Big fricking surprise, Democrats in Congress still acting as if the President is holding them back

[bigtree]

So House Democrats don't like the President's deal. Yet, they're not saying they won't posture anyway to make another defense of the middle-income tax breaks and the jobless relief that they've been unable to effectively preserve for the past year with their last minute votes on legislation that's dead on arrival in the Senate.

Are these House Democrats going to just walk away from the entire process and kick the can down the road to the next republican-led Congress; allowing all of the tax benefits and unemployment insurance benefits to expire?

Or, will they just craft another feel-good bill that's certain to lose key votes when it gets to the Senate, or in reconciling with whatever the Senate produces?

Do they want, and how will they defend the extension of expiring unemployment benefits in legislation that will pass the Senate?

Do they want, and how will they defend the Earned Income Tax Credit in legislation that will pass the Senate?

Do they want, and how will they defend the Child Tax Credit in legislation that will pass the Senate?

Do they want, and how will they defend the American Opportunity Tax Credit in legislation that will pass the Senate?

That's been the question to THEM for the past year and all they did was just pass weak, unsupported bills, and they did NOTHING but sit back and wait as the President organized a deal to preserve the tax breaks that affect tens of millions of middle to lower-income wage earners.

Now they want to scurry around behind him and snipe, hoping that President Obama gets the blame for their own failure and intransigence in defending against these middle-income tax increases. Typical.

[BeyondGeography]

1. Why don't you just admit Obama has a major share of this fuck-up?

He is the leader of the Democratic Party. Any responsibility there? Like not negotiating voodoo economic deals behind their backs and saying take it or leave it?

[bigtree]

8. who holds the power of the purse?

The President is not the king of Congress.

[dgibby]

39. Evidently, he didn't get that message,

since he circumvented both houses to make that deal with the republicans. Kinda reminds me of the deals he worked with Big Pharma and the Health Insurance Industry. Seems to be a pattern.

[bigtree]

47. There's NOTHING holding them to that deal or any other the President negotiates

The President proposes, Congress disposes. They can't hide behind the argument that he's tying their hands. They were busy sitting on them all last year when they could have been doing the courageous things critics of the President are arguing are his responsibility. CONGRESS let this debate stretch on until a month before the deadline, NOT the President.

[Bandit]

54. Then why is he making spending deals?

:shrug: Progressive Taxation or not? Where do you stand on the issue?

[bigtree]

58. he can make all the deals he wants. That doesn't remove Congress from their ultimate responsibility

. . . to craft and advance the initiatives through their legislature. The President can't do that. He can only propose legislation or 'deals' or veto them.

[Bandit]

71. Congress did pass a Tax Bill

Republicans have said they will not approve anything but a Republican Bill and Obama says Democrats must fall in line and accept Republican fiscal policies. As a Democrat are you proud of that? Between my wife and myself we make just under forty grand a year so we will see a tax increase from this deal.. Is Regressive taxation really what Democrats want?

[bigtree]

79. Obama says? He said nothing of the kind. His proposal is termed a 'framework'

He can only propose legislation. Congress has to take the lead in deciding how they will move forward. It'll be interesting to see just how close they hew to the President's 'framework' agreement. They're not bound by anything he proposes. If they want something independent of that they should get on with making that happen. It would be about time.

[Life Long Dem]

13. Take it or leave it.

They can't handle those words take it or leave it so they leave it. That's messed up. The reality is they take this or no bill gets passed.

[BeyondGeography]

40. Maybe if they had a minor stake in the original deal, this wouldn't be happening to Obama

:think:

The President's base on this issue is the Republican Party. Great spot he has put himself in.

[dgibby]

44. Reminds me of another president.

"You're either for us or against us". Hmmmm.....

[butterfly77]

51. They write the bills..

and they were too afraid to vote before the election. Now here they come too little,too late.


They keep wanting him to make a speech while complaining about how he isn't taking care of foreign affairs,oil spill,depression in so many ways. No they and the media complain because he said the stupid cop acted stupidly which the cop did they went along with the media and the beer summit garbage,birth certificate garbage,etc..


