"Hoyer hints that Dem leadership is on board for passing Obama tax plan unchanged"

[Clio the Leo]

Hoyer: Fierce Urgency Of Now To Pass Tax Cut Plan

Facing increasing pressure from Senate Republicans and the White House to pass the tax cut compromise bill unchanged, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer today suggested strongly that the urgency of preventing middle-income tax increases on January 1 will keep the White House's framework in tact. However, unhappy House Democrats will have a chance to go on the record in support of making changes to the package, though Democratic leadership won't be doing much to help those changes along.

"The vote in the Senate yesterday, 83-15...there is strong support for moving ahead," Hoyer told reporters this morning. "And the reason there's strong support for moving ahead is because there is a very keen sense that allowing middle-income taxes to go up on January 1 will not be good for the economy."

"That urgency is reflected in that 83-15 vote," he added.

<snip>

"There are many members of the House that want to reflect their view on a number of the issues in the bill," Hoyer said.

This would likely be reflected in attempts to amend the bill that's expected to pass in the Senate later today -- to change the estate tax provision, among others -- that would not get 218 votes. Hoyer demurred when I asked if the leadership would whip those amendments.

"We've had that vote. Pretty much people have expressed their opinion on that vote. We've had that vote. Now people are going to have to decide again on the urgency of this bill, and what they believe will facilitate or not facilitate this bill moving forward."

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/12/hoyer-hints-at-tax-cut-end-game.php

[sciencewins]

1. And like Clockwork the Democrats Cave -- Is anyone Surprised?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

3. Maybe They Should Wait Until Next Year When They Will Get A Shittier Deal?

That will teach em...

[jenmito]

5. The "He/they caved" people don't seem to have any logical solutions as to what

SHOULD be done.

[Clio the Leo]

8. isnt that a hoot? nt

[saracat]

15. Really? Seems to me several economists have written several alternatives that were posted on this

board. But heck, that doesn't fit the narrative, does it?

[polmaven]

17. And are they proposals

that could be approved in the Senate? I doubt it.

[saracat]

20. The bigger question is whether being approved matters or will do more harm in the long run.

Even many who "support " this agree it is a "bad plan" with negative consequences.

[jenmito]

22. The answer is easy-it will HELP the economy in the long run. n/t

[polmaven]

24. +1

:thumbsup:

[saracat]

26. Many economists disagree with you.Tax cuts don't work. never have , never will

Only the GOP believe in tax cuts
.

[jenmito]

28. Nobody, not even the President, thinks tax cuts for the rich will create jobs. But the package

on the WHOLE will create jobs and improve the economy. (By "nobody" I mean "nobody in their right mind.")

[saracat]

30. No, it won't but it will threaten Social Security.

[jenmito]

31. OK, Economist saracat.

:eyes:

[saracat]

32. Nope link below Wm. Greider.

http://www.thenation.com/article/157022/obama-threatens-social-security

[jenmito]

42. Since the article you posted started with a lie, I'll post an honest article:

"Tax deal should help economy, analysts say"
http://www.boston.com/business/taxes/articles/2010/12/07/tax_deal_should_help_economy_analysts_say/

[DemocratSinceBirth]

33. The choice isn't between a bill you don't like now and waiting for a better one

But rejecting a bill you don't like now and getting one you will absolutely hate when the new Congress convenes with sixty two more Republican House members and six more Senate members.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

23. That Omits The Liklihood The Republicans Won't Pass A More Onerous Bill In The Next Congress

When there are more of them.

[polmaven]

25. Oh, c'mon....

they won't won't do that, will they?...Oh - wait! of course they will! one that makes the cuts permanent, and eliminates UI benefits.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

27. They Will Probably Have To Add UI To Get Four Democratic Senator, I Hope

But all the goodies for the working class will probably be stripped away...

[jenmito]

21. Could you link to any?

[saracat]

29. Here is one. There are others as well

http://www.thenation.com/article/157022/obama-threatens-social-security

[Life Long Dem]

49. Why would you take the advice from one with a lie in the first sentence?

Over another one who does not lie?

[jenmito]

34. Where's the alternative? This was more of an attack piece with a lie in the very

first sentence: "The most dangerous feature in the president's proposed compromise on taxes is not the $700 billion tax cut for billionaires."

$700 billion would only be for ten years-not two.

[WI_DEM]

9. Saved 2 million people from going without unemployment benefits

is significant I think.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

10. 3.4 Million By The End Of January

.

[polmaven]

18. And many, many more

as February and March proceed.

