Pledge Smedge: Obama just got nearly every Republican senator to vote for higher taxes

[bigtree]

Last edited Tue Jan 1, 2013, 02:05 PM - Edit history (2)

________________

tweeted by, Jonathan Cohn ‏@CitizenCohn

One interpretation of deal: Obama just got nearly every Republican senator to vote in favor of higher taxes on the rich. That's important.

Retweeted by Jay Carney (EOP)

[Angry Dragon]

1. Must be an older picture

I noticed the grey hair is a lot less

[bigtree]

2. it's already an iconic shot

. . . it's that old.

Still, far out, though.

[Motown_Johnny]

3. Of course, without that vote even more taxes would have gone up

so it really does depend on how you spin things.

[bigtree]

4. without that vote

. . . all of this would be meshed with the sequestration and debt-limit.

Besides, it was never going to happen that the President and Democrats would just let the cuts expire without wrangling to extend the middle-class portion. As the President said, the agreement protects 98 percent of Americans and 97 percent of small business owners from a middle class tax hike. I can live with that.

Not sure about the end game of playing chicken with republicans on the expiration of the breaks.

[bigtree]

5. kick

[bowens43]

6. actually , he got them to vote on permanent tax relief for the vast majority of the wealthy....

there was no vote on raising taxes.

[bigtree]

8. I see you've taken to parroting the Norquist spin

. . . inspiring.

[W_HAMILTON]

7. We went off the cliff, the vote was after midnight, therefore it was to lower taxes.

As I asked in another thread, I would honestly like to know if the agreed-to deal actually raised taxes GREATER than what they were already being raised. Basically, did we get any additional revenue that we would have not have already gotten due to going off the cliff? So far, no one has been able to point to any.

[stevenleser]

9. I completely don't understand what you are looking for here. That's probably the issue.

Most people probably dont understand what you are asking.

[W_HAMILTON]

13. We went off the cliff.

Taxes therefore were already raised, much higher than was agreed to in this so-called deal.

What I am asking is, in this deal, did they raise taxes FURTHER than they had already been raised? I.e., was there an actual tax increase anywhere in this deal? I'm guessing not, hence why you saw so many Republicans vote for it. Hopefully this clarified things.

[stevenleser]

19. Ah, then the answer is no. Any increase would have increased taxes more than they were under Clinton

... which is 39.6% for the highest tax bracket. I think there is broad reluctance to go further than that in the Democratic Party.

Personally, I would be OK with seeing the highest bracket go up to 49.9% but that probably puts me in a small minority of folks.

[bigtree]

10. what about the negative consequences of dragging everyone 'over the cliff?'

. . . I'm not so sure that playing chicken with the 97% or so of Americans who would lose in that strategy against the republican majority is good and sound governance.

What's the benefit in wrapping all of that around sequestration, anyway?

You do realize that the outcome of that showdown was always going to be a compromise?

[W_HAMILTON]

11. The president could have just done what he said.

Propose extending the Bush tax cuts on incomes up to $250k and extending unemployment benefits. Take that stance, demand an up-or-down vote, and take it to the American people if the Republicans refused. The Republicans would be blamed and I have no doubt would eventually be pressured into voting for it, especially once we had gone off the cliff and it would have simply been a vote to lower taxes.

And this was a one-sided compromise. We relented on income taxes and the estate tax and increased taxes (through the expiration of the payroll tax cut) for almost every low and middle class worker. In exchange, there was absolutely nothing done about spending cuts and the debt ceiling, which instead will now create a second cliff in just two short months, this time with the tax issue resolved and the Democrats having little leverage to negotiate with.

[bigtree]

14. the president isn't the ultimate arbiter of all of that

. . . and the notion that he could have his way with Congress is overblown and strangely disconnected from the political reality in front of us.

[W_HAMILTON]

17. You think he couldn't have had his way in that situation...

...but think he will in two months, when all these talks surface again except he will have no leverage in terms of the tax issue?

