Tweet
New CBS News poll out confirms every other poll we’ve seen on the topic – the American people are solidly against tax cuts for the rich.
53% of respondents said there should only be tax cuts for the middle class and no tax cuts for people making over $250,000. That’s the number most people in the media are using, but that’s not quite accurate. Another 14% said they don’t want tax cuts for anybody, including the top bracket. So, the reality is that an overwhelming 67% of the country don’t want tax cuts for the rich (including 52% of Republican voters!). Only 26% said that everyone should get a tax cut, including the rich.
So, let’s do the math for people who are a little slow. That’s 67% to 26%. That’s a crushing 41% lead. If it was an election, that margin would be so large they would think it was rigged. The group that doesn’t want tax cuts for the rich is more than two and half times the group that does.
If that weren’t enough, there is an internal memo being sent around to Democrats on the Hill by Anzalone Liszt Research that shows that 77% of Americans would let the Bush tax cuts for the rich expire if the extra money went toward helping small businesses and balancing the budget. 77%!!!
Now, as a politician, how stupid do you have to be on the other side of this issue? . . .
But that’s not entirely fair because the Republicans have built their entire party on being on the other side of this issue and they’re doing well. Why? Because they get handsomely compensated by those same millionaires and billionaires who benefit from the tax cuts. They use the money they collect from those guys into deceiving the American people into voting for them during the elections. That sucks for the rest of us, but at least that makes sense. There is a logical reason for them to take the more unpopular side of this equation.
Democrats on the other hand just got their ass kicked by that money spent to make sure they lose. Now, they would like to do a favor for the people who just killed them in the election and in the meanwhile take a position that 67% to 77% of the American people are against. How stupid do you have to be to do that?
That is the position of the Obama administration right now as they argue for a “compromise” where they extend the Bush tax cuts for the rich for another two years. Even Pat Buchanan laughed on-air and said that’s no compromise at all. That’s complete victory for the GOP. Remember, in two years there will be a new president – and if it’s a Republican, the tax cuts will be extended forever. Complete and utter victory for one side. Complete and utter capitulation for the other side. Pathetic.
Of course, there are two other explanations for the actions of Obama White House. The first one is that they’re not dumb, they are embarrassingly weak. They know they should side with 67% of the American people, they know they shouldn’t help the people who crushed them in the last election, they know they are showing no leadership by constantly cratering to the other side, but they can’t help themselves. It is in Obama’s nature to always compromise, no matter what the situation is. He hates to fight. He is No Drama Obama. He will do anything to avoid a confrontation, including giving the other side exactly what they want in the guise of a sage and tempered compromise.
The last possible explanation is the worst of all. He is complicit. He is among the top 2%. So is nearly everyone he knows. Everyone in his bubble is rich, fabulously rich. So, all of the people he knows thinks it’s a brilliant idea to give more tax cuts to the rich, namely them. Plus, most of the Democrats also get campaign donations from the millionaires and billionaires. Though it’s self-destructive in the long run because those guys will always give more to the Republicans, they can’t wean themselves off of that money. So, they go along with whatever their rich funders want.
All three options are sickening. But there is no fourth option. No one in their right mind can possibly think that opposing at least 67% of the American people to help the political opposition is a good political idea.
And one last note, when President Obama agrees to this and they add another $140 billion dollars to the deficit over the next two years because of these tax cuts for the rich, who do you think the Republicans will blame for that deficit? You guessed it, the man who just gave them everything they wanted — Barack Obama.
Come on, how stupid do you have to be? Or at least, I hope they’re just stupid and not the other options.
Follow Cenk Uygur on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TheYoungTurks
Become a Fan of The Young Turks: www.facebook.com/tytnation
45 Comments
I would like to think they are stupid but I don’t see any evidence of it. Of course they are stupid politically because the rich will never vote for Obama. Only middle-aged white men need apply. He is about to find out how venal the Rs really are starting in January.
Those progressives and liberals were stupid to support Obama, given how things have played out.
At this point, it is no longer stupid to expect Obama to move the liberal and progressive agenda.
No, doing the same thing over and again, expecting a different result each time, is bat shit crazy.
Cenk, I love how you rattle all the ‘right’ cages…! Mahalo Nui Loa and keep up the fight…! ;-)
The tax cuts will NOT be extended for the middle class or the rich unless the international bankers instruct their representatives (puppets),the District of Criminals (false left/right paradigm) to do so. They do NOT care about the American people.
It’s option three. Obama is a true believer when it comes to “free market” economics, and always has been. His choice af advisors demonstrates that. He could have had any economist he wanted advising him, at least informally. After all, when your President calls, you answer. I don’t think things have changed that much in the last thirty years.