[Milo_Bloom]

44. And it only cost 1 trillion dollars

[jenmito]

2. Good-then they can move on to DADT, START, DREAM Act, etc. n/t

[DemocratSinceBirth]

4. If Those Bills Don't Pass This Senate They Are Dead For At Least A Decade

.

[jenmito]

6. That's for sure. I guess many DUers suddenly don't care about those things.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

7. The Sad Thing Is What Prevents It Is A Compromise That Some Don't Like

That they will like even less next year...

[jenmito]

11. Exactly. And those same people don't even seem to grasp the fact that an attempt

to pass bills without tax cuts for the rich FAILED already in the Senate.

[Dawgs]

13. Only because Obama was making a deal with the Republicans behind closed doors.

:shrug:

[jenmito]

14. REALLY???

:rofl: The 53 votes would've somehow changed to 60? Every Dem. and a couple Repubs. would've voted FOR tax cuts for middle class only?! :rofl:

[Dawgs]

16. Probably not, but knowing that Obama was already making a back room deal with them guaranteed it.

:shrug:

[jenmito]

19. The "back room deal" was in CASE the vote failed, and it DID. And you just

claimed the Senate votes failed, "Only because Obama was making a deal with the Republicans behind closed doors." Then you said that's "probably not" the case. :shrug:

[sad sally]

50. Every compromise was surrender and invited new demands...

[AlinPA]

38. Unfortunately, they are all dead and have been since they were introduced. Why would a republican

vote for DADT Repeal, New START Treaty, the DREAM Act, 9/11 responders bill or anything the Democrats want?

[jenmito]

40. No they're not. They'll vote for some or all of those things once they get their

precious tax cuts for the rich.

[AlinPA]

46. Again, why?

[jenmito]

48. Again-in exchange of their precious tax cuts for the rich.

[tweeternik]

41. Disagree ...

I'm thinking (hoping?) they will pass at least the New START Treaty and DADT as part of "the deal" with the tax cuts. The tax cuts were not agreed to as a stand alone, imho. Not as sure about the others.

[AlinPA]

47. Why would they do that? Those are Obama backed bills. nt

[tweeternik]

51. Keep watching ... new START Treaty will pass,

they're saying they have the 67 votes needed. Hopefully DADT will also pass before year-end. Like I said, it's part of "the deal", imho.

[Dawgs]

12. Well, for me at least, I will no longer be a Democrat if this passes without changes.

:(

[WizardLeft62]

35. The Day the Democratic Party Died....

Bye-Bye Miss Democratic Party...The Day the Democratic Party Died....

Let Capitalism Die Out for Good and take both of these USELESS Political Parties with them....Forever!

The Day the Democratic Party Died.....

Let Capitalism Die Out for Good...Bye-Bye Miss Democratic Party...

The Day it Died....The Day the Democratic Party Died....

[golfguru]

36. Not all rich earners create or offer JOBS

It is widely publicized that half of those earning over 250,000 are small businesses.
Fine. Which means the other half of high earners do not create any direct jobs.

So, let ALL tax cuts for the rich expire and give those who actually employ people,
a tax credit for each employee. Most small business people file on individual basis
and they will all be eligible for the employee credit. Corporations will not.

Problem solved. Businesses will hire more people to get the tax credit, and their
overall tax will not go up. Those rich who just sit on their investments or earn
a high salary (CEO types who do not own the business) can pay more tax.

[jenmito]

39. The Senate failed to even get a bill passed which would've extended tax cuts

for people making up to $1 million. The deal they got was the best they'll get and be able to pass.

[golfguru]

45. Yes, I understand what is politically possible

I just do not understand why all high earners are lumped into one bin.
If that difference was more in the news, possibly a different outcome
was possible, such as more tax revenue from high earners who are neither
running a small business or employing any one.

[pscot]

37. They are SO cool

They snuck up on it. We all knew they were sneaking up on it. They knew we knew they were sneaking up on it. Now they're going to be nonchalant about it. Cool! Pass it just as if nothing happened. And the whole damn country will agree to look the other way

[Milo_Bloom]

43. It is a shame they don't fight for the people anymore.

[Supersedeas]

52. What kind of media coverage will Repukes demands for amendments get...mmmm

[bvar22]

53. The GOOD news:

This should Once and For All end the surprisingly persistent MYTH on DU that the President is a powerless bystander who can ONLY pass what Congress sends him, and is NOT responsible for content.

Those of us who have pointed out that the President is a powerful figure capable of initiating and influencing legislation throughout the entire process have been proved correct.


"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."
--- Paul Wellstone