Ed Schultz: Obama Did Better Job Selling Bush Tax Cuts Than Bush Ever Did
As one of the liberal media members that have expressed feeling betrayed by the President's recent tax compromise proposal, Ed Schultz on Wednesday said Barack Obama did a better job of selling the Bush tax cuts than George W. Bush ever did.
So dismayed by today's 81 to 19 Senate vote in favor of the measure was the host of MSNBC's "The Ed Show" that he asked Nation magazine editor Katrina vanden Heuvel, "Do you trust President Obama?" (video follows with transcript and commentary):
ED SCHULTZ, HOST: President Obama is one step closer to having his $858 billion tax compromise with the Republicans become the law of the land, and right now Nancy Pelosi is the only person in the world that can stop it. Now earlier today, the Senate voted overwhelmingly to pass this package by a vote of 81 to 19. Remember that number: 81. Only thirteen Democrats, five Republicans, and Bernie Sanders voted no.
Now, the Senate support for these tax cuts I think is pretty staggering. Let me show you this, compare it to this: in 2001, the Bush tax cuts passed the Senate by a vote of 58 to 33, and in 2003, the second round of these tax cuts passed 51 to 50, that of course when Dick Cheney broke the tie.
It’s kind of funny, isn’t it? I mean, this means that President Obama did a better job of selling the Bush tax cuts than President Bush ever did.
About ten minutes later, Schultz asked his second guest the following:
SCHULTZ: Katrina, what do you think the liberal message is to Nancy Pelosi at this point?
KATRINA VANDEN HEUVEL, THE NATION: Stand strong, and lay down some lines on this estate tax. But I think, it’s a terrible thing, but we got a system, Ed, of transactional politics when we need transformational politics, and it may be that, Jerry Nadler, good Congressman, you don’t want to hold working and middle-class people hostage, but we got to go forward, and we got to expose how the Republicans and conservative Democrats are, you know, really giving millionaires and billionaires a bailout.
SCHULTZ: And do you trust President Obama? I mean, after we’ve gone through all of this, has, has he really played a bad card for liberals to the point where you can’t trust him anymore? What do you think?
VANDEN HEUVEL: You know what? I don’t think anyone should trust politicians or fall in love with politicians. It’s about accountability politics, and it’s up to progressives moving forward to create the conditions, organize, mobilize, drive ideas into the debate.
Boy, these liberal media members sure do take their desire to soak the rich seriously, don't they?
On the other hand, Ed's got a point that adds nicely to the delicious symbolism of two Democrat presidents last Friday telling the American people the Bush tax cuts had to be preserved to protect the economy.
Certainly isn't making for a fun holiday season in press rooms across the fruited plain.
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Why? Because many Democrats
Submitted by Chris Norman on Wed, 12/15/2010 - 9:52pm.
"Sold"? Why? Many Democrats were scared what would have happened if the lowered rates had expired. It didn't take his "salesmanship" to "sell" this to them. Any objections were mostly just posturing to the Kos crowd. Obama was the one who had to be hard sold - and it took the election drubbing to sell him on abandoning his kamikaze course - with us in the passenger seats.
Uh.. no - the MEDIA simply
Submitted by Slyrr on Wed, 12/15/2010 - 9:47pm.
Uh.. no - the MEDIA simply did a better job of running interference against Bush. In the case of Obama, the media laid down their arms, bent over, grabbed their ankles and begged for it.
So. let me get this straight, Special Ed
Submitted by Galvanic on Wed, 12/15/2010 - 9:49pm.
On the campaign trail, Obama promised over and over again that he would never extend tax cuts for the rich.
Then he took office and continued to promise that there would be no extension of tax cuts for the rich.
And on the eve of the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, he caves in and agrees to tax cuts extended for the rich.
It's analogous to the weak parent who always gives into whining children in the end.
So what exactly did he 'sell' to the Republicans?
Even better, when Obama runs
Submitted by Reaver on Wed, 12/15/2010 - 10:38pm.
Even better, when Obama runs for reelection he’s still going to be promising to repeal those “tax cuts for the rich”… that he himself extended.
You don't have it quite straight, Galvanic...
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 2:59am.
He also promised not to raise the existing tax rates on those making less than 250k/yr. The "Obama must fail come hell or high water" Republicans blocked votes on legislation which would have permitted him to fulfill both promises. Thus the compromise.
Jer
As I remember it, Jer---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 3:04am.
Obama did some number juggling on the cut off income figure - on more than one occasion.
MD
Sure they did, lol
Submitted by ckc1227 on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 4:40am.
Poor Obama and his 59-60 democrat votes in the senate, and 257 votes in the house just can't get anything done, lol.
Sure they did what, ckc?
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 4:58am.