As for his being weak, he cut his political teeth in Chicago, which doesn’t strike me as a place for the feint of heart.
I think it would be nice to conduct a poll based on the “is Obama stupid ?” theme.
The questions could be based on any of the following, some of which could even curry favorable right wing responses.
Is Obama stupid? (as a general concept)
Is Obama the leader you thought he would (or hoped) he would be?
Is Obama trying to hard to look like he is “fair minded”?
Is Obama a Trojan horse? (for corporate interests)
As an Obama supporter back in 2007 I have been watching his performance since 2008 while always giving him a pass on the issues because of “the problems he inherited from the previous administration”.
I am finally reaching the conclusion that in his heart he is a blue dog doing what it takes to appear to be a progressive for votes sake when necessary.
Ernest
Viva to Wikileaks and the war crimes trials yet to come.
Oh, come on. Stupid? Are we really still asking this goddamn Q?
Hey Cenk, here’s my guess. EVIL. BOUGHT. Wanna bet me a thousand bucks?
Bought, yes.
Evil, maybe.
Stupid – well, he isn’t smart enough to understand what the Republicans are up to, and the average Professional Left is able to do that, even without the Ivy League College degree.
I’d say he made a stupid bargain. He gave up his soul for a big old bag of gold.
More likely, short sighted and greedy. He’s just like the rest of the inside the beltway crowd. They think with thier own wallets in mind and plan for a comfy retirement in Florida once they are done turning the nations economy into a heap of ashes….
The plutocracy in this country are running the government just like a business with only their short term interests in mind. It would never occur to them, ahead of time, that they also need to breathe this air, they also need clean water, they also need navigable roads and runways, they also need food that is not full of chemicals, antibiotics and hormones. Funny that those of us living paycheck to paycheck, or month to month or even six months out have the common sense to consider 10 years out but they don’t. They only live one trade/deal/fraud/con at a time. My guess is if one aggregated all the money that is spent lobbying/bribing, all of this country’s ills could be addressed and the powers that be would still be ahead of the game but that would require some self-awareness and that is not in their psyche.
Maybe in Chicago, he was just “groomed”.
I think he’s a narcissist with blinders on. He truly believes that what he is doing with his bipartisanship schtick is an ideal that transcends politics. He would rather go down with the ship, self-satisfied in his sense of nobility, and the absolute belief in his rightness.
I should add, that for Obama, the righteous process is far more important to him than the results. And he is probably so attuned to his inner greatness that he thinks history will vindicate him–which I suspect is his only goal.
Or he’s just a blue-dog who will never be a “good ol’ boy”.
You can’t: 1)take that 2008 Democratic nomination away from the Clintons; and 2)be stupid. Those are mutually exclusive possibilities.
Simple answer to simple question: YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Regardless, the effect is the same. Though I think true blue dogs are not as inclined to the rhetorical heights of bull hockey as Obama is. Guess maybe, he’s a blue dog with a “soaring vision”, lol.
He was smart enough to get himself elected to the top spot in the country; and yet how many of us continue to question his intellect while he divvies up the pieces of every program, service, or federally owned asset and sells them off to “stakeholders” who also happen to be his financial donors? Is he really dumber than the Professional Left?
That’s not stupid, that’s evil and we’re letting him off the hook.
He’s a shapeshifter; a fucking snake.
“Those guys” may give more to the Republicans but they give plenty to Democrats. It’s kind of like sympathizing with a middle of the pack pro athlete because he’s only making X millions instead of XX millions. Really wrings your heart, doesn’t it. And Democrats, like Blanche Lincoln, who are retired at the polls do extremely well in exile.
Folks, who cares what the explanation is? From our point of view, he’s a miserable failure, Dick Gephardt used to say. So let’s call for him to resign and build a movement to force him to do so. That’s our best outcome right now.
I think Mr Obama is the Best thing that ever happened to the republican party.. he has taken a pariah, washed up, hated organization.. and turned them into a viable option again.. almost single hand-idly (leiberman, pelosi reed lincoln and nelson helped tho) Mr Obama has prevented meaningful change, slowed or stopped progress.. taken the steam, and hope out of those people who voted for him. I think this was his job all along.. selected and sold to us as a solution.. when he is has been and always was just another member of the problem. After bush.. the two party system was in dire straits.. but obama has restored the status quo. 2 parties.. never a super majority in the left party.. so there are excuses why nothing gets done.. If by accident there is a super majority by some mistake in planning.. they always have the nelsons.. leibermans and lincolns to come out of the closet to kill the progressive legislation. Worst one in the closet tho has been and is obama… wow.. did he put one over on us. All obama has been good for is continuing bad bush policy.
sorry man. but he’s not stupid. nor was bush. it’s a mistake to think so. and he’s not weak. in fact, we did not arrive in this mess on Republicans alone. that became painfully clear after Nov 2006.
however, we all might be a little dumb. because we just can’t seem to get over washington and democrats … we can not seem to grasp the obvious: brand politicians will not make things better. they are not on our side. Clinton was not on our side.
we keep writing about it like these politicians should know better. shall i make you a list for obama?