They spent the last two years complaining about how he needs to go out to the country and explain what in the hell is their job its their state get off your asses so called Democrats! Get your bluedogs in check!!

[BeyondGeography]

61. Here, maybe this helps

Peter Welch of VT being interviewed by Ezra Klein:

If the president had really fought for the Democratic position on this, if he’d given speeches around the country and gone on a whistlestop tour and hammered the Republicans and they just proved implacable on this, would the Democratic reaction be different if he made this same bill when the clock struck midnight on December, 31st?

I think a lot different. One of the things I give Nancy Pelosi a lot of credit for is that she’s able to get things passed and hold her members together because she shows us that she’s doing everything possible to get our views into these bills. I was a single-payer person, and I was disappointed in the health-care bill. But I supported the public option, and I watched as Nancy Pelosi fought and fought and fought to get the public option into the bill. But then it came back from the Senate without it. And I knew Pelosi had done every single thing she could possible do to get it in there. So I knew it was really the best we could get, and I had to decide whether to vote for it or not. And I think the president had the opportunity to do something similar here. This policy gets to a central question in economic policymaking, which is whether we’ll let the wealth transfer to the rich continue. And we should’ve engaged on it.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/12/rep_peter_welch_we_dont_know_w.html

There was no fight. You can piss on House D's all you want, but their perception is Obama's reality right now.

[bigtree]

69. so, the President is responsible for their not doing their job

got it.

[Bragi]

2. So they should pass bad laws because the Senate will? /nt

[bigtree]

18. they should tell us whether they intend to adequately defend the middle to lower-income tax breaks

. . . and they should be taking the lead on that, instead of acting as if they already did their best passing unsupportable bills (both houses).

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[leftynyc]

5. Will you be housing and feeding

those who are going to lose their unemployment benefits? Is that moronic smiley supposed to cheer them up?

[MadHound]

10. As I've stated before, as have the 'Pugs,

Obama can be bipartisan and take Mitch McConnell up on his idea from last summer. Namely, pay for the tax cut extension from the left over stimulus funds.

The unemployed don't have to be held hostage, only in Obama's mind.

[leftynyc]

21. WTF does that have to do

with the overall package. The pukes aren't going to extend benefits and will likely try and make those billionaire tax cuts permanent. If you don't think McConnell will go back on the deal in order to make the Dems look pathetically weak and divided, you're dreaming. No, the only people that will get blamed for this are are Democrats.

[MadHound]

28. Because, like I stated,

Obama could pay for the UI extension, take that "hostage" away from the 'Pugs and insure that the unemployed are taken care for at least the next thirteen months. No need to have Congress vote on this. Get it now? He could make this a straight out contest between tax cuts for the middle class and tax cuts for the rich. And in that case, the Dems will win.

[leftynyc]

31. Where did you hear this?

I'd like a link because I don't see how this gets down without Congress.

[MadHound]

36. Back last summer Mitch McConnell in one of the previous "showdowns" over UI extension

Was trying to get Obama to pay for that extension out of left over surplus funds. Those funds can be administered by this administration as they see fit, within certain legal constraints.

Since UI extensions are stimulative, one of the most effective forms of economic stimuli, Obama could easily pay for UI extensions as a stimulus issue. This is all in the language of the original law.

McConnell was wanting Obama to do this last summer. In a gesture of bipartisanship, Obama should now take him up on this, and take the UI extension off the table.

[leftynyc]

56. LOL - you're counting on McConnell?

To not screw the Democrats? NOW that smiley thing is appropriate.

[MadHound]

65. I'm not counting on McConnell to do anything, I'm just nicking one of his ideas

But hey, thanks for trying to shove words in my mouth.

[Bluerthanblue]

70. self delete

I responded to the wrong post

[bigtree]

32. when have they ever been required to be 'paid for' in the past? When?

This is a republican dodge that YOU are busy promoting as sound economic policy - all to criticize this president and let a dithering Congress off of the hook.