If you're referring to the Senate Republicans blocking the legislation, they did indeed. They have been very successful in bottling up the work of that chamber for quite some time now by forcing it to conduct business in the face of a continuing fiilibuster--or threat of filibuster. It's a classic case of the tail wagging the dog. Something like 400 bills have cleared the House but are gathering dust in the Senate due to skillful, and historic, GOP obstructionist tactics. The process is broken, which I know is a cause for great joy among many [probably most] conservatives--but the shoe will be on the other foot one of these days and they'll be screaming bloody murder like the Dems are now.
Jer
The reason why Bush's
Submitted by Smartypants on Wed, 12/15/2010 - 9:56pm.
The reason why Bush's tax cuts were a harder sell than they are now is because GW Bush did not have the advantage of pointing out the positive impact his own tax cuts actually had on the economy--until they were law. In the early 2000s, Bush had to sell the country on the idea of tax cuts, because Clinton and the Dems had convinced everyone, during that late 90s exuberance, that the recessions had been ended forever. Plus, let's not forget that Bush, like all Republican presidents, had a completely unfriendly media railing against "tax cuts for the rich". Obama still has much of the media in his back pocket, and they will go along with whatever he decides to do because they helped elect the man. Now, we have the benefit of seeing that Bush's tax cuts created 50+ months of job growth and unemployment rates below 5%. Anybody who is being intellectually honest knows those tax cuts had nothing to do with the economic crash of 2008. The fact there are so many Dems who support renewing all tax cuts is prima facie evidence of their economic effectiveness.
The Dems painted themselves into a corner with this whole tax cut debate. Obama slammed Bush up and down for the cuts, and claimed the economic malaise was a direct result of them. Yet, when they are about to expire which, one would think the Dems would cheerily support, they end up renewing them. Let's not forget, the Dems still run Congress and the presidency; they can do just about whatever they want until January. Yet, they still are negotiating to let the tax rates remain the same.
Most reasonable Dems know they cannot increase income taxes in a time when the economy is still teetering. It is political suicide if they did that and the economy crashed once again afterward.
If we had a fair media, the hypocrisy surrounding Bush's cuts and the flip-flop of the Democrats would be pointed out.
Obama couldn't sell virgin cooter on a troop ship
Submitted by Dave. on Wed, 12/15/2010 - 10:07pm.
And when, pray tell, is someone going to ask these "progressive" income tax and death tax supporters why they support two of the major linchpins of the Communist Manifesto, which is the abolishment of private property, as well as the abolishment of the right to inheritance, both of which these so-called progressive taxes are leading directly to?
I would also love to see Brain Dead Ed explain to all of us just what is going to happen when the "filthy rich" job producers have finally had enough of this tyrannical government BS, throw up their hands in disgust, shutter or sell their businesses (if they can find anyone stupid enough to buy them) and retire to Aruba?
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
~.......
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Wed, 12/15/2010 - 10:17pm.
O
M
O
Dave is feisty tonight! Chat?
R,
Submitted by Dave. on Wed, 12/15/2010 - 10:28pm.
I will be over in a bit.
Things are a little strange around here tonight.
Stranger than usual, I mean.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Is that Schultz's way of
Submitted by NC Cop on Wed, 12/15/2010 - 10:05pm.
Is that Schultz's way of saying "Bush was right!"??
BHO Love Affair
Submitted by miss911ninja on Wed, 12/15/2010 - 10:30pm.
I so love reading between the lines of what these clowns say. Vanden Heuvel says "I don't think anyone should trust politicians or fall in love with politicians."
But Special Ed didn't even ask her about "love." Seems she wanted to express her "hindsight is 20/20" view of her BHO love affair.
Duh One's handlers told him
Submitted by Dan Diego on Wed, 12/15/2010 - 10:31pm.
Duh One's handlers told him (I don't think he figured it out himself) that raising taxes now would scuttle his chances in 12 and thwart his grand scheme to change (destroy) America.No, Special Ed ...
Submitted by LibertyAtStake on Wed, 12/15/2010 - 11:06pm.
... Barry's dysconomy sold the pro-growth policy of NOT RAISING rates in Barry's dysconomy.
http://libertyatstake.blogspot.com/
"Because the Only Good Progressive is a Failed Progressive"
Here's a classic headline from USA Today...
Submitted by krendler on Wed, 12/15/2010 - 11:18pm.
"Obama meets with CEOs to urge them to start hiring"
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2010-12-16-ceojobs16_CV_N.htm
Yes. That's what just what the economy needs: A president- who knows absolutely zilch about business - to simply tell the country's CEOs to start hiring. Yeah, don't be considered about actual business issues, outlook going forward, etc. Just start hiring people guys, ok? Unemployment is too high and it's hurting me.
This clown is utterly clueless.
Gee, reminds me of Thanksgiving
Submitted by jon_torlin on Wed, 12/15/2010 - 11:26pm.
When Moochelle was giving us peons permission to eat pie for Thanksgiving.
When are people going to 'man up' and tell this guy and his wide-ass wife what to do with themselves?