1. Rick Warren
2. Ben Bernanke
3. Tim Geithner
4. Rahm Emanuel
5. no public option
6. Afghanistan
7. bailouts (supported as senator and continued as prez)
8. a recovery act but wait… we’re still bleeding jobs
9. the big one: no accountability… continuing to allow the criminals to run the country
and we continue to write about these things like we’re surprised… this is what we need to change.
give us some damned ideas, cenk. what can we do to begin to clean this up?
and please… bring your ideas over to writing in the rAw>
…doesn’t seeem stupid….seems bribed.
Also threatened. Obama is a high dollar prostitute. He is doing exactly as his Johns request.
Obama has no principles. He described himself in his book as a man who can be imprinted with anyone’s ideals.
Obama was a dirty fighter in Chicago. He put his boot in the face of the Democrat he replaced and never looked back.
Obama presented himself as a progressive and a fighter. He is a fraud.
Impeachment or Primary.
“Impeachment or Primary.”
Yes. That boot he put in the face of the Democrat he replaced is coming down on the Democratic Party now and will come down on all of us if impeachment isn’t on the table. He’s got two more years to do us grave harm. He’s turning off the lights in America with his attempt to shut down Wikileaks, and he has visions of impoverishing us until we are compliant, with his NAFTA deals and Bush tax cuts for the rich. Can we really afford two more years of Obama rule is the question. Sure, primary him, but let’s try to cut him off in his tracks right now. As people start to understand the real “fierce urgency of now,” I think we’ll be hearing the word “impeach” more and more.
Obama definitely is a neoliberal free marketeer, but his support for extending the tax cuts for the rich is 100% incompatible in an evidence-based world with his we-need-to-get-serious-about-reducing-the-deficit austerity mantra.
Extending the tax cuts for the rich is a total budget buster because it reduces projected government tax revenues by $140 billion over the next two years and $760 billion over the next 10 years without stimulating the economy or creating any jobs. People who support extending the tax cuts for the rich claim otherwise, but their argument is conclusively refuted by experience; namely, the tax cuts did not create any new jobs during the past ten years. Instead, they increased the deficit and fueled the reckless musical-chairs game with exotic mortgage backed financial instruments of mass destruction that created the housing bubble and almost blew up the US and world economies.
Worse, the rich don’t need the money, so they will continue to use it to gamble in the world casino and commodities futures markets where the sheer volume of their money will create commodity bubbles driving up the cost of those commodities for consumers, such as oil, gas, and various foodstuffs like bread and rice that will negatively impact the poor. Worldwide malnutrition and starvation is a realistic foreseeable consequence of their casino games, for example, and they will continue gambling with any profits they make further destabilizing the cost of basic commodities without creating any wealth.
Obama can dissemble all he wants, but he is deluding himself, if he thinks he can avoid drawing intense public criticism, scorn, and contempt, if he supports extending the grossly irresponsible, reckless, and unnecessary budget-busting tax cuts for the rich while beating the austerity drum and pushing Congress to pass the Simpson-Bowles catfood recommendations to savage social security and destroy what’s left of the middle class and the safety net, given a moribund economy, millions of ongoing real estate foreclosures without an effective mortgage relief program, 30 million people unemployed or underemployed, and no jobs creation plan.
He’s barking mad, if he thinks he can convince people that it makes sense to do both.
I think you are asking the wrong question. The question is “are the american people stupid?” How many times to do they turn out on election day thinking voting for x or y will make a difference. How much longer does this charade have to go on before people wake up to the fact that this so called democracy is an illusion. The politicians are bought and paid for and they are working for the elite masters and not us. the small stuff that divides the parties is just to keep us divided and think it matters who we vote for.
The kicking the can down the road is just so the next republican president, with a super majority like Obama squandered with the help of the blue dogs ( we still may lose social Security), can make them permanent.
Its’ all very clear. We”l lose that execrable health care reform that he patted himself on the back about as well, which I, for one, will not shed a single tear about.
What difference does it make if the insurance mafia can’t disallow preexisting conditions if no one can afford the premiums?
