The real question is...".Could Obama have gotten a better deal?"

[Stuart G]

I believe the answer is yes, much better..
Certainly at least two year extension, and improvement for the 99ers..but no..he didn't get that either did he?

If you gotta cut a deal, cut the best deal..... one that at least sounds like you got a deal.
.This one sounds bad, looks bad..and has lots of bad in it..
Sure, it gives an extension..that is the least we could expect..but why not two years??? Equal for both sides..eh???

[Ozymanithrax]

1. Yes, yes...pigs can fly...

Just tap the heals of those ruby slippers together.

In order to get a better deal, both sides have to be willing to negotiate.

[ladjf]

2. Without a doubt. nt

[Robbien]

3. First there needed to be a give and take before one could call it a deal

Since the rich does all the winning and the working class did all the losing

there is no deal here

It is a huge Christmas present handed to the rich.

[blondeatlast]

4. Saturday afternoon, my kid damn near refused to perform at his recital out of fear of failure.

He summoned all his courage, changed his mind, wore his suit--and he was the LAST on the program.

And damn if he didn't play the clarinet BEAUTIFULLY.

Therein lies the problem; I'm fairly certain Obama could have and I don't see much evidence that he made the effort.

It's not so much the failure as the lack of effort.

Edit: weird capitalization for which I have no explanation. :shrug:

[robinlynne]

7. You said it beautifully.

[robinlynne]

5. he could have let the republicans shoot themselves in the foot by filibustering.

he could ahve let the tax cuts expire and presented a new bill for the poor and middle class. he could have done a lot of things. Why make a deal with them at all?

[TwilightGardener]

10. You are aware that this was tried and failed? You are aware that

once the new Congress comes in in January (after the tax cuts expire), the Repubs will control the House and all tax bills must originate in the House? Under what fantasy will Republicans craft a tax bill that only favors the middle class and poor, while letting the wealthy pay more? Would've could've should've doesn't solve the problem.

[robinlynne]

16. all the more reason to push Pelosis bill right NOW wihc remved tax cuts for the rich.

[Tatiana]

6. Most of the Senate Dems seem to think that the Republicans would have caved on the UI extension.

So I think it was stupid to tie the UI benefits to tax cuts for PEOPLE WHO DON'T NEED THEM.

[TwilightGardener]

11. Most of the Senate Dems couldn't get four colleagues to even allow

middle class tax cuts to be considered. I have no faith in their abilities.

[BrklynLiberal]

12. Yes. I saw several Congress critters say that yesterday...

[kentuck]

8. He could have educated the voters on what was happening...

don't you think?

Did you notice that he handed the negotiating on the healthcare reform over to the Congress but he handled this taxcut deal all by his little ol' self?

[TwilightGardener]

13. He didn't handle it by himself. Congress tried to pass a middle class only bill.

Why did that one fail? I'll answer this myself: it failed because Dems in Congress, some of them, want all cuts extended.

[robinlynne]

18. Congress passed it! It did not fail.

[TwilightGardener]

21. Failed in the Senate. Couldn't get 60 to move it forward. Partially because

of our beloved Democrats. What happens when even our own side won't fully support ending tax breaks for the wealthy?

[robinlynne]

25. Did it even get discussed in the senate? i thought not. When you say failed, you mean the republican

repugs said boo and it was not brought up in the senate, because they said they would filibuster. right?

[TwilightGardener]

26. Test votes held on a Saturday, could not get 60 votes.

[robinlynne]

27. right. I remember.

[robinlynne]

28. interestingly when the right cnat get 60 votes, they sent in cheney and had bush call everyone and k

kept the senate sessions open until they got the 60 votes, remember?
They voted over and over and over again until they got what they wanted when they controlled the house. all we get are test votes? then we fold?

[TwilightGardener]

30. It's very frustrating, but the Senate has been dysfunctional for a while now.

[BrklynLiberal]

9. I believe thebottom lineis that unemployment and tax cuts should NEVER have been linked in the first

place.
That was totally successful manipulation by the repukes.

Both of those issues could have been dealt with months ago..before the midterms...and separately.
This is true of many of the other issues being dealt with in Congress this month.

The repukes' bluff should have been called. They should have been forced to filibuster all those bills they threatened to filibuster..and let the public see EXACTLY what was really going on..

Hitting the brakes when the front wheels of the car are already over the edge of a cliff is not only a terrible idea, it is useless..
..and then when the car falls over the cliff, it is not acceptable to blame the brakes.

