Saying "we shouldn't let the poor be held hostage by the rich" does not reflect reality.

[BzaDem]

Democrats are not LETTING the poor be held hostage by the rich. The poor ARE being held hostage by the rich, whether we like it or not. It is not a choice on our part -- it is a fact.

In a hostage negotiation, you don't just say "Well, you shouldn't take them hostage. That's wrong." Obviously the hostage taker is beyond right and wrong at that point. They would laugh in your face.

The decision here is not to LET the poor be held hostage by the rich. It is -- after acknowledging that the poor ARE being held hostage by the rich -- do we want to rescue the poor at the expense of the demands of the rich.

Do we value helping the poor more than taxing the rich? Or do we value taxing the rich more than helping the poor? THAT is the question, and people have different opinions. But people should not pretend that anything we do is going to stop the rich from holding the poor hostage.

[leftstreet]

1. My, my. I have NEVER seen such championing of 'the poor' here on DU

Mahvelous!

[Drale]

2. Unfortunately in what any system it seems the poor are held hostage

whether its by the rich, or by the government in other systems. Until we evolve to the point where everyone is truly equal it will be that way.

[Duer 157099]

3. Why do people keep framing this as "hurting the rich?"

That is totally not the argument! The argument is that by sustaining the rich tax cuts, we hurt the national BUDGET, the same budget that funds all of those social safety nets that the poor absolutely rely upon!

When the deficit blows up beyond recognition, what will be cut? We both know, don't we?

[QC]

6. Some are even framing it as "punishing" the rich.

It's amazing how many right wing talking points have become conventional wisdom here in the past two or three years.

[BzaDem]

7. People here constantly say they want to hurt (financially) the rich. They use the word "hurt." So I

am using their language. I didn't mean to get into a discussion about what word is appropriate -- Democrats believe that the rich should be taxed higher, and that was what I was saying. I have updated the language.

[Duer 157099]

8. Not only that, but this neither hurts NOR punishes them!

My heart bleeds for those poooooor lil rich folks! :cry:

[readmoreoften]

9. Because they're rightwing.

I mean that's obvious, right?

[Duer 157099]

14. What's obvious is that it completely misses the point

I could care less about "hurting" or "punishing" the wealthy; what I *do* care about is the wealthy contributing proportionately to the national budget. Giving them tax cuts that they don't need and probably won't even be able to feel, but WILL most certainly do extreme damage to our budget/deficit, THAT is the issue, or at least should be.

[Greyhound]

4. And neither do you let the kidnappers get away with it. n/t

[Hello_Kitty]

5. Until the Catfood austerity shit comes along and that all goes out the window

Then it's going to be "OMGZ we have to doooooo something about the debt!!1!11!"

[MadHound]

10. Wow, once again you demonstrate your complete and utterly defeatist attitude, deep cynicism,

And either unwillingness or inability to fight.

Geez, it's over two weeks out from Christmas, this is a game of political chicken, you run 'em down the road, go out and whip up the constituents of the vulnerable Republicans and get a deal done. Press that throttle, fight some more, get a goddamn better deal.

You don't do the faceplant cave before the real fight has ever started.

Oh, one other thing, you do recognize when you have all the cards, you get a much, much better deal. Obama could take that gun right out of the 'Pugs hands and pay for UI out of the stimulus funds.

[BzaDem]

12. Once again, you can't get out of your alternate reality where we somehow "have all the cards."

Where Republicans give a shit about what their constituents think (or care more about what their constituents think overall than what the GOP primary electorate thinks).

Then again, you think that Obama could somehow pass a WPA. So this is not surprising.

[MadHound]

16. Oh, so Obama can't use the stimulus funds for UI?

Wait, McConnell tried to do that earlier, but was blocked with Reid. Do you think that Reid would block such a measure again if the President proposed it? Hey, the 'Pugs would love it, and we can call it bipartisan:party:

[BzaDem]

17. Using stimulus funds for the UI doesn't get you the middle class tax cuts

(not to mention being horrible economic policy).