“The last possible explanation is the worst of all. He is complicit”
nail on head, IMO
and the simplest, most explanatory, and obvious.
Ah, Cenk, the “stupid” question.
Then there is the “victim” question, the “psychological” explanation, favored by Frank Rich in the Times.
Then there is the “blackmail” question or “family threatened with bodily harm” surmise, often applied to Democrats in general, especially in Congress …
Then there is the “bad advice” question, the hoodwinked, nice-guy senario … which sometimes morphs into the “Hillary woulda stood up to the rethug bad-guys better …” lament.
Then there is the “Obama knows things we do not, therefore we MUST trust him” idiocy … top secret, hush-hush, and all that “there are things that the people shouldn’t know bull shit
Finally, there is the evergreen “He’s still better than the alternative” jive.
Obama wanted to get into the legacy class, he and his family will never want for anything, Obama, like Bill “Bubba” Clinton has now got the “network” to assure escalationg wealth and the “respect” to be an “elderstatesman” like both Bubba and Prince Henry the “K”.
Whatever Obama may be, it ain’t stupid.
Stupid resides … elsewhere.
All hail Prince Obama Bubba!
DW
Well, the Obama crew may think of their “Now that we’ve screwed the People, how can we get reelected” problem in this way:
1. Voters can choose to vote for me in 2012 even though I fought for millionaire enrichment tax breaks.
Or,
2. Voters can choose to vote for a GOP candidate who will have what position on these millionaire enrichment tax breaks?
Hell, getting elected doesn’t require ‘smart’: look at Shrub.
It does require being able to follow directions from campaign management, though, and Mr O clearly can do that very very well. (Look at Palin; she couldn’t do that much.)
missing the third possibility:
pissing off enough of the people who might have voted for him, and will now vote for someone else in the primaries.
O is book smart, conservative, authoritarian, opportunistic, cynical, owned. Also, I think, he is deluded by his own early success into thinking he really is wise and ought to be loved and obeyed.
Then there is the “Obama knows things we do not, therefore we MUST trust him” idiocy …
What people don’t know is that Rush can single-handedly send support for ANY GOP position shooting up to 60, 70, 80 percent just by rubbing his forehead! He’s an invincible evil Superman! Barack had better get out in front of the issue before the poll numbers turn in the GOP’s favor!
Is that ridiculous enough?
Exactly.
Forcing the awareness upon them that they can’t afford to piss off the base too much, if they want to stay in office, is important.
I’m voting Green, even if we have a Obama v Palin contest in 2012.
Yes, “impeachment or Primary.”
And impeachment has another special appeal to it.
Obama is always talking about “Bipartisanship,” and “reaching out to the Republicans.”
The wonderful thing about impeachment is that he’ll have finally brought us all together. This is something both left and right can support! :-)
I’m a bit naive about how these things work with respect to the rich and the importance of their campaign contributions. But if I were a rich corporation, would I contribute to the Republicans who will assuredly give me the right breaks but who, if they win, may wind up angering the people and causing them to rise in a lot of messy protests; or would I give to the Democrats with a charismatic leader who I am assured will keep the left (or at least part of it) quiet? They may not vote for 100% of what I want, but it will be close enough and I’ll have more security.
So I guess my answer is that even though currently the rich are giving to the Republicans. there is always the hope they’ll give more to the Dems.
“The last possible explanation is the worst of all. He is complicit.”
Bingo.
Pleading for him to get it right or the Democrats to do the right thing is akin to lecturing a mobster about morality. They aren’t going to get it, and literally can’t get it.
You also can’t take the 08 nom away from the Clintons and actually be born in Kenya. I don’t understand why the birthers don’t get that.
Psychologically and humanly spot-on, Jeff.
The Democrats and Obama don’t have a “messaging” problem or a hearing problem.
They are simply corrupt and criminally complicit …
DW
For the ’08 election, BushBoy had made the Republican brand poisonous. A Dem was going to win in ’08. What the Big Money did is make sure it wasn’t someone with experience and a good chance of taking them on about the Banksters’ Big Shit Pile and the consequent economic collapse. A Dem who wouldn’t make waves for the corporations. They picked Obama because he fit their bill.
Hillary did not. As centrist as she may be on some issues, on many she is genuinely liberal.
So, Big Money got what it needed — time to recoup, bailouts, and pretty easy new FIRE regulations. Big Pharma got what it wanted and needed — mnadates for more customers and no onerous controls.
Obama campaigned with getting rid of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy as one of his signature issues. Now he’s going to ensure the tax cuts stay in effect — until the Repubs can make them more generous and permanent.
Instead of stupid, I’d have to go with clueless.