Why the fuck didn't they address the bush tax cuts

[cali]

a year and a half ago? It's a failure of leadership. Not that there's anything new about that. They could have dispatched this issue with ease.

[PBS Poll-435]

1. During the worst financial crisis in our lifetimes?

Probably not the best time...

[valerief]

2. No, the tax cuts just added to the crisis. nt

[cali]

5. explain that.

why was it not an appropriate time? That's the same garbage argument that the pukes use.

[PBS Poll-435]

7. People were fearful they were going to lose their jobs and homes

And Congress is going to debate raising taxes?

Seems unproductive. Hell, we lost the House anyway though so what do I know.

[cali]

9. ridiculous.

that's just more repuke crap. the tax cuts were supposed to be a temporary measure and not giving huge breaks to the wealthiest among us would hardly impact people when it comes to losing their houses.

[PBS Poll-435]

10. Perception v. Reality

It would be a mistake to pass TARP and Stimulus and then tell people their taxes were going up.

[H2O Man]

13. Beyond ridiculous.

Way, way, way beyond ridiculous. Your description of "more repuke crap" is far too kind.

[BrklynLiberal]

16. "raising taxes"? How about canceling tax cuts for the richest 1% of Americans!!!???

The additional revenue would HELP the economy and the govt and the deficit...

[PBS Poll-435]

20. Again. Perception. nt

[BrklynLiberal]

24. riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

:crazy:

I perceive that the repukes are holding middle class "tax CUTS" and unemployment extension, hostage for uber wealthy tax cuts. period.

[Winterblues]

30. They didn't expire until the end of this year.

Pretty basic..

[eomer]

31. Congress knew when they were going to expire.

Congress could have extended the middle class tax cut forward from the date it was going to expire in the future. There was no reason they had to wait until now unless they actually prefer symbolic theatrics to actually getting something done. By doing it earlier they could have included it in a reconciliation bill where it would require only 50 votes in the Senate. But they didn't. Now it requires 60 votes in the Senate, which they know they won't get. Why do they like doing it only when they know they can't get it done?

[leftstreet]

6. LOL millions of people are CURRENTLY experiencing that

Wall Street banksters and their 'financial crisis' means zip to the working classes

[BrklynLiberal]

14. If Congress cannot multitask..they shoud not be there...

[Poboy]

21. Do you swallow RW talking points whole, or do you take bites?

[BrklynLiberal]

25. lololol

:thumbsup: :rofl:

[PBS Poll-435]

28. Not very nice...

I can tell you what my clients would have said/done if there was a debate regarding taxes when lines of credit were being reduced/cut/over.

[leftstreet]

3. Good question n/t

[asdjrocky]

4. All fixed.

It's a totally fixed game.

[Individualist]

15. You're right. It's a DLC/republican dog and pony show.

[asdjrocky]

19. Yep.

The Dems are the Washington Generals.

[Toucano]

8. Letting them all expire is a sort of "nuclear option" that was supposed to bring

the GOP to the table.

It didn't work because the GOP is insane.

Crazy adversaries are the hardest to profile and predict. The Dems have to remember that the GOP cannot be counted on for - literally - anything, anymore. Except insanity.

[BrklynLiberal]

17. The repukes are playing chess. The dems cannot get out of checkers mode.

[BzaDem]

11. They thought they had plenty of time, since they didn't know Scott Brown would be elected.

After all, Healthcare itself almost failed after Scott Brown was elected. They thought they would have 60 votes until December 2010, not January 2010.

It's not clear to me that they could have gotten 60 votes to extend all the middle class tax cuts and none of the ones for the rich, but the only reason it would have been better to do it earlier would have been to have that extra vote in play. But they thought they would have that extra vote in play throughout all of 2010 (until a few weeks before Brown's election).

[BrklynLiberal]

23. It would have been alot smarter to let the public see the repukes refuse

middle class tax cuts, and demand cuts for the uber wealthy, BEFORE the midterms...
The same thing goes for unemployment extension and it might have been of some value if the dems had even once, mentioned that
the deficit was created by dimson, not by Obama.

Where were all these deficit whiners during the administration of pres shit-for-brains when he was spending money in Iraq like it didn't matter who had to pay for it in the long run? Suddenly the repukes are all screaming "DEFICIT!! DEFICIT!!! DEFICIT!!!
..for eight long years the word never crossed their lips..

No spine, no courage, asinine strategy.

[BrklynLiberal]

12. YES..and the fact that A huge percentage of that "big bad deficit" was created by Dimson!!!

The repukes have managed to foment the illusion that President Obama, all by himself, created this deficit.

Where were all these deficit whiners when Bush was throwing money at Iraq like it was confetti?????????

It was a MAJOR error of strategy to wait so long to deal with the tax cuts, unemployment extension, and the other
issues that will all fall to the wayside at the end of December. If the repukes had been forced to show their colors BEFORE the midterm elections, the results may have been very different. The Democratic strategy looked like they were trying to help the repukes to win the midterm elections. The Dems keep playing right into the hands of the repukes...over and over and over and over..

Compromise and bipartisanship are merely code words for giving the repukes whatever they demand.

[karynnj]

18. The excuse then was that they would expire at the end of this month

making it easier to keep just the middle class ones. We should have quickly done it when we had 60 - assuming we could could get all of them.

[progressoid]

22. A lack of coordinated leadership and guts. EOM

[BrklynLiberal]

27. Lack of ANY leadership, it would appear...

[ProSense]

26. When has Congress ever prioritized legislation due to expire more than a year from any date?

They don't even do that with unemployment. There would have been the likelihood that some Democrats would have made the a stronger case for a temporary tax cut across the board.

I could see an argument for prior to the election, but a year and a half ago seems a waste of energy. Also, if they were going to fight a battle a year and a half ago, it should have been one for the jobs program that expired in September or additional infrastructure spending.

[TheWraith]

29. Because there have been about a billion urgent things to do, and no one willing to do them.

A year and a half ago they were fighting the healthcare battle, which would have been a shitty time to hand the Republicans the ammunition of "Here's the Democrats with a $700 billion dollar tax hike!" Then there was the financial reform bill, Wall Street reform, and then nobody in Congress wanted to vote to raise taxes in an election year.

[Jim Lane]

32. The problem wasn't the Dem leadership. It was the Blue Dogs.

I think the deal was that Pelosi and Reid wanted to vote on the partial extension (no giveaways to rich people) before the election, but they didn't have the votes. Some of the Blue Dog Democrats didn't want to vote for such a bill before the election. Their fear was that, if they were seen as allowing any part of the Bush cuts to expire, their opponents would attack them for voting to raise taxes.

Of course, several of the geniuses who made this shrewd political calculation are now papering K Street with their resumes, because they'll be out of work in another month.

[TwilightGardener]

33. Don't think the votes would have been there in the Senate, then as now.

I don't think only-middle-class permanent tax cuts were ever going to fly, no matter when they were attempted, as long as it requires 60 votes.