Now, of course (to my knowledge, correct me if I'm wrong) you don't favor any extension of the middle class tax cuts. But in addition to letting the middle class tax cuts expire in a recession being horrible economic policy, Obama promised in the campaign that taxes wouldn't go up on the middle class by one penny.

You happen to prefer he ignore that promise and instead keep his promise of raising taxes on the rich. But many people in the middle class disagree, even independent of the economics of it.

[MadHound]

18. And that's when you fight the political fight,

Run those two cars right down the road, play chicken. Get Obama out into the field, in vulnerable 'Pug states and hammer them. YOU'VE GOT OVER EIGHTY PERCENT OF THE PUBLIC ON YOUR SIDE! Get some messaging going, God, that's one thing this administration desperately needs is unified, loud, coherent messaging. Take that puppy right up to Christmas if you have to, but damnit, at least fight for a better deal.

But apparently fight isn't in this president's vocabulary, even if it is fighting for one of his campaign promises, fighting for what is best for this country.

Question, if Obama isn't going to fight for the people, why should the people fight for him? And puhleeze Vulcan, don't give me that whole "could be worse under the 'Pugs" schtick, we're already passing massive 'Pug legislation now thanks to Obama.

[BzaDem]

21. The problem isn't that Obama isn't fighting for the people -- the problem is that you deny he is.

Your entire premise is that a Republican House with a 20+ seat majority (FAR more afraid of their primary electorate than the public) is ever going to vote for a bill only extending some of Bush's tax rates. That is a false premise. When you correct for the false premise in your argument, one realizes that the deal wasn't going to get better after January.

Some people would rather see political theater for the next month and then get a worse deal in the end (with the same rich tax cuts extended). I am very happy that Obama is not one of them, and that the people who oppose him are the tiniest percentage of the party in decades. The truth is that NO Democratic President is ever going to sacrifice help to the vast majority of the public in order to have a legislative battle he knows he won't win. He (or she) might fight when he has little to lose policywise, or when the pool of potential votes is actually greater than the threshold for passage, but not when he knows he would lose, and losing would make the resulting policy much worse.

You can continue to pretend that the only thing preventing the optimal package (or a WPA, etc) in similar circumstances (without the votes) is a "fight," with no actual immutable constraints corresponding to who the legislators are, but that simply means you are going to have disappointment after disappointment for the rest of your life. Many people dismayed by this construct a coping mechanism ("there MUST be such a way, it will happen one day, I'm not going to surrender like you are, etc etc etc) but that is just that -- a coping mechanism.

"Question, if Obama isn't going to fight for the people, why should the people fight for him? And puhleeze Vulcan, don't give me that whole "could be worse under the 'Pugs" schtick, we're already passing massive 'Pug legislation now thanks to Obama."

Yeah. Come back to me and say that with a straight face after a year of the next Republican President. You won't be able to, just like many of Nader's supporters looked back on what they did with horror. You can tell me not to tell you the truth, but I'm not about to make up some untruthful answer your question just because you don't want to hear the truth. You can either see this truth now or relearn it later.

[readmoreoften]

11. Nope. Nothing the "leader of the free world" can do about that.

He's just a helpless victim.

[BzaDem]

13. Yeah, you are right. He should have just declared Congress a non-entity, and used his standing army

to disperse them.

[flamingdem]

15. People are furious about this fact but the options are truly limited

and our best line of defense was to fight for Dems in 2010, and many who are upset now did not calculate this then, plus the Repukes set so many traps ... the tangling is ferocious.

[lamp_shade]

19. A thoughtful post. Thanks. K&R

[ipaint]

20. Spot on.

And the idea that murderous hoarding hostage takers will allow gradual incremental change is laughable and only serves to misinform and delude the populace as to the depth of the massive rich problem we have in this country.

Phony incremental victories built on the hostage takers terms and conditions.

[quaker bill]

22. Well then perhaps

a better parsing would be that "we should not help the rich hold the poor as hostages"