Paul Krugman: Obama Didn't Fight Hard Enough Against Tax Cuts For The Rich

[Joanne98]

nytimes.com:

And then there's the tax-cut issue. Mr. Obama could and should be hammering Republicans for trying to hold the middle class hostage to secure tax cuts for the wealthy. He could be pointing out that making the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy permanent is a huge budget issue -- over the next 75 years it would cost as much as the entire Social Security shortfall. Instead, however, he is once again negotiating with himself, long before he actually gets to the table with the G.O.P.

Read the whole story: nytimes.com

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/15/paul-krugman-obama-tax-cuts_n_783452.html

[ProSense]

1. " Mr. Obama could and should be hammering Republicans for trying to hold the middle class hostage "

This was what the President and almost every Democrat said for the past few months.

Still, he didn't "fight hard enough"? Has a decision been made?

[vi5]

4. Great. And apparently it worked...

Because every single poll shows that the public agrees. So the speeches worked, and now is the time to back those speeches up with actions. Veto or threaten to veto any extension of the tax cuts for the wealthy. Don't allow any vote that doesn't separate the upper and the mid/lower tax cuts and if the Republicans block it, go strongly aggressive and stay on message pointing out who is responsible for the middle class cuts expiring.

Again, pretty simple. If the message of those speeches was true and he believed them, then there is no other action that can be taken.

The speeches and the messaging are great but they don't exist in a vaccuum and if time and time again the action goes against the message of the speeches then at a certain point the speeches and the messaging fail to carry any resonance.

[Jackpine Radical]

8. Nailed it.

[ProSense]

9. Good

"So the speeches worked, and now is the time to back those speeches up with actions. "

"Again, pretty simple. If the message of those speeches was true and he believed them, then there is no other action that can be taken."

You agree the problem isn't messaging. We'll see what happens.

[vi5]

10. It is and it isn't...

Messaging means nothing if it's not followed up on by action.

And undercutting ones own message of urgency and importance with a signal of compromise and kicking the can down the road a ways neuters the effect of that positive messaging.

So yes, up until the recent comments, or leaks or whatever you want to call them the messaging on this has been fine.

So we have good messaging, and we have the overwhelming support and direction from the American people. And we have the ultimate final say with the veto pen. Now the only thing they (and we) need is the strength and fortitude to back up our convictions with actions.

[ProSense]

11. "Messaging means nothing if it's not followed up on by action."

Tell that to the GOP.

[vi5]

13. They follow up with action...

A hell of a lot more than the Democrats do, that's for sure.

Also, deflecting to what they do or don't do doesn't take away the responsibility of those in charge on our side.

If our Dem leaders believe what they've been saying (and I can only assume they do and give the benefit of the doubt that they do) then the actions are clear. No extension of the tax cuts for the wealthy, separating the votes of the middle and the wealthy cuts, and a veto of any bill that doesn't meet the standards of importance that they've laid out.

[ProSense]

16. "They follow up with action..."

Are you talking about the existing Republican Party that promises everything and delivers nothing?

They promised jobs, they did that even during the Bush years. They are currently claiming that they want to protect Social Security.

Lying and then doing something else isn't making a promise and following through.

[vi5]

19. Oh, o.k.

So then that means it's o.k. if our side does the same thing.

As for what the GOP promises, they promise tax cuts for all, less regulation and fewer government agencies, defunding of existing regulations, pro-life, conservative judges, more war, and more military spending.

If they didn't follow through and provide a good chunk of what they said they were going to provide, then there wouldn't be this supposedly insurmountable mountain of things that the Democratic House, Senate, and White House had to overcome would we? If they were so unsuccessful then what has all the complaining about "reversing 8 years of Republican rule" been about?

[Milo_Bloom]

18. Yet they failed to take any ACTION.

In fact, they cowered away from the vote prior to the election.

That the essence of not fighting hard enough.

[Jackpine Radical]

2. That Krugman fella must be some kinda Commie.

You'd think that as an economist, he would understand how to use financial incentives to regulate behavior.

For example, if you want people to be rich, you provide incentives for them via lowered taxes. If ya don't want people to be poor, you make it more financially uncomfortable to be poor so that they will choose to be rich instead.

[canoeist52]

5. I love your post. Can I borrow it?

[Jackpine Radical]

7. Of course.

[polichick]

17. LOL - that's about how crazy the thinking on the other side is...

And it's even crazier than our side doesn't laugh in their faces and show them to be con artists.

[jaxx]

3. Poor Krugman, still angling for his seat behind the desk in the oval office.

Projecting it's a done deal ahead of time is as bad as his using his crystal ball to know what will transpire. Pundits are a dime a dozen.

[paulk]

14. most "pundits" aren't Nobel Prize winners

that puts Krugman's punditry in a different class from your "dime a dozen" characterization. That and the fact that his "crystal ball" has been right a hell of a lot more than it's been wrong.

If the best you can do for argument is an attack on Krugman's motives, then you really don't have an argument...

[polichick]

15. How ridiculous - if the prez listened to Krugman every once in a while...

He wouldn't be in such deep shit.

[Phx_Dem]

6. "Didn't?" The fight hasn't even started yet, Paul.

[harun]

20. The fight is over, the deal is done. You'll see.

[Mass]

12. He should, but he is too busy trying to show he is bipartisan and ready to compromise.

This thread reminds me of the public option. People saying for months the fight was not finished, until, guess what, the fight was finished and then, all the excuses were there.

For those who dont understand, saying you are ready to compromise, in particular with somebody who has already said they dont want to, is not fighting. It is getting ready to surrender.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x522603

Obama Blames Himself for Partisan Tone