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.

Watch The Young Turks Here

Follow Cenk Uygur on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TheYoungTurks
Become a Fan of The Young Turks: www.facebook.com/tytnation

 

 

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.

Watch The Young Turks Here

Follow Cenk Uygur on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TheYoungTurks
Become a Fan of The Young Turks: www.facebook.com/tytnation

 

 

This is normally not a phrase I use, even with the most annoying members of my family, but I think that for Dick Cheney, it is very clear that his complaints about George W. Bush remove any doubt about the fact, and furthermore it places his comments about the repudiation of his Manichean, and quite frankly delusional, view of the world by the voters in the proper context.

We need to call him a bitch, because to call him anything else grants him a credibility and gravitas that he simply does not deserve.*

The man, who has an uninterrupted record of failure in his life, recommending that Ford dump Rockefeller as VP, moving to contractors in the military, invading Iraq, etc., is now saying that George W. Bush was not hard line enough for him:

"In the second term, he felt Bush was moving away from him," said a participant in the recent gathering, describing Cheney's reply. "He said Bush was shackled by the public reaction and the criticism he took. Bush was more malleable to that. The implication was that Bush had gone soft on him, or rather Bush had hardened against Cheney's advice. He'd showed an independence that Cheney didn't see coming. It was clear that Cheney's doctrine was cast-iron strength at all times -- never apologize, never explain -- and Bush moved toward the conciliatory."

Truth be told, I really think that this is really all about two words, "Scooter Libby," and Cheney is upset, because he believes that without a full pardon, Libby may some day roll over on his flabby, lily-white ass.

He knows that Omertà means less in politics than it does in the Mafia, which means that it means nothing at all, and it terrifies him.

*Yes, I understand that the social dynamics of the situation, where in order to diminish a man you essentially call him a woman, and in order to diminish a woman, you essentially call her a man,† but you go to war with Dick Cheney with the societal norms you have---not the societal norms you might want or wish to have at a later time.

†See Clinton, Hillary and Pelosi, Nancy.

Cross posted from 40 Years in the Desert.

There's more...

... or at least that's what an organization called The 60 Plus Association thinks. They supposedly represent older folks like me as we stand in the face of possible Health Care Reform. And, indeed, they are representing us older folks with a new television ad:

So, here I am sitting back in my big chair with my evening insulin shot and miscellany of pills, knowing that this organization is representing me and my age group against a government that wants to put me in front of a "death panel."

There's more...

So, the latest New York Times OP/ED page conservative affirmative action case has his debut editorial for the paper, and what is his trenchant analysis?

It's that the Republicans should have nominated Richard Milhaus Cheney as their presidential nominee in 2008.
(more after flip)

There's more...