4 ms·

This is a good article by Charles Krauthammer on that topic: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/09/AR2010120904472.html http://www.was

This is a good article by Charles Krauthammer on that topic: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/09/AR2010120904472.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12... The gist is that President Obama really cut a fantastic deal for liberals yet many were still livid because it also contained an extension of the tax cuts. Hence they want to punish the rich above or equal to achieving their own goals. Personally I think the left is a sliding scale that goes from Moderate to Marx. Marx's famous quote "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is in line with the comment you quoted and I think people on the far left believe just that. I think the further you get away from the far left on the sliding scale the less that becomes true.

DanI-S 16y ago
Punish the rich? I'm sure for most people it's about reducing the deficit.
- TomOfTTB 16y ago
  That's not the question though. The question wasn't "why don't liberals agree with a tax cut for the Rich" (the answer to that question is exactly your point). The question is "why would they be so angry that they'd turn on the most liberal President elected since Carter and perhaps FDR". Or "Why would this deal make people talk about challenging him in the Primary" That anger isn't about reducing the already ballooning deficit. There's something more there (whether that "more" is to punish the rich is debatable)
  - DanI-S 16y ago
    I'd say the anger comes from the following line of thought: "The extremely wealthy are receiving tax cuts which will barely affect their personal quality of life, yet cost 'the rest of us' billions of dollars. That money would have a far higher quality of life impact if spent on welfare or tax cuts for middle/lower income Americans. Our quality of life is being held down for the sake of theirs, when theirs is already far higher."
- clarkm 16y ago
  Then why not focus on cutting spending?
yequalsx 16y ago
Tax cuts are not a great stimulus. The multiplier effect is low. A great deal from a liberal perspective would be a system in which higher education for qualified people has minimal cost, a system in which everyone has access to decent medical care, a system which invests in the future with infrastructure, scientific research, etc. These things cost money and lowering government revenue without corresponding cuts adds to the deficit in a way that has a low multiplier effect. Tax rates are quite low right now. Deficit spending is a tax, it's just a delayed tax. The moral thing to do with our present deficit spending is to spend in programs that will enhance the country. The tax cuts don't do this.
- TomOfTTB 16y ago
  I'm sorry but you're arguing a political opinion as if it were fact and not offering anything to justify your argument. A good half the country believes that tax cuts ARE a great stimulus and you could get conservative economists to give you Ronald Reagan based examples until you're blue in the face. (Please note I'm not even on the conservative side here. I think the tax cuts should have expired. But I can see both sides of the argument)
  - yequalsx 16y ago
    One can get a higher multiplier effect from other types of programs than from tax cuts. You can look this up. The rest of what I said was an opinion because it was in response to the Krauthammer article that said that liberals should be happy with what Obama has done. I'm a liberal and I'm not happy and I stated why.
    - yummyfajitas 16y ago
      You can look this up. And when you do, you'll discover various activists with an agenda pushing speculation and prediction backed by gigantic statistical formulae. And this is even taking the neo-Keynesian picture of the economy as a proven truth (as opposed to a wildly oversimplified model based on assumptions known to be false). (Note: not trying to imply that any other macroeconomic prediction models are much better.)

DanI-S 16y ago

Punish the rich? I'm sure for most people it's about reducing the deficit.

TomOfTTB 16y ago
That's not the question though. The question wasn't "why don't liberals agree with a tax cut for the Rich" (the answer to that question is exactly your point). The question is "why would they be so angry that they'd turn on the most liberal President elected since Carter and perhaps FDR". Or "Why would this deal make people talk about challenging him in the Primary" That anger isn't about reducing the already ballooning deficit. There's something more there (whether that "more" is to punish the rich is debatable)
- DanI-S 16y ago
  I'd say the anger comes from the following line of thought: "The extremely wealthy are receiving tax cuts which will barely affect their personal quality of life, yet cost 'the rest of us' billions of dollars. That money would have a far higher quality of life impact if spent on welfare or tax cuts for middle/lower income Americans. Our quality of life is being held down for the sake of theirs, when theirs is already far higher."
clarkm 16y ago
Then why not focus on cutting spending?

yequalsx 16y ago

Tax cuts are not a great stimulus. The multiplier effect is low. A great deal from a liberal perspective would be a system in which higher education for qualified people has minimal cost, a system in which everyone has access to decent medical care, a system which invests in the future with infrastructure, scientific research, etc. These things cost money and lowering government revenue without corresponding cuts adds to the deficit in a way that has a low multiplier effect. Tax rates are quite low right now. Deficit spending is a tax, it's just a delayed tax. The moral thing to do with our present deficit spending is to spend in programs that will enhance the country. The tax cuts don't do this.

TomOfTTB 16y ago
I'm sorry but you're arguing a political opinion as if it were fact and not offering anything to justify your argument. A good half the country believes that tax cuts ARE a great stimulus and you could get conservative economists to give you Ronald Reagan based examples until you're blue in the face. (Please note I'm not even on the conservative side here. I think the tax cuts should have expired. But I can see both sides of the argument)
- yequalsx 16y ago
  One can get a higher multiplier effect from other types of programs than from tax cuts. You can look this up. The rest of what I said was an opinion because it was in response to the Krauthammer article that said that liberals should be happy with what Obama has done. I'm a liberal and I'm not happy and I stated why.
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    You can look this up. And when you do, you'll discover various activists with an agenda pushing speculation and prediction backed by gigantic statistical formulae. And this is even taking the neo-Keynesian picture of the economy as a proven truth (as opposed to a wildly oversimplified model based on assumptions known to be false). (Note: not trying to imply that any other macroeconomic prediction models are much better.)