Obama Hints At Procedural Compromise On Bush Tax Cuts, Says GOP's Holding 'Middle Class Hostage'

[pgodbold]

Don't make me go all bipartisan on their ass.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/10/obama-hints-at-procedural_n_712107.html

[customerserviceguy]

1. Good luck with that strategy, Mr. President

I just know that if Bushco had said, "Give me what I want first, and then we'll talk about what you want," I'd have told my congresscritters to oppose it. I don't think Rethugs are going to be fooled this easily.

[geckosfeet]

3. Who cares what the rethugs want.

[customerserviceguy]

7. They do

And the "give me what I want first, and we'll talk later about what you want," strategy is not going to fool them.

They seem to be doing well in the polls with that "party of no" thing. I expect them to continue it.

[geckosfeet]

8. Again, why should the president, at this point, care?

Of course he doesn't care at this point. He knows whatever he does in the way of 'bi-partisanship' is not/will not be enough. They will always be in campaign mode and fight against it just because he is for it.

So again, lets hear the rethug 'party of no' rallying cry just so we know where you are coming from.

[customerserviceguy]

10. Only if the President wants to actually enact this legislation

If he simply wants to score a talking point before the election, then he doesn't need to care about what Rethugs and Blue Dogs are going to do.

He'll say, "I said I wasn't going to raise your taxes if you make under $250K, but it's those bad people in Congress who didn't let me make that come true." The Rethugs will simply say, "We tried to renew the Bush tax cuts, but the President didn't work with us, he only said that he'd talk to us later after he gets what he wants."

The voters will have to pick between, "No, I Can't" and "No, He Won't". So far, the latter view has held sway in the elections since November, 2008.

[geckosfeet]

11. Of course he doesn't want to restore tax cuts for the rich. But he is holding out

a talking point to give the republics something to cling to. And I don't think he loses anything by saying that. In fact he positions himself so that he can say he offered to meet the republics part way, and they refused to budge.

The republics are cast as obstructionists, and they play the role exceedingly well, to any policy that the president proposes, whether he actually intends to carry it out or not. I have zero sympathy for them.

[customerserviceguy]

12. He's not going to lose anything

but I think he's not going to gain anything, either. And my point is, by opposing the President's agenda, they've done quite well in all the statewide elections held since Election Day, 2008.

I don't think that his attempt to pin the blame on the Repigs for the expiration of the Bush tax cuts is going to stick. Perhaps something will be done in a lame duck Congress, but I wouldn't hold my breath on that. I expect a Rethuglican Congress (even if they have to get a few surviving Blue Dogs to go along to make a majority) to present the President with a bill that restores all of the Bush tax cuts right after Congress reconvenes in January, 2011, and let him veto it. Lame-duck Democratic officeholders might prevent that from happening to the President, but like I said, I'm not expecting it.

[geckosfeet]

13. Well - the jury is out on who will gain. If the tax cut proposal passes we win.

And that's the point.

[customerserviceguy]

14. True, but that's a pretty big if.

I really don't expect Congress to do anything but adopt some harmless resolutions between now and Election Day.

[geckosfeet]

2. as long a SS doesn't get held hostage by the economic elite (aka rich).

I am sick of Wall Street types getting wads of tax money.

[Toots]

4. Obama...Compromise...Duhhh...

:shrug: Did anyone really believe he would not cave on Tax Cuts for the wealthy?

[earthside]

5. Of course he will.

Extending ALL of the Bush tax cuts will happen.

You can take that to the bank.

[Enrique]

6. "we can have further conversation"

"My position is, lets get done what we all agree on," said the president. "What they've said is, 'We all agree that the middle-class tax cuts should be made permanent. Let's work on that, let's do it.' We can have a further conversation about how they want to spend an additional $700 billion dollars to give an average of $100,000 to millionaires. That, I think, is a bad idea. If you were going to spend that money there are a lot of better ways of spending it. But more to the point, these are the same folks who say they are concerned about the deficit -- why would we borrow money on policies that won't help the economy and help people who don't need help."

Why have that conversation? If you think it's a bad idea, why not veto the $100,000.00 to millionaires?

[whistler162]

9. Don't forget the compromise on naming the Martians

our overlords!