Not getting rid of the Bush Tax Cuts is probably the worst political failure ever.

[European Socialist]

For two years The Dems controlled everything and all they had to do was nothing. Kind of like blowing a 10 run lead in the 9th inning.

[Wounded Bear]

1. Maybe not the worst ever......but pretty f'n bad. nt

[mod mom]

223. agreed. Not fighting for stolen elections was the cause of much of this.

[liberalmike27]

240. Yea

Obama really had them by the nads, but seemingly didn't understand it. He could've just said "Well I need to make this hard political choice to help fix the debt problem." But the guy dealt, as he always had, from a position of perceived weakness. The worst part of it is that he's embracing the canard that "tax cuts on the rich create jobs." They don't, they sooooo don't. Democrats need to start openly saying "You know what, that just isn't true." I expect this BS from Boner, but I just don't expect Democrats to keep buying into this snake-oil lie. The only thing tax cuts for the rich do, is make them richer, solidifies their political power, support, and gives them more money to corrupt elections.

He wasn't the best during the Health Care debates--but this was the point I felt like he really, really screwed the pooch.

[FiveGoodMen]

2. And 'failure' is too kind a word.

[SDuderstadt]

3. Let's hear your scenario for how it would have been...

easy for the Democrats to do.

Please be specific.

[no limit]

12. It would have been very easy. If the republicans didn't go along with tax cuts for 98% of americans

then he simply wouldn't sign any tax cuts in to law. The Bush tax cuts were expiring, no new legislation needed to be signed in to law for them to expire.

Even John Boner said that he would be forced to vote for such a bill if that should happen.

[SDuderstadt]

17. And lose the extension of unemployment benefits...

for millions of people in the process, causing untold misery.

[no limit]

19. 800 billion in tax cuts for the rich in exchange for a few billion in unemployment benefits?

Gee, what a killer deal. I hate to see what will happen next time they are up for renewal.

Also, you are offering a false choice. Even john boehner said he would be forced to vote for an extension if it only covered 98% of americans.

Lastly, you imply that Obama really didn't want to do this. Then why the fuck did he go out and brag about them as a form of much needed stimulus after he signed them?

[SDuderstadt]

22. You're not being very specific...

is that on purpose?

[no limit]

32. What am I not being specific about?

Boehner on tax cuts for 98% of Americans: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0912/Did-John-Boehner-blink-on-tax-cuts-for-the-rich

-------
“If the only option I have is to vote for those at $250,000 and below, of course I'm going to do that,” Boehner told “Face the Nation” host Bob Schieffer.
-------

These tax cuts will cost over 800 billion dollars in the next 10 years. The unemployment benefits cost what? 30 billion? They could have also been passed in a budget using reconciliation if the democrats weren't such shitty leaders.

Finally, after the tax cuts were signed in to law Obama came out and said that they were needed to keep the economy on track.

[SDuderstadt]

35. The taxcuts aren't extended for ten years...

Why are you using ten year numbers?

[no limit]

41. You are right, the cost is not over 10 years, it is over 2.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/business/comparing-the-tax-plans/

[SDuderstadt]

42. Here's all the detail...

you're leaving out, dude. I'm done.

http://blogs.ajc.com/jamie-dupree-washington-insider/2010/12/09/summary-of-tax-deal/

[no limit]

43. Being done doesn't change the fact that you are wrong

The deal put aside 57 billion for a 13 month unemployment extension. In that same deal over 2 years we will spend over 800 billion for Bush tax cuts, the estate tax repeal, and the payroll tax holiday.

You do this every fucking time I have a discussion with you, what an absolute waste of time. You dispute basic facts and when it's clear you are wrong you say "I'm done dude".

[SDuderstadt]

45. Here's more of the detail you left out

Bush tax cuts: $544.3 billion. The package would extend the Bush tax cuts for everyone for two years.

The bulk of that cost -- $463 billion -- is for the extension of cuts for families making less than $250,000, including two years of relief for 2010 and 2011 for the middle class from the Alternative Minimum Tax.

The rest -- $81.5 billion -- is attributable to the extension of cuts that apply to the highest income families.

The cost of extending all the tax cuts over 10 years would have been $3.7 trillion.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/07/news/economy/tax_cut_deal_obama/index.htm

[no limit]

49. Funny you would accuse me of leaving out details and not mention the estate tax

Which alone costs more than the unemployment benfits. You