What is Really Driving the Left's Angst at Obama?
I’m not particularly happy about the GOP’s compromise with Obama and I derive no particular pleasure in the fact that the left is furious at Obama over the deal, but it is that phenomenon I wish to briefly address.
Conservatives unhappy with the deal are upset over things like extension of the unemployment benefits, which they don’t believe will help the recipients in the long run, but are sure will exacerbate our exploding national debt.
But what about the angry left? Why are they so mad at Obama over this? Well, I don’t think it’s because he reneged on his promise to stick it to the “wealthy” – those filthy rich families earning $250,000 or more per year. Leftists, being ends-justifies-the-means sorts don’t get unduly exercised over deceits, broken promises and the like in service to the cause. No, it has to involve the substance of the deal itself.
Extending the Bush tax rates for the highest income earners infuriates the left. Before the deal was consummated, MoveOn.org ran a video ad complaining bitterly about it. After the deal was announced they became even more apoplectic.
Just think about this. You surely don’t think for a minute that the left is angry because of the $700 billion of revenue they say this extension will cost. If revenue, deficits and debt were their concerns they would hate Obama’s guts long before now, not to mention that they would be focusing on the much greater loss of revenue the rate extensions for all other income brackets will cause.
No, it has nothing to do with the alleged losses of revenues. It has to do with their frustration at not being able to punish the “rich.” I am convinced they are more driven by the negative of sticking it to the “wealthy” than they are helping others. This is not a matter of robbing Peter to pay Paul. It’s a matter of just robbing Peter to punish him for faring better in “life’s lottery.” It’s the same mentality that drove their former hero, candidate Barack Obama, to confess to Charlie Gibson that he favored increases in capital gains tax rates despite empirical evidence that such rate increases decreased revenues because “it’s a matter of fairness.” You see, in the leftist’s mind, the concept of “fairness” is satisfied not only if you take from some and give to others, but if you punish everyone just to make sure you stick it to the wealthy.
I think that’s a sick mindset and I think we should recognize it for what it is.
What’s the end of this kind of thinking, after all? The “wealth” already pay way more in income taxes than all other income brackets – way more. Their marginal rates will still be higher with this extension. At what point would the socialist confiscators believe fairness had actually been achieved were they dictatorially running the show?
For all the moralizing and sermonizing we hear from the left, I rarely hear those of us on the right countering their moral arguments either defending the moral superiority of free market systems or counterpunching the left by pointing out their own immoral urges that drive them to want to punish a group of people. How is that morally defensible? They’re not all driven by such motives, but significant numbers are, which makes this worthy of our consideration.
- Comment (36)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (0)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Oct '10
Re: What is Really Driving the Left's Angst at Obama?
I saw a MoveOn.org ad this morning about the tax issue and found it morally appalling.
And we can't let the left get away with this myth that the President gave in to everything the Republicans wanted. This is ridiculous. "Everything" would at a minimum have included making the current tax rates permanent and permanently repealing the estate tax. The compromise position, the bi-partisan position, was a temporary extension. The take it or leave it, partisan position, was to raise tax rates on $250/$200K.
Oct '10
Re: What is Really Driving the Left's Angst at Obama?
It has been said that the only way an assassin can succeed with certainty is if he considers the taking down of his hated target of greater worth than his own life. To the genuinely committed leftist, the taking down of America and all she stands for, is of far greater value than even the existence of the leftist movement. Why then can they do it... because of their confidence in nihilism. Destroy it all, and Utopian goodness will, in the end, be upon us.
Delusional?? Yes, but still the end game of the Left.
Sep '10
Re: What is Really Driving the Left's Angst at Obama?
I'd quibble with you only a bit. But is there room in your argument for the right to be a little PO'ed at the rich on Wall Street who got us into the current mess? Yes, I know about Barnie Frank, FANNIE, FREDDIE and all that.
Jul '10
Re: What is Really Driving the Left's Angst at Obama?
It's been striking to observe how little of the argument from the Left about letting the lower tax rates expire has been concerned with fiscal discipline.
Overwhelmingly, their rhetoric was focused upon whether the "rich" should be allowed to have a tax cut. It was exclusively an appeal to class envy.
Jun '10
Re: What is Really Driving the Left's Angst at Obama?
David,
Your use of contemporary English is certainly appropriate, though you may want to replace "rich" with "bourgeoisie" in the future which can make things clearer. As we "progress", you can use "anyone with more than one cow."
As for the rich on Wall Street, it was not their tax rates that inspired any of their behavior, nor should higher tax rates ever be considered punishment for anyone.