Given that you got Senate Republicans to vote for this bill, after midnight once it was truly a tax cut, I have no doubt that you could have gotten them to vote for a permanent tax cut extension on incomes up to $250k, especially if the case was taken to the public as the president said he was going to do if the Republicans continued to obstruct.

[stevenleser]

20. The leverage is the Democratic Senate and his Veto. Two hurdles Republicans need to climb in any

deal.

[W_HAMILTON]

23. He had that anyway.

That didn't take him too far in the last debt ceiling talks, the current sequestration / debt ceiling talks, nor even the tax-portion of the fiscal cliff. Given that he relented in every case, why isn't there more worry that he will do the same in a couple of months when sequestration / debt ceiling talks come back up again?

[stevenleser]

24. You said he would not have any leverage next time. I'm responding to that. Its not true. nt

[W_HAMILTON]

27. If the those things you said were true leverage...

...we probably wouldn't be in this predicament to begin with because it would have come in handy months ago when the foundation was being laid for this crap we are going through now.

[stevenleser]

29. That's subjective. The point remains that your contention was not true. nt

[W_HAMILTON]

35. Explain how it's not then.

Sequestration takes place in the absence of anything being done. Neither the Democratic Senate nor the president's veto alone can stop sequestration from taking place. So, how is that leverage?

[bigtree]

22. I find it hard to accept that all the leverage is in the tax policy

. . . and not in the very public choices both sides will need to make in the coming months.

[W_HAMILTON]

25. I don't.

We've already seen what the Republicans are willing to do in terms of the debt ceiling.

Exactly what sort of rosey scenario do you see playing out in terms of sequestration? The Republicans want half of it anyway, and the half they don't want, the Democrats don't want either. And even if the Democrats grow a spine and demand the military to be cut, the Republicans will just take to the airwaves and whine that the Democrats are jeopardizing our nation's security, and the Democrats will back down.

What, in any of this whole fiscal mess, have you seen that would lead you to believe that the Republicans are going to be responsible negotiating partners in two months?

[bigtree]

33. so you're cynical

meh.

[W_HAMILTON]

40. More like a realist.

Again I ask, tell me what you think is a plausible conclusion to the temporary delay to sequestration / the debt ceiling? Tell me how you see it playing out.

[bigtree]

42. I think the President is serious about letting republicans own any default

. . . and will not negotiate with republicans over the limit. Reid said exactly that yesterday. He won't negotiate either.

We won't have the leverage of the expired republican breaks to barter on sequestration, but, with a deal in place, republicans will have even less leverage because of the resolved issues. I'm not seeing the value in having all of that hanging in the air at the same time while we're debating sequestration cuts. With a 'deal' in place, all of their budget-cutting will be in the open. The revenue that everyone knows is needed will have to come from defense or from further limits on the breaks the wealthy still enjoys. Nothing in this deal precludes that.

[W_HAMILTON]

44. Then maybe I am a cynic, because that doesn't sound very hopeful.

NOTE: I deleted the other post because I accidentally responded to my own post rather than yours.

The president said that he wasn't going to negotiate about the debt ceiling before, yet he did. Why do you think this time is going to be any different?

The Republicans got what they wanted out of this deal: the tax situation to be resolved. Due to having gone off the fiscal cliff, apparently all the tax provisions that were voted on early this morning were tax DECREASES. I have asked if there was any item in this deal that gave us additional tax revenue beyond what simply going off the cliff would have given us; so far no one has been able to find any.

The Republicans got their tax issue resolved without giving up ANYTHING in terms of permanently staving off future spending cuts. There is no guarantee there won't be a fight over the debt ceiling. There is no guarantee that sequestration still won't go through. There is no guarantee that "entitlements" won't still be reformed.

[bama_blue_dot]

36. Are you trying to make sense

around here?? I think you are in the wrong place..

[ProSense]

15. There was good and bad

in going over the cliff.

