It looks like Keith Olbermann is too stubborn to admit he is wrong on Obama's tax deal

[zulchzulu]

I like Keith. He's funny.

But... here is my stream of what I saw on the show:

Obama... Shutting out progressives? Obama is shutting me out? Who knew?

So DeMint is quoted. Then Nader. Then Palin. They don't like it or do if it involves them getting mentioned for recent book releases...

Then there's the New York Times in some kind of conspiracy to not report on Democrats opposing the tax deal. Oh wait, they DID!

Then Fox News is featured with Weiner whining. I like Weiner, but he's off on this.

Bernie Sanders (who I like) is then interviewed. Vermonters are pissed. Oh wait, no numbers mentioned on Vermont unemployment numbers which are about 6% with 356,600 workers.

Sanders says that the 2 million unemployed and the middle class need their benefits and tax cuts. Where Bernie steers into the ditch is when he says that they need to pass legislation stopping the tax cuts for millionaires.

Um, Bernie. The Senate tried to do that and couldn't get it passed! Maybe you forgot?

The White House is beating up the House and Senate? Really? Actually, I firmly agree that the Democrats inboth the House and Senate deserve getting smacked this way into next week for not controlling the Blue Dogs in the last couple years.

Then the votes could be delayed for START, DADT and the Dream Act. That's Obama's fault?

What Keith didn't mention:

Mr. Obama effectively traded tax cuts for the affluent, which Republicans were demanding, for a second stimulus bill that seemed improbable a few weeks ago. Mr. Obama yielded to Republicans on extending the high-end Bush tax cuts and on cutting the estate tax below its scheduled level. In exchange, Republicans agreed to extend unemployment benefits, cut payroll taxes and business taxes, and extend a grab bag of tax credits for college tuition and other items.

For the White House, the deal represents a clear shift in policy focus. Mr. Obama and Democrats spent much of the last year pursuing long-term goals like a health care overhaul and financial regulation, while hoping the economic recovery would continue. But with the recovery faltering and Republicans retaking the House, the administration is turning back to short-term job creation.

Congressional Democrats have reacted with a mix of wariness and anger, and some said Mr. Obama should have put up a fight on the high-end tax cuts. Yet once the Democrats bungled this issue — failing to deal with it before the midterm elections — their choices were extremely limited. If they stood firm on the high-end tax cuts and Republicans stood firm as well, all of the Bush tax cuts, not just those on income above $250,000, would have expired Dec. 31. The economy would surely have suffered as a result, and a bad economy is rarely good for the party that holds the White House.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/08/business/economy/08leonhardt.html?_r=2

[abelenkpe]

1. Yeah....

That's why Robert Reich agrees with Keith. And I find it interesting that you think it's OK to raise taxes on those at the very very bottom of the ladder making less than 20,000 or 40,000 for a couple.

Keith isn't wrong. Many leading economists agree with him. Look it's not that people don't want unemployment extended. They do. They just don't think that a deal that further weakens social security and punishes those on the very bottom of our society is a good deal and they are rightfully and justifiably disappointed in the leaders who cannot see that.

[zulchzulu]

5. Krugman agrees...

Is Reich for throwing unemployed people in the street? I've met the man and can't imagine he'd be that thoughtless or careless.

[hlthe2b]

8. That is hardly what Krugman is saying...(he says it is a "bad" deal)

From the transcript of his appearance on PBS last night:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec10/taxcuts_12-07.html

PAUL KRUGMAN, columnist, The New York Times: I still think it's a mistake. Now, it's not as bad a mistake as it seemed before we saw some of these other elements. He did get unemployment insurance extension. He got the payroll tax break, which are stimulus.

But this is basically -- if you think about the U.S. economy, this is a lot of money -- you know, we were -- weren't we all worrying about deficits just the other day? -- that is very badly designed to help the U.S. economy, so that we're spending a lot of money in an ineffective way. A lot of this is just going to be money handed over to people who are not going to spend it. It's not actually going to boost the economy.

And we are setting up a dynamic which may sit, unfortunately, more likely that those tax cuts, the Bush tax cuts, which are not affordable, never were, and certainly not now, will in fact be perpetuated.

So, it's -- it's -- you know, I'm not ravingly unhappy to the extent that I was before we got the other stuff in here, but it is a bad deal. And it's also a signal, basically, that -- to the Republicans that they can take hostages, and, you know, the president basically said: I cave when they do.

[ProudDad]

16. Read Reich's opinion for yourself

Drop the straw man and edumacate your bad, bad self...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9720327

[hlthe2b]

9. re: "many leading economists agree with him" Yes. including Krugman

The OP was demonstrably wrong in claiming otherwise.

[Phx_Dem]

10. This deal includes the low-income people who don't make enough to pay taxes.

This is from a self-described progressive economist from The Nation.

"Now that President Obama reached a deal with Republicans to extend all of the Bush tax cuts for two years and significantly lower the Estate Tax, I’m finding myself in a strange position for a progressive economist. I’m pleasantly surprised at how much he (and therefore the people of this country) has gained in exchange for what many were calling an abject surrender. After all, he got Republicans to agree to an extension of unemployment insurance, a payroll tax holiday and (amazingly) an expansion of the earned income tax credit (EITC). Remember what that program does: if you are a low-income worker and you don’t make enough to pay income tax, you actually get a check from the government. The right wing has consistently attacked the EITC as a welfare entitlement and yet there they were, agreeing to its expansion."


http://www.thenation.com/article/156953/obamas-sell-out...