[MadHound]

42. You're in favor of a tax cut for the rich and yet accuse me of going all 'Pug?

AH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I gotta say Treeman, you're on a roll today.

[bigtree]

55. tax cuts for the rich have been a part of EVERY tax bill that contained middle and lower-income cuts

It's been the strategy of critics' stance against defending middle-income tax breaks as part of a compromise on the upper-income breaks to put the smaller amount of money allocated for the wealthy tax cuts ahead of the larger amount allocated for the middle-income cuts.

It's not so far out of hand to suggest that you don't care as much for preserving those tax breaks which affect tens of millions of middle to lower income wage earners as you do for sticking it to republicans. Why else would you be so blithe about Congress allowing them to expire?

[MadHound]

64. Umm, bub, don't try to lie about history to a historian

Tax cuts for the rich have not always been linked to tax cuts for the middle and poor class. Go back and read your history of the twentieth century and educate yourself.

Second of all, the reason I'm so "blithe" about everybody losing their tax cuts is that, in true Democratic fashion(at least it used to be) I'm happy to do my fair share, pay my fair share in order to keep this country great. Why aren't you willing to do so?

Furthermore, I recognize that if the Dems don't stand up and fight, at this last possible opportunity, that they will continue to rolled again and again over the next two years. Cuts in SS, Medicare and other such programs. Why are you willing to roll over and allow that to happen?

I remember when real Democrats fought, and fought hard for what was the blindingly obvious, morally correct thing to do, and they won. Why don't you want what is best for this country? Why don't you want the Dems to fight?

[bigtree]

72. well, let's see if they'll fight. What's holding them back? We've been waiting all year.

It's Congress who's pushed this to the last hour, not the President.

And, although I may have exaggerated about tax legislation, there's still no way that this Congress was going to accept one without the other. All of the second-guessing and bully-pulpit scenarios are just speculation. The fact is that Congress is in charge of these responsibilities and they've faltered. They can't pin that on the White House.

[Bluerthanblue]

45. I believe I even heard McConnell on the radio yesterday suggesting

that the UI benefits could be re-worked to require recipients to have to pay them back. Wish I could remember where exactly I heard it-

are you familiar with this?

[MadHound]

53. Yeah, I heard that after a certain point, he wants to make UI benefits a loan

A couple of days ago, after Obama's faceplant cave, I even heard McConnell floating the idea, again, of having the UI extension out of left over surplus funds.

I say pay for that extension out of those surplus funds now, take that gun out of 'Pugs hand, and make this a straight up fight between tax cuts for the middle class vs. tax cuts for the rich. We would, and should, win that fight, and if not, the 'Pugs will get the blame.

[bigtree]

30. so, you're saying he should follow republican minority leader McConnell's economic lead

. . . unbelievable argument.

First, cutting government spending from one part of the budget to pay for extended jobless aid diminishes the economic benefit of the aid.

Secondly, unemployment benefits have NEVER been required to be 'paid for' . . . "We have not paid for unemployment comp extensions and that's been true under presidents Republican and Democratic, and they're simply looking for an excuse to vote no," Rep. Sander Levin (D-Mich.), chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, told HuffPost (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/02/scott-brown-unemployment-benefits_n_790383.html)

"Levin and other Democrats say scrambling to find cuts to fully offset unemployment benefits would set a precedent making it more difficult to extend jobless aid in the future. "There's a basic principle because we haven't paid for extensions and once you start, if we had started doing that some time ago, they simply would not have existed," he said. "Republicans are trying to dodge the basic economic and moral issue. It's a smokescreen.""

[MadHound]

48. Let's see, pay for UI extension out of the surplus, and deny tax cuts for the rich

VS

Getting Congress to approve Obama's deal with the devil and extend tax cuts for the rich.

Really now, which is really more conservative here? For once, be honest with yourself.

[bigtree]

59. let's see, set a precedent for 'paying for' unemployment benefits

. . . so that it's that much harder to get an extension in the future.

Which is the republican plan?

