Reading of Angela Merkel’s victory in Germany today (not to mention Sarkozy’s comments to Obama at the Security Council), I was reminded that there’s nothing more square and old fashioned these days than a left-liberal. I mean what fuddy-duddies, mired in leftover rehashed ideology from Gramsci and the Port Huron Statement. (I’m not sure Obama read either of these first hand. More likely he sat there nodding unquestioningly as his professors shoveled in the received wisdom of the sixties… er, ages.)
Apparently, Merkel and her coalition partners won victory on a platform of tax reduction, relying on the theory that that would spur production in the recession and ultimately increase government revenues – the same concept that Obama, seemingly confused, called “unfair” when asked about it during the campaign. I am more certain than ever that he had simply never heard of it.
According to reports, Obama phoned Merkel with congratulations. Wouldn’t it be nice if he adopted some of her policies too? Unlikely.
The situation is a little more complicated than you think. I think a lot of people voted to keep the Left Party (which is composed of commies, nuts, and power grabbers–sorry for the tautology) out of the government and were afraid the SPD might align with them, if not immediately. There will still be lots of talk about social justice, and economic reforms will have to be very skillfully sold.
Bush shoulder rub revivified her, it seems…
But, Roger, Bill Clinton says there’s a vast right wing conspiracy conspiring against Obama. I guess that now includes Merkel–LOL. I do think “vast” and “conspiracy” comes pretty close to being a contradiction in terms.
Taxes, also cap & trade corruption and nuke power, and large unhappy camper feeling for Eurostan domination. Here, we have Bill Clinton going after the Vast Conspiracy. Those who survived the camps and the war should note he didn’t say “coalition” but “conspiracy”. Anti-party stuff is to him sinful and criminal, and whatever their thugs do is ok because we are a “vast conspiracy” with no rights. Our weathermen are going to do bad things if they are not voted out.
It’s about appearances. Of course a congratulatory phone call was made to Merkel. But, as to why Merkel’s party won, well that isn’t as important.
Isn’t it a drag to have to be a trail blazer 24/7/365 for the next 3 years and so many months.
Re #5
A congratulatory phone call was made, not sure where that comment you made is coming from.
Also, Obama and the congress passed the largest 2 year tax cut in the US history.
Finally, Merkel and her party are far to the left of the US Democratic party.
What in the world are you smoking?????
Jim is correct. Obama presided over the largest tax cut in history — $282 billion in two years. By comparison, Bush cut taxes $174 billion in his first two years.
I don’t Obama’s the one stuck in the 60s.
R Greenlee:
No, that is not true. In fact, the Democrats have been complaining about Bush’s tax cuts since he got them passed years ago. He also took millions of the poor working poor off the roles entirely.
Obama has raised taxes already and he will raise them some more. In fact, he promises that he will. He has tripled the national debt and the job numbers are terrible.
The idea that Obama has cut taxes the way Bush cut taxes, because he cut payroll taxes by $8 a pay period or something is absurd.
$282 billion, how ridiculous. The US is borrowing 45 cents of every 1 dollar it spends and somehow someone manages to come up with some fictional $282 billion in tax cuts. Absurd.
Terry,
“[Bush] also took millions of the poor working poor off the roles entirely.”
Were you awake the last eight years? By every measure, poverty increased during the Bush years. In fact, he’s the only modern president to preside over income decline through two presidential terms. The medium income fell 4.2%. The poverty rate went from 11.3% to 13.2%. It was worse for children (11.3% to 16.2%). Oh, and those Bush tax cuts were debt-financed. The only thing that declined was the Dow.
More here: http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/09/closing_the_book_on_the_bush_legacy.php
As for the tax cuts contained in the stimulus plan, I’m sorry to rock your world, but I’m afraid it’s true. (And why is a payroll tax cut not a “real” tax cut?) More specifics:
http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/21/news/economy/tax_savings_stimulus/index.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-02-21-obama-saturday_N.htm
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123111279694652423.html
Ahh, a witholding reduction is not a cut; all still owe exactly the same money due under the IRS system. I see where Madoff got his investors and your comments are poster child proof of the dumbing down of our educational system. You really don’t know the difference between a withholding change and a cut???
R. Greenleaf Increasing the Earned Income Tax Credit is not a tax cut, it is a welfare increase. You can’t cut income taxes on someone who doesn’t pay income taxes. Payroll “taxes” go for specific defined benefits for the individual (e.g. Social Security, Disability Insurance and Medicare) so “cutting” those contributions just cuts more holes in the safety net that is already hanging by a thread. Get ready for higher and higher means testing for SSI and more and more rationing from fewer and fewer doctors in Mediscare.
You don’t have the tools to even have this discussion.