[abelenkpe]

11. See this

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/07/tax-cut-compromise-whose-taxes-rise_n_793572.html

"Although the $120 billion payroll tax reduction offers nearly twice the tax savings of the credit it replaces, it will nonetheless lead to higher tax bills for individuals with incomes below $20,000 and families that make less than $40,000. That is because their payroll tax savings are less than the $400 or $800 they will lose from the Making Work Pay credit. "

[ProudDad]

18. Self-described progressive, eh?

like "some" on this board...?

Like Obama the appeaser-in-chief...?

[peacebird]

2. Totally disagree on your premise. The top 2% should not get tax amnesty

Economists agree (all that I heard anyhow) that the tax break for the top 2% is not stimulative for the economy. The tax cuts for lower and middle income ARE - because we will spend the money. The extension of unemployment benefits is stimulative. The tax breaks for the rich - not so much.
Also - the SSI tax "holiday" is just plain stupid. Tax SSI on every dollar earned - get rid of the glass ceiling ($108,600 - that is all you pay SSI on, everything over that is free of SSI). Those making over 108,600 ought to be able to pay the SSI on everything they earn over that amount. If we pay on 100% of our salaries - so should they.
I firmly believe the conservatives will use the new and increased SSI deficit (as a result of the tax-holiday) to argue for draconian cuts and finally get their wish to do away with the safety net altogether.

Obama made a very bad deal here.

[DontTreadOnMe]

3. Don't you find it ironic...

that this "deal" in not done yet. Yes, the Obama/McConnell plan is not liked by the extreme right AND left...

Usually that would mean that the "center" has come up with a reasonable plan... ONLY THIS TIME it is the opposite.

The truth about this deal is it is BAD for everyone. The compromise was reached by those trying to score political points.

FACTS: Only a SMALL percentage of the unemployed will benefit, the deficit will explode, and the states will go bankrupt even earlier than project due to lost revenue.

Gee... and you are blaming Keith for pointing out the FACTs about how many people are not happy with the "deal"

[egoclothes]

29. I agree. Nicely stated.

[Ikonoklast]

4. Controversy drives listeners.

Listeners drive ad rates.

Ad rates determine contract numbers for 'talent'.




KO don't work for free.

[ProudDad]

19. Right...

I'm sure KO is driven by the money... :sarcasm:

[Ikonoklast]

21. He was gonna quit MSNBC when they were going to offer him less

on his last contract.

So, yes, KO is in it for the money.


I suppose you work for free.




If you think any radio or tv shouter does what they do because of ideology, you need to wake up.

[ProudDad]

28. Serious, Egregious logic error...

KO gets paid for his work...

KO is a Radical Progressive...

Therefore, KO is only a Radical Progressive because he's being paid for it...

That doesn't even pass the sniff test... :eyes:

[Ikonoklast]

30. The logic error is your own.

You made the assumption that KO is a 'Radical Progressive'.

That is hilarious.

He shouts on the tv for his pay.


He used to be a sportscaster.

Did that make him a professional baseball player?

[ProudDad]

32. FAIL

You've just committed another set of logic errors to attemp to refute my calling you out for your obvious logic error... :rofl:

[DURHAM D]

6. Oh No - Its one of those Blue Propaganda Pages with Blue Links

Run for cover...

[valerief]

7. Just another trillion dollars of non-stimulus debt. nt

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProudDad]

17. He sure does...

since he appointed them...

[donheld]

13. He's not wrong

[KansasVoter]

14. Proud to Unrec this piece of crap post! Wow, you cave easy also I see.

[Raine]

27. Same here nt

[ProudDad]

15. Oh, well if the business section of the N.Y. Times says it's so

it must be so...

They're ALWAYS looking out for the Working Folk on the BUSINESS pages...

I think you might need this zilchzulu :sarcasm:

[RiverStone]

20. You did notice what happened in the mid-terms?

Political analysis aside.

Obama's decision did not do a damn thing to rally some of the 29 million voters that sat out (compared to election before).

Our base is demoralized and I wonder if he is even thinking about 2012?

[impik]

22. KO is a clown. He's all about the ratings.

[lamp_shade]

25. That appears to be what he has evolved into. Yup.

:shrug:

[ibegurpard]

23. why should he? he's not

[Clio the Leo]

24. Keith's gotta produce a TV show....

.... I dont get too worried about what he says.

(And before anyone calls me out lol, that does NOT apply to Crazy Eddie as he does NOT HAVE to produce a show ... he can simply go away. :) )

[Raine]

26. Why should KO since he's correct nt

edit: typo

[ljm2002]

31. Apparently the House Democrats are also too stubborn...

...to admit they're wrong about the tax deal.

Except that they aren't.

[niceypoo]

33. Its a horrible deal

Kill it please Democrats

[ProgressOnTheMove]

34. Yes, he had little choice something was way better than nothing.

[Major Hogwash]

35. And on Friday nights he reads Thurber . . . for . . 15 . . interminable . . . minutes.

The longest 15 minutes on television in the history of broadcasting.

I'd rather watch salmon spawn than listen to someone read a poem on tv just because he is in love with the sound of his own voice!!

[Vinca]

37. I love Keith, but I'll agree with you on the Thurber readings.

[tekisui]

36. Unrec. The Bush/Obama tax cuts are a Big Shitty Deal.