Video & Multimedia
Related: About this forumSen. Tom Harkin doesn't like the cliff deal
Not sure whether I agree with him, but can certainly see where he's coming from on this.
He was one of only three Dems to vote against it
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=2&vote=00251
global1
(25,242 posts)just before the vote was taken. He made a lot of sense to me.
ELI BOY 1950
(173 posts)with that said , you vote against the President you become a republican. Until we control our destiny it will be difficult to compromise with them. It's a game of compromise , give and take.
You only hurt the people that really need us. Does Harkin think it's more important not to compromise the tax deal from $250k to 400k than to let peoples unemployment insurance to run out????
i think not
Forward
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)The President is not Caesar.
20score
(4,769 posts)despise it now.
Make your case for the deal and how it will be beneficial to the country's economy short and long term... or be quiet. It's embarrassing.
Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)not FOR or AGAINST the president.
Mass
(27,315 posts)Grassley voted NO. This gives me pause on his real motivations for voting NO, not that the bill was good, but everybody else decided it was better than nothing. Mr Harkin said NO? Really?
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)Robert Reich agrees basically: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2110382
Also there wasn't really a period for public comments before the vote.
If there had been, I think there would have been many more dissenting voices based on the reasons outlined by Sen. Harkin and Mr. Reich.
Enrique
(27,461 posts)imho, it is safe to say he is not a conniver, and so his motivations for voting NO were basically what he said in his floor speech.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)supercats
(429 posts)Senator Harkin makes a lot of sense. Why should we do a deal where the middle class only benefits for a year at a time, while the rich get to lock in their tax rates to grow their wealth forever? This is not a fair deal at all. I hope the teabaggers in the house feel
insulted by this deal and somehow it gets voted it down.
plethoro
(594 posts)sold out so we could make a deal. If one keeps forcing a loss in a winning position, what do you think happens when they are negotiating from a losing position. Will we then sell Iowa or Kansas to the Chinese to reduce our debts?
Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)I thank the senator for being my voice in this sellout. What's really happening here is the same crap that's being forced upon the folks in Europe - austerity. And in NO SMALL PART was this moment brought to be by the wealthy on this globe. They've been trying to make us working sorts willing to accept the sort of wages they pay their workers in China and Indonesia. THAT'S the undercurrent to all this.
Our supposed heros - Clinton and Obama keep pushing for more and more "open market" baloney - claiming what a boon it is for American workers. Bullshit! We've been hornswaggled into shooting ourselves in the foot! Now the majority in DC want to convince us that giving up social safety nets is our only path to survival. Bullshit!
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)"[Montesquieu wrote in Spirit of the Laws, XIII,c.14:] 'A capitation is more natural to slavery; a duty on merchandise is more natural to liberty, by reason it has not so direct a relation to the person.'" --Thomas Jefferson: copied into his Commonplace Book.
http://www.famguardian.org/Subjects/Politics/ThomasJefferson/jeff1330.htm
Poll_Blind
(23,864 posts)PB
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)This deal is favorable to those who want to hoard their wealth.
It was hasty. It is a mistake.