how about self preservation? no, everything for the cause, and everything means everything. i said read the catechism of the revolutionary, and George kennan, and what books are in their library, and who they admire, etc…
why? because no one wanted to get into their minds to see how they see, to think what they think. not project your hopes, fears, goals, what you accept, what you don’t accept, what your guilty over, and more…
I said learn about sociopaths and what it means to have no beliefs, while everyone in the world has some beliefs.
So, which is it? The entire dance appears to me, at least so far, to be the usual sending out of purposely conflicting messages, designed to confuse and to give the appearance of conciliation to those who are hoping for that outcome, and the appearance of holding the line to those who are looking for that one.
want a clear analogy?
its the difference between driving up to an intersection normally, where your line of action and intent is relatively clear and somewhat predictable.
and coming up to the same intersection randomly swerving from side to side. the people will freeze and not know which way to go.
your still trying to fathom this mode of thinking as if its the common mode of thinking.
if you want to understand this, then stop trying to project yourself into it, and start projecting them into you.
All the things i kept recommending to read and look at were each, like cousin Vinnie says, a brick that has to be placed to make a case, and to build a case, and get to some understanding.
the mode of thinking and all that stuff has been made fun of so much that you dont take it seriously, but think its campy and not real.
i ask..
compared to two years ago when i refused to budge
is it real enough yet?
I suspect you’re giving them too much credit, neo. The simplest explanation is that they’re as confused and disorganized in this as they are in everything else they undertake.
That, or Soros used ambiguous language when issuing orders.
“We’re willing to discuss how we move forward,” Axelrod said in an e-mail to National Journal rebutting the Huffington Post story, “but we believe that it’s imperative to extend the tax cuts for the middle class, and don’t believe we can afford a permanent extension of tax cuts for the wealthy.”
Under what pretense can the country “not afford” a permanent extension of tax cuts for the “wealthy?” We need to confront this language and not let Democrats off the hook so easily.
If “not afford” means that there won’t be enough money to fund govt programs, then Axelrod & Co need to be asked why they’re not cutting spending elsewhere to make up for the shortfall.
If “not afford” refers to the fact that the deficit/debt is too big (which I assume it does in most instances when Dems like Axelrod say it), then what guarantees do we have that the increased revenues from taxing these wealthy people are going to go strictly towards reducing the deficit or paying down the debt?
I sure wish people wouldn’t blithely accept these words without scratching the surface a little to demand some specifics. Such specifics would be very uncomfortable and difficult for the Obama admin to explain.
Consistant with past messages from this Administration, they can’t afford to let successful citizens keep their own money. These guys really believe that everyone’s private property really belongs to the government. They do not understand that incentive drives economic growth. Very sad.
You know, it DOES appear that world bankruptcy is the goal.
Again I say….lock and load.
We need to spread the wealth !
Typical Obama information dissemination tactic: Say one thing to one group; say a completely contradictory thing to another group; when called out on the double talk, say ” I never said that”, while giving some tortured nuanced mini-speech about “the complexities of the issue… and the hard work it will take for both sides to fix the problem”…. while simultaneously sending out your operatives to undermine the opposition.
Ritchie Emmons,
Good points and ones our faux grand inquisitors in the media will studiously avoid.
The ‘can’t afford tax cuts on the rich’ presupposes the money is the government’s in the first place, which it most certainly is not.