Comments on: Disgusting

By: Gary Farber

Gary Farber — Thu, 29 Jul 2004 18:09:55 +0000

Belatedly linked to this here, by the way, with little comment; it speaks for itself.

By: tom beta 2

tom beta 2 — Fri, 23 Jul 2004 16:52:50 +0000

The NYT gives a lot of anonymously-sourced info here. Not that that’s always bad, but I wonder why. The ABCNews article on this (at http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040721_2437.html) has a somewhat different take, which kinda supports paperweight’s idea that the White House wants this to come up closer to election day. For what it’s worth, at least the ABC guys tell you why they have anonymous sources. I much prefer the style of their article.

By: Jane Goodall

Jane Goodall — Fri, 23 Jul 2004 16:46:30 +0000

“The principle of bipartisanship? How fucking naive are you? This is an election year.” Ahh, yes, election year! Just a few more months until the scourge of the Unelected Fraud is removed from our national landscape. Unless, of course, the malAdministration orchestrates a “Looky-here we got Osama!” maneuver, or just cancels the election entirely. In that case, time to fill the streets and Viva la Revalucion!

By: brett

brett — Fri, 23 Jul 2004 00:56:47 +0000

Morons. Because Bush wants a longer extension, and more tax cuts, than the Democrats, it’s Bush who’s playing politics when he refuses it? You trust anonymous congressional staffers who are pissed because they didn’t get their way? Don’t play the media’s game for them. The principle of bipartisanship? How fucking naive are you? This is an election year.

By: GMT

GMT — Thu, 22 Jul 2004 23:01:19 +0000

I’m at a loss for words And yet you posted over four lines in a third post. I’m disgusted, though not surprised, that the White House would screw the middle class, not to score political points, but to avoid giving them away. Funding issues had been resolved between House and Senate Republicans. Campaign issues intervened. I don’t pretend to know the future of middle class tax cuts, but the middle class is clearly not a priority.

By: eudoxis

eudoxis — Thu, 22 Jul 2004 22:45:30 +0000

Is the outrage over Washington playing politics? That the Bush administration doesn’t want Democrats to gain political points? I’m at a loss for words. I thought the disgust was over the perception that this posturing was at the expense of the middle class. My point was that it was over funding issues because the middle class is going to get their tax cut regardless of this political play.

By: GMT

GMT — Thu, 22 Jul 2004 22:07:22 +0000

This may be disgusting, but not for reasons presented in the post, above. Erm, no. http://tinyurl.com/4mx42 The White House helped to block a Republican-brokered deal on Wednesday to extend several middle-class tax cuts, fearful of a bill that could draw Democratic votes and dilute a Republican campaign theme, Republican negotiators said. …in an improbable series of machinations, White House officials opposed the tentative deal worked out between House and Senate Republican leaders that would have extended the tax cuts for two years at a cost of about $80 billion. … Claire Buchan, a White House spokeswoman, said the administration was still trying to negotiate. But Republican Congressional officials said the administration did not want a deal that Democratic lawmakers might support, giving them a tax-cutting credential, too. … “If the Democrats had been on the same side, it would have taken a lot of arrows out of the quiver,’’ said one Republican staff member.

By: eudoxis

eudoxis — Thu, 22 Jul 2004 20:49:04 +0000

The administration is holding out for larger middle class tax cuts and is likely to get them in September. The Democrats will vote, now, for a watered down version (with funding!). Very sensible. I’m all for it. But, the Democrats are more likely to vote for the full tax cuts without funding in September. The present day middle class and the administration wins, the Democrats lose. This may be disgusting, but not for reasons presented in the post, above.

By: paperwight

paperwight — Thu, 22 Jul 2004 20:02:24 +0000

Whoops. Sorry about that. I got a 500 server error on the first try, so thought it didn’t go through.

By: paperwight

paperwight — Thu, 22 Jul 2004 20:00:13 +0000

Remember, this is about an extension of the Bush tax cut. It sailed through the house but was killed in the Senate by moderate Republicans over a legitimate funding issue. Read the source material. In fact, the moderate Republicans in the Senate (read, people who don't just cut taxes without any notion of fiscal accountability) were uncomfortable with further extensions of the Bush cuts, but were willing to extend for two years these particular tax cuts which benefitted the middle and working class. The Democrats were good with this, but the New Republican Tribe, including Bush, wanted a minimum 5 year extension. So rather than getting the bill passed, Bush and the House Republicans killed it, so they could strip off the bipartisan taint, and then then bring it up again as an issue closer to the election.

By: paperwight

paperwight — Thu, 22 Jul 2004 19:59:55 +0000

By: eudoxis

eudoxis — Thu, 22 Jul 2004 17:46:41 +0000

Remember, this is about an extension of the Bush tax cut. It sailed through the house but was killed in the Senate by moderate Republicans over a legitimate funding issue.

By: Brey

Brey — Thu, 22 Jul 2004 16:11:27 +0000

Pork, now there’s an issue with bipartisan support.