Jun '10
Re: What is Really Driving the Left's Angst at Obama?
I think the political roots of Obama are are about the same as they were for his former green-jobs czar, Van Jones. Obama was just a little more sophisticated, and quieter, about it.
Re: What is Really Driving the Left's Angst at Obama?
With respect, I'm not following you, Patrick. First, if you "know about Barnie, et al, then why do you say, "the rich on Wall Street to got us into the current mess?"
Did you mean to say, "contributed to the current mess?" Because if you know about Barnie, et al then you wouldn't imply the mess was the sole fault of the "rich on Wall Street."
But to answer what I infer you're driving at, I don't quite understand the case against the rich on Wall Street as to causing this mess, but to the extent anyone contributed to it, I would not give them a pass. But to categorically condemn the rich on Wall Street is wrongheaded for a number of reasons.
I don't even know why you'd bring this point up in my post ...
Re: What is Really Driving the Left's Angst at Obama?
continued ... unless you really are buying into the left's desire to punish the "wealthy." Is that your mindset too? Some kind of general anger at a certain group of people (pathetically undefined as that group is), is driving you to want to punish everyone making $250k?
This is truly bizarre. What ever happen to the 10th Commandment? Is covetousness no longer not even a sin, but a virtue? Truly sad.
If this is not what you meant by your comment, please clarify because, as I said above, I'm not following you or how your comment is germane to my post.
Edited on Dec 8, 2010 at 10:27amSep '10
Re: What is Really Driving the Left's Angst at Obama?
David - If I've hijacked your discussion, I apologize.
Re: What is Really Driving the Left's Angst at Obama?
No, Patrick. Not at all. I don't own the discussion. I was just trying to find out what you're getting at and see if I was missing anything. The discussion was probably ended anyway, LOL, so thanks for the life support.
Jul '10
Re: What is Really Driving the Left's Angst at Obama?
David Limbaugh:
This is truly bizarre. What ever happen to the 10th Commandment? Is covetousness no longer not even a sin, but a virtue? Truly sad.
I think it's worth stepping to Patrick's defense here. It is not 'covetous' to suggest that the wealthiest 1% of Americans be asked to contribute more to the national coffers in a time of war and a ballooning deficit.
Everyone would agree that punishing rich people through taxation is a bad idea, but I don't think that's the argument Democrats are making. That's an unfair characterization of Obama's position on taxes. Instead, it's the idea that, if government needs to raise revenue, the bulk of that revenue ought to come from those who have done best for themselves in society. We can dispute that argument, but I think it's best to take our opponents at their word, and not assume that they have some Van Jones-type ulterior motives.
Also, the use of scare quotes around 'wealthy' or 'rich' to describe the top 1.5% of households in the US is a bit silly. Households that earn that much are wealthy by almost any definition.
Edited on Dec 8, 2010 at 10:45amRe: What is Really Driving the Left's Angst at Obama?
Patrick: Let me rephrase, in case my comments came off as rude, which I by all means did not intend. It seemed that your comments came out of the blue, unless you are saying that there is something to the left's desire to get back at the rich. If so, I wanted to reiterate how wrongheaded I think that is and echo Dave Molinari's response above: "As for the rich on Wall Street, it was not their tax rates that inspired any of their behavior, nor should higher tax rates ever be considered punishmentfor anyone."
If that's not what you were getting at -- again, please clarify. If it is what you were getting at, that's by all means your prerogative; as I said, I don't own the thread anymore than you do. So have at it. I guess I'm just tired of people dumping on the poor old rich ... LOL.
Re: What is Really Driving the Left's Angst at Obama?
Charlie Dameron
David Limbaugh:
This is truly bizarre. What ever happen to the 10th Commandment? Is covetousness no longer not even a sin, but a virtue? Truly sad.
I think it's worth stepping to Patrick's defense here. It is not 'covetous' to suggest that the wealthiest 1% of Americans be asked to contribute more to the national coffers in a time of war and a ballooning deficit.
Everyone would agree that punishing rich people through taxation is a bad idea, but I don't think that's the argument Democrats are making. That's a parody-type characterization of Obama's position on taxes. ·
Charlie: The whole purpose of my post is to suggest that the left is driven here, not by the desire to raise revenues or even fairness, but class warfare and punishment of the rich. You are free to call that parody-type characterization but that's the tone I hear in their arguments. That's what is driving the left's angst. As I said, think of all the revenues they're foregoing by extending the rates for the lower brackets.
In 2008, the top 1% paid 38%. Not Enough?