[MadHound]

67. Let's see, let's make the tax cuts for the rich "temporary" again,

Until there is a Republican majority in DC again, then make them permanent.

That's the Republican plan, and Obama is aiding and abetting them every step of the way.

[bigtree]

74. just brushed past the point where you were agreeing with McConnell's economic strategy

. . . didn't ya?

[Bluerthanblue]

17. they don't matter

apparently.

To those who are "real" Democrats.

:shrug:

This is really sad-

[MadHound]

25. See post 10 right above yours,

There is no need to hold the UI extension hostage to higher taxes for the rich.

Oh, and for your information, I'm unemployed, as a direct result of Obama's fucking with education stimulus funding. I probably have much more at stake than you do.

That's why I fight.

Why are you so willing to continue to roll over like a whipped pup?

[Bluerthanblue]

35. no, your'e wrong.

The UI extention won't help me. I wish it would. But it doesn't.
I don't base my caring for others on my own personal situation.

I KNOW people who are counting on their benefits. I know people who are homeless. I KNOW what the republicans can/will/have done to make the most vulnerable suffer.

It's great to take a stand, but Pres. Obama is absolutely right when he refuses to have people go without in order to make a point.

Maybe you only fight for your own interests. I can't. And while that may cause you to think that I "roll over like a whipped pup" you are wrong. People's lives are at stake. People who matter- regardless.

[MadHound]

46. So why not have Obama pay for those extensions out of left over surplus,

Take that gun out of the 'Pugs hand, make it a straight up contest between tax cuts for the middle class vs tax cuts for the rich. What, you don't think that we can win that fight? Do you have that small a faith in the Democratic ability to fight for what is right?

[Marr]

22. Why do you people keep pretending that those benefits wouldn't have been

extended anyway? The GOP has repeatedly caved on that issue because they know it could grind them into paste at the ballot box-- especially now.

Face it, Obama is trying to give away the store because he wants to. Unemployment benefits are the magic beans he's trying to exchange for a cow. And he knows they aren't magic.

[Egnever]

26. Riiight cause they didnt just let them expire after a vote on it before the election

Do you people pay attention at all?

[bigtree]

6. I'm none of those, so you're barking up the wrong tree

When did the President gain power over the purse? Where does Congress' responsibility lie.

(keep your personal attacks to yourself)

[MadHound]

12. AH HAHAHAHAHA!

Thanks, I needed a good laugh.

[bigtree]

16. clownish

[dgibby]

52. "Clownish"

coming from the poster who just said "keep your personal attacks to yourself"? Ever try following your own advice?

[bigtree]

62. describing what was posted

. . . not the motivations or character of the poster.

[dgibby]

94. Glad you explained. It could have been taken either way.n/t

[bigtree]

95. I remember when 'clown' was allowed to stand here

I really shouldn't have gone there.

[Individualist]

15. +++

[Marr]

19. lol, yep. n/t

[mmonk]

4. Many of the tax deals were long term tax deals that had a

history of Republican support. They could have still been enacted without closed door dealing primarily done to reach concensus on upper end tax cuts with Democrats left out.

[lame54]

7. let them expire

[bigtree]

11. but, they won't.

They'll piggyback on the President's plan and complain that he forced them in to it, when they know he's just doing their dirty work for them.

[Edweird]

9. They have no leader. He's busy playing 'kissy face' with the opposition.

In light of that, just stopping it is good enough for me. If they had been at this point a year ago we wouldn't have had the same result last November.

[bigtree]

14. the President isn't king.

He's cleaning up after their own failure to defend these middle-income benefits. He's been forced to act to defend those because Congress refused to make a move until a month before the expiration deadline.

[Marr]

24. LMFAO!

Christ, you're killing me.

[bigtree]

37. who holds the power of the purse? Who crafts legislation for Congress, the President?

It's sad to see the shifting of responsibility away from the constitutional prerogatives the legislature has in financial and money matters. That's no LYFAO matter.