-Jon
or he could do this
Submitted by djwolf12 on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 12:47am.
tell them he is going to make them watch MSNBC with their pants down, tell them to lean forward and in the room comes Keith Olbermann!
He's and idiot
Submitted by vaboxrboy on Wed, 12/15/2010 - 11:26pm.
I wish they would just yank him with a big hook and get it over with!
I think they'd have to get a whole
Submitted by djwolf12 on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 12:46am.
factory to build that stage hook for tubby.
Like I said so truthfully
Submitted by djwolf12 on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 12:44am.
I will trust obama when I see him eat michelle's cooking like I trust Fatso Ed to keep his hands off a free all-you-can-eat buffet at a Senator's election headquarters on election night.
What Special Ed is trying to
Submitted by mostlymoderate on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 1:02am.
What Special Ed is trying to say is even if George Bush had a good idea that he was offering to benefit the American people, the partisan hacks we call "democrats" in congress would vote him down simply because he was a Republican. That's because getting re-elected comes before doing the right thing and when you are in bed with as many special-interests as the Democratic congress, America comes second.
Immigration reform, close
Submitted by Captain Repus on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 1:34am.
Immigration reform, close Guantanimo, end tax cuts for the rich, don't sashet don't tell, out of Afghanistan, out of Iraq, end earmarks, transparency in govt., bi-partisanship. Yup, short-bus Eddie, Obammy outsold the Republicans on every one of these. What a brilliant tactician.
Sgt. Sheetz, see Gary
Submitted by jdhawk on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 1:46am.
Sgt. Sheetz, see Gary Varvel's cartoon today, entitled, "O Porkmas Tree, O Porkmas Tree . . ." for the reason that duhbama and his party are able to "sell" continuation of the present tax rates.
No, Sgt Sheetz, they aren't tax cuts. Let me repeat that, they aren't tax cuts. You moron.
Meanwhile, this bill is laden with the usual dimocrat budget busting crap in it that is negative stimulative. That is, it takes money out of the pockets of the productive and gives it to the least productive in our country.
Heck, who am I kidding. We're not paying for it, but my grandchildren will.
$858B ? That's all ?
Submitted by AGreer on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 2:17am.
Nope. I've read on some sites that it's more like $1.4 to 1.7Trillion with all the added BS. Special Ed is just talking about the $858B that we get to keep in our wallets. No mention of the billions of $ of pork and "green energy" carp or the unemployment giveaway. This is a bad, bad bill !
On a similar subject (since this passed in the SENATE), while the 17th Amendmant put the state senate seats up to popular vote (I live in IL and even RINO Kirk wouldn't have gotten elected much less Peter Fitzgerald--who tried to clean up IL dirty politics) it kept their terms at 6 years rather than changing that too. IMHO ALL elected officials should only serve 2 years before re-election, including the president. 4 or 6 year terms are to long for hacks like these to screw things up and for people to forget (look at Obama and Durbin).
I think that the gubmint is TRYING to get conservatives (legal gun owners) to riot so they can declare Martial Law and take guns away.....just saying IMHO.
Hold out until 2012. Unless they can get the libs (and anarchists) to riot first (Europe) and then declare Martial Law.
"Fight the good fight" "Ordinary Man"---Triumph
FU Obama ! Come and get me !---Tony Greer
Shouldn't have put all the
Submitted by GregE on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 2:42am.
Shouldn't have put all the crap in the bill. Tax rates, cap gains, things related to the 2001/2003 tax cuts, PERIOD. Why oh WHY are Republicans so wimpy????????? There is NO WAY Democrats would have let the rates increase. And if they had, the new Congress could have come in and immediately written a tax cut bill to either put them back, or cut them even more.
I saw Ed for a few minutes. Is the boy a joke or what? He was railing against the tax compromise because....................get this............it adds so much to the debt.
What planet am I on?
What planet am I on? Indeed !
Submitted by AGreer on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 3:13am.
As in "Beam me up Scotty. There's no intelligent life in DC.
The Republicans had 'em by the "short and curlies" and they snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.
RINO a$$holes.....and I really mean $$.
Funny (not really) fact is that the Dems had more balls jerking the ObamaCare bill than the RINOs have on their opposition to this tax extention carp.
RINOs are pu$$ies and could have held out. Obama COULDN'T refuse to extend the Bush tax breaks and expect to get re-elected. Period !
The only unbearable cost for a Dem
Submitted by Quasi-socialist on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 3:06am.
is letting people keep and direct their own money. Everything else is "investment" or an "obligation".
Obama did seem to sell the
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 5:26am.
Obama did seem to sell the GOP a bill of goods. Damn the GOP for selling out for a few trinkets. Come next election it may be a bloodbath.
Oh yea much better
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 10:01am.
2 years with how much pork instead of how many years? 8 years under President Bush.
Schotzy you're just a partisan moron. End of story.
Lets do a little math...
Submitted by dasher on Thu, 12/16/2010 - 10:08am.
Oops wrong message thread