Edited on Dec 8, 2010 at 10:52amMay '10
Re: What is Really Driving the Left's Angst at Obama?
Patrick tends to lean a bit left and likes to tweak the system at times. Good- we are happy to defend the points. This isn't an echo chamber.
But, David, we do need to be real here- we can't toss in a comment on the $50 billion long term cost of extending unemployment benefits as a budget-buster at the same time as we are fine with the much more deficit-driving "millionaires" tax rates extension.
I agree that philosophically, it is our money, not the government's and also that enabling investment capital formation is not "unfair". But it isn't a strong debating point to cite examples where the raw dollars are relatively (compared with the foregone tax revenues) insignificant amounts. We should just strictly argue the principles.
Re: What is Really Driving the Left's Angst at Obama?
Duane Oyen:
But, David, we do need to be real here- we can't toss in a comment on the $50 billion long term cost of extending unemployment benefits as a budget-buster at the same time as we are fine with the much more deficit-driving "millionaires" tax rates extension.
Duane: I don't accept the left's premise that we're going to lose $700 billion in revenues if we retain the rates. It assumes a static, zero-sum game economy. And the arguments against extending the unemployment benefits go beyond the deficit/debt issue.
I also think you are buying into the left's framing of the issue if you allow them to treat the retention of rates for the highest income bracket a cut. That's absurd. It's been in place for years. Nothing is being cut. The status quo, for that bracket, is being retained. So we might just as well be talking about the revenues we are foregoing by not making the top rate 50% or any arbitrary number we pick, imo.
Re: What is Really Driving the Left's Angst at Obama?
Kenneth: It's been striking to observe how little of the argument from the Left about letting the lower tax rates expire has been concerned with fiscal discipline.
Overwhelmingly, their rhetoric was focused upon whether the "rich" should be allowed to have a tax cut. It was exclusively an appeal to class envy. · Dec 8 at 9:12am
Bingo, Kenneth.
May '10
Re: What is Really Driving the Left's Angst at Obama?
My expectations for the GOP are low while the Democrats hold the reins. Of course, Republicans would be forced into a lopsided compromise before January. But Republicans do have the power to affect the terms of the public conversation surrounding the legislation. And I hold it against the GOP leadership that they started haggling from the middle, rather than from a staunchly conservative position.
May '10
Re: What is Really Driving the Left's Angst at Obama?
David Limbaugh
Duane Oyen:
But, David, we do need to be real here- we can't toss in a comment on the $50 billion long term cost of extending unemployment benefits as a budget-buster at the same time as we are fine with the much more deficit-driving "millionaires" tax rates extension.
Duane: I don't accept the left's premise that we're going to lose $700 billion in revenues if we retain the rates. It assumes a static, zero-sum game economy. And the arguments against extending the unemployment benefits go beyond the deficit/debt issue.
I don't think I am assming any such thing, David- and I agree with the basic point. I am saying that no matter how dynamic the scoring, it won't overcome an order of magnitude difference in net dollars to the Treasury, so that part of the argument doesn't work well when arguing with the Left over the top tax rate by bringing up the far cheaper unemployment benefits.
Kenneth's point is, of course, the operative one, and that is exactly what I was saying about arguing the core principle on principle- hence my disparaging mention of "unfair".
Oct '10
Re: What is Really Driving the Left's Angst at Obama?
With all the talk of revenue and fairness, where is the discussion of spending? Just thought I'd introduce a diversion from the discussion and bring up the supposed point of taxation, that is, to fund spending. Wasn't that it??? Or am I really that naive?? Guess that obsolete "Constitution" thing is still in my memory. Been out of school over 50 years and yet it still stays with me. Am I alone??
Re: What is Really Driving the Left's Angst at Obama?
Duane: To respond to both your last comment and Raycon's, I don't want to get sucked into allowing the left to control the terms of the debate by just looking at whether we should extend the Bush rates (the status quo) will cause a loss of revenues. I don't think you can look at it in a vacuum. In the first place, there is no way to know how much damage it would do to an already anemic economy, but more than that, to discuss it in terms of a loss of revenues, accedes that it's a cut, as opposed to a continuation of the status quo. That was my point earlier when I said we might as well discuss how much revenue we are foregoing by not raising the rate to 50 percent. I believe I can fairly talk about the detrimental impact of these unemployment benefits, which are the spending side of the equation, without being inconsistent in defending an extension of the Bush rates for the highest bracket, even if not extending them would result in a net increase in revenues. Though I understand your point, I think its apples and oranges.