As background, it’s important to understand what Obama clearly could have gotten just by going over the cliff. Basically, he could have gotten the whole of the Bush high-end tax cuts reversed, which would mean close to $800 billion in revenue over the next decade. What he couldn’t get, or at least couldn’t count on getting, were various spending items. This included the extension of unemployment benefits and various “refundables” on things like the Earned Income Tax Credit, that is, pieces of tax legislation that end up having the government cut checks to families instead of the other way around.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/31/conceder-in-chief-2/

That is simply the reality. You'd have to be willing to accept the loss of those programs and the enactment of the spending cuts.

If the House fails to pass the deal, what happens?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022110751

[ProSense]

12. And no spending cuts and

five year extentions of programs for the poor.

Republicans scored!

LOL!

[Egalitarian Thug]

16. Yay. A temporary extension of what the working class already had in exchange

for a permanent 64% tax cut and a $4M gift to every uber-wealthy family, and a permanent 20% tax cut for hedge fund managers and coupon clippers.

Such a deal!

[bigtree]

18. no tax cut is actually 'permament

. . . start with that truth.

[Egalitarian Thug]

21. When was the last time taxes on the rich were raised 64%?

You desperation is showing...

[bigtree]

26. you're actually trying to sell Norquist's spin on this

. . . and trying to sell the fantasy that the expiration of those rates was going to be the baseline for the cuts. Of course, you can always try and sell the fantasy that the election made the president politically omnipotent and he could just have protected the 97% of taxpayers who would have been affected by the expiration of the breaks, by osmosis or something.

Keep trying to sell that tripe. It works for anyone who doesn't actually have a clue how a bill becomes law.

[Egalitarian Thug]

32. Ah, so now you're resorting to a transparent attempt to associate the facts I posted

with an unpopular character who would never advocate any single one of my positions.

You have much in common with the republicans. When the facts are not on your side, go for the personal.

[bigtree]

37. you want to read it? Sounds just like you. I wouldn't want to be in that bed

Grover Norquist: Fiscal Cliff Deal Would Lower Taxes, Not Raise Them

Anti-tax lobbyist Grover Norquist expressed confidence on CNN on Monday that any last-minute deal to avert the fiscal cliff would not cause tax rates to increase, even for wealthy Americans.

“I’m working with all the folks who are trying to defend taxpayers here in Congress,” he said on CNN’s Starting Point. “I don’t think you’re going to see something that actually raises taxes. We may get some tax cuts now and have to fight for others later.”

Norquist also insisted that the GOP would hold the debt ceiling hostage again in order to protect wealthy Americans from seeing even the slighest tax increase.

“We should take as many of the tax cuts off the table as possible,” Norquist said. “And then because Republicans have the clout of the debt ceiling increase — which they effectively used a year and a half ago — and the continuing resolution where they could dole out money slowly to Obama and the Democrats to spend while reining it in, those are two very powerful tools.”


http://thecontributor.com/grover-norquist-fiscal-cliff-deal-would-lower-taxes-not-raise-them


So, you either agree with the WH, or admit to us that you think Norquist is credible. It's that simple.

[Egalitarian Thug]

41. You are so funny! All the people dim-witted enough to buy the dung you peddle

are already in your club.

Go Team Blue!



Oh, and when was the last time taxes on the rich were raised 64%?

[stevenleser]

28. Which taxes were raised or lowered 64%?

[Egalitarian Thug]

30. The estate tax was lowered 64%, with a $4M bonus thrown in. n/t

[stevenleser]

34. Large inheritances are one of my pet peeves. But I'll gladly give on that for SS and Medicare and

unemployment extension.

[Egalitarian Thug]

38. I might agree if we got any equitable deal, but we didn't.

We got a smoke screen in a windstorm. It will be blown away very quickly, and the knives will come out later this month. Meanwhile, the 1500 wealthiest families in the nation can rest assured that they will never have to make any significant contribution to the well-being of this nation, even in death.

[MannyGoldstein]

31. He got Republicans to finally show that they're unprincipled.

Amazing.

[bama_blue_dot]

39. Republicans haven't voted for tax increases

in over 20 years.. That is a victory..

[Scurrilous]

45. K & R