[blondeatlast]

14. EXACTLY.--to every word in your post.

:applause:

[BrklynLiberal]

34. ...

:thumbsup: :hi:

[dennis4868]

15. not sure how anyone who is NOT at the negotiation table....

can say that Obama could have gotten a better deal....that makes no sense....

[cascadiance]

17. I think the better question to ask is "Could the Republicans have gotten a better deal?"

:grr: :mad:

[Cleita]

19. What I don't understand is why he allowed the

extension of unemployment to be lumped in with the tax cuts. He should have negotiated only on the tax cuts and demanded that unemployment be dealt with separately. He lost the battle the minute he caved into them by allowing them to blackmail him.

[TwilightGardener]

23. I think the timing hurt--Dems didn't want to raise taxes on the wealthy

before the midterms, but then the tax measure and the UE coincided. Repubs want the UE but only if it's paid for by cuts elsewhere, from what I understand--Dems were going to pass the UE through emergency spending to spare making any cuts. I'm not totally sure about this, but it's my understanding right now.

[leeroysphitz]

20. The answer is yes. The pukes were bluffing about unemployment and Obama knew it.

People would not have forgotten being put in the poor house by Republican brinkmanship. They learned their lesson when they shut the Gov down under Clinton. This is just common sense.

I do not believe that President Obama ever planned to put up any sort of a fight over these tax cuts that needed ONLY inaction to make them go away. President Obama KNOWS who is signing his (very large) paycheck and it is not US.

[phantom power]

22. That does appear to be the differentiating question.

People who think he's getting the best possible deal given the circumstances will be his defenders.

People like me, who think he and the Dems could be doing much, much better are pretty pissed.

[gratuitous]

24. You must be willing to walk away with no deal

If you're desperate to come to an agreement, the other side in the negotiation has the upper hand, especially if they know it going in. Obama has telegraphed to the Republicans in every way possible his eagerness to get something done. Armed with this information, the Republicans (being the motherfuckers they are) are acting in a totally predictable, motherfuckerly fashion. Obama wants a deal in the worst way, and the Republicans are doing their level best to see that that's exactly what happens.

[TwilightGardener]

29. No deal is not a good outcome, though. I don't think people realize

that after the election we don't have the upper hand--the House originates spending and tax bills, it will be controlled by the GOP. The Senate does not have 60 reliable Democratic votes. I guarantee that no one will like what the R's come up with in the House after January. That would explain Obama's "eagerness to get something done".

[gratuitous]

31. The Senate needs 41 reliable Democratic votes

And there's the guy in the Big Chair at the end of the line with the Veto Pen. The Democrats don't need to give away the store right now, and Obama doesn't need to be playing Santa Claus. I don't see how a tax cut extension got linked to social security, the estate tax and the rest of the Republican Wet Dream Grab Bag. The Republicans were apoplectic last week at the prospect of an up or down vote on delinked tax cuts (separate bills for income above and below $250,000 a year). Now, why do you suppose that was? And why did the Democrats run away from it as soon as the Republicans threw their fit?

I'm also unwilling to see this premature el foldo based on what the Republicans might come up with next year. Let 'em try selling their own snake oil; Democrats don't have to act the geek part for their patent medicine show.

I'm perfectly all right with a return to the tax rates we had when the federal government was running budget surpluses. But I guess that's too subtle and nuanced an argument? How about, "Freedom isn't free, and that's why we pay taxes."

[TwilightGardener]

32. Stimulus measures--that's how it got linked. You don't have to agree with them, but

the blow of losing the wealthy's taxes was to be partially offset by spurring the economy with more money in everyone's pockets. The estate tax, I think was just a "yeah, whatever" that will probably be whittled down in the House. I don't have a problem with taxes going up personally, but I'd rather not see it happen for the middle class, because that would be a broken promise and would cause some pain. Probably won't play in Peoria, as they say.

[Stuart G]

33. If Obama believes what the NYTims said today...I am saddened again by this deal..

what kind of thinking is this?

from the NYT editorial today......


"Mr. Obama said on Monday night that he still believed extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy was a bad idea. He predicted that it would be undone in two years when it becomes apparent to everyone that the country can’t afford it. The president needs to ask himself why he couldn’t make that case now — and how he plans to change his approach to governing so he doesn’t get trapped this way again."