[Dappleganger]

34. What are you smoking?

Did you not listen to him defend this bill as "good for the economy"???

He didn't even TRY to pull the democrats in on this, it was all a back-room deal with the Boehner, et al.

[bigtree]

66. it's a constitutional fact. Congress has the prerogative on economic matters

. . . and in crafting and advancing their own initiatives. If the President is so wrong, where's their solution to preserving the middle to lower income tax breaks? Where's their solution to obtaining an unemployment benefit extension? Where does THEIR responsibility lie?

[Dappleganger]

77. The president should be working directly with his own party, first.

Not arranging back-room deals with those who have made it their priority to bring down Social Security, the poor and middle class.

The fact that you support HIS choices is very telling--no real democrat would do that.

[bigtree]

82. His own party looked like they were just going to let the expiration deadline pass

. . . without doing a thing about preserving those middle to lower income tax breaks - except to vote on unsupported bills and sit on their hands waiting for the President to take the heat in defending those. Do they care at all about extending those benefits beyond the approaching expiration deadlines? If so, how do they intend to make that happen?

[Dappleganger]

87. They should have expired.

The republicans are the ones to blame for that, not the democrats.

He admitted that the republicans were holding the American people hostage, and he chose to directly negotiate a deal with the hostage takers instead of calling their bluff and doing what is best for ALL Americans.

Once again, I ask you: what does this bill do for the 99'ers and low-income people?? How much money is spent on lower and middle class Americans as opposed to the deal the rich get? And why do you continue to stick your head int he sand regarding the truth about the choices this president has made which betray the very ones who put him into office?

[bigtree]

88. 99ers, nothing. Low-income, expansion of the earned income tax credit

. . . and the child exemptions, as well, for many. They are the most vulnerable out of all of this.

[Dappleganger]

90. And NONE of that should be tied to the so-called death tax

or SS payroll reduction and retention of taxes for the wealthy. It's a disgrace that they are and I hold the president responsible for breaking this promise he made.

[bigtree]

91. what was Congress going to ultimately do if the President didn't try to deal?

Were they just going to sit on their hands and let the middle-income and jobless benefits expire - satisfied that they'd passed unsupported bills? Or, did they intend to compromise all along?

[Individualist]

73. rofl

[Edweird]

81. "So I pass a signature piece of legislation..........."

>I pass a signature piece
>I pass
>I

[Bluerthanblue]

20. they have a leader-

they choose not to follow.

This isn't new, if you've been paying attention. The Democrats don't work together well.

It's proven often right here on this board.

[Poboy]

29. "they have a leader"- Who? Obama? lmao. That guy is a follower.

[Bluerthanblue]

49. who exactly is he following? he isn't following the republicans

othewise the tax cuts would be permanant- the estate tax would be history- there'd be no UI benefits- no EIC-

laugh if you will.

You can't change the facts.

[bvar22]

97. You KNOW, and I KNOW,

and everyone in Washington KNOWS
that these ruinous Tax Cuts for Millionaires are now PERMANENT.
Do you really expect Obama to rise up in two years and actually fight to have these Tax Cuts,
along with the Fica Tax Holiday ended??????

This Obama????

Come on.
I've been to to many Carnivals,
and played 3-Card Monty off Times Square too many times to be taken by this
"Next time, you're gonna WIN" scam.

You are looking at the End Game....right NOW.
THIS is our FUTURE.
Welcome to the New American Century...
brought to you by PNAC, The Republican Party, and the DLC (New Democrats).

[Edweird]

83. That's right they're not following him - and they have a damn good reason for doing so.

[soryang]

23. they should have repealed Bush tax cuts for the rich in 2009

The fact that no one proposed it, means they are all fat cat loving hypocrites. No Congress can bind a subsequent Congress on tax legislation. So the notion, pushed by Obama, that they needed to wait till the tax cuts "expired" was pure bs.

[leftstreet]

27. +1

[Egnever]

33. When did he say they needed to wait?

I missed that.

[soryang]

75. Obama's Non Tax Reform Commission

You missed it because the White House swept tax reform under the rug in 2009.

Obama's Non Tax Reform Commission

Howard Gleckman 10 Nov 2009

http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/blog/_archives/2009/11/10/4377094.html

The Board (the PERAB in Washington-speak) is hardly a bunch of economic lightweights. Chaired by ex-Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, its members include economist Marty Feldstein, GE CEO Jeff Immelt, venture capitalist John Doerr, former CEA chair Laura Tyson, and other stars of Wall Street, Main Street, academia, and labor. Its chief economist is Austan Goolsbee, a top-notch researcher who has had close ties to President Obama for years.

...

Once individual taxes were taken off the table, the panel was charged to look at corporate tax reform, enforcement issues, and simplification. But even on those limited topics, the panel will make no recommendations. A few months ago, we were told it would produce a document that looks something like CBO’s revenue options—listing a narrow range of ideas without actually endorsing any of them.

Now, we learn, the panel may not even do that. Rather, it will merely enumerate possible ways to simplify, improve enforcement, or restructure the corporate tax without even hinting which the Administration favors and which it does not. Other than serving the need to produce something, I can’t imagine why they are even bothering.

It has been abundantly clear since the campaign that Barack Obama has little interest in tax reform. Not to begrudge him, he does have more than enough on his plate without it. And I understand that not everyone shares my fascination with the tax code.

On the other hand, there is that matter of a $1.4 trillion deficit and an income tax that is crumbling under its own weight. Obama is surrounded by economic advisors who understand better than I that reforming the way government collects revenue is both necessary and inevitable. Apparently, their views have been drowned out by his political advisers who, I assume, see the whole issue as a swamp.

[soryang]

85. Obama's Tax Policy Means Wait And See

http://www.cnbc.com/id/27647497/Obama_Tax_Policy_Means_Wait_And_See 19 Dec 2008

“Obama has stated that he plans to repeal Bush’s tax cuts and we thought that could happen as soon as 2009, but in recent days he has said the economy is his top priority so he may not implement those roll backs quite so swiftly.”

Bill Gale, vice president and director of economic studies for the Brookings independent research institute and co-director of the Tax Policy Center, agrees.

[bigtree]

43. The President REPEATEDLY urged Congress to vote on those BEFORE the election

So, the notion that he 'pushed them to wait' is the bs.

[Ganja Ninja]

50. The Congress did vote before the election.

It was his blue dog buddies in the Senate that once again were the fly in the ointment.

[bigtree]

76. ah

. . . at least you're back to focusing on Congress' responsibility.

[Ganja Ninja]

38. So people are disloyal for criticizing Obama but the Democrats in Congress are fair game.

:crazy:

[bigtree]

89. where did you get your narrative about 'loyalty'? That's another debate.

This is about 'responsibility'. Who holds the power of the purse? Where does Congress' responsibility for preserving those middle to low income tax incentives lie?

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[butterfly77]

41. They are talking about the President ..

getting mad.NOW THEY GET MAD! where in the hell were they during the health care debate.Where were they for these two years while the republiCONS were talking garbage. They aren't going to do shit.

[bowens43]

57. blah blah blah blah blah..........

do you ever get tired of defending the indefensible?

[inna]

60. +1000

[bigtree]

84. are you defending Congress?

that's pretty indefensible

[mochajava666]

96. +1001

[asdjrocky]

63. At least you're consistent. nt

[BumRushDaShow]

68. Congressional posturing = pain for the bottom (unemployed) for political gain ("principles"). n/t

[Bluerthanblue]

78. holding hostages.

throwing away people who are already hanging on by a thread, for the hope of political gain.

[BumRushDaShow]

80. Because many have no domicile and thus can't/don't vote. n/t

[Bluerthanblue]

86. you can still vote here in NH if you don't have a home-

I know this because I work at a shelter and during the 2008 election there were people who helped our guests undeerstand their right to vote and we tried assist anyone to do so if they wished.

I think I know what you are saying though.

[mkultra]

93. yup, they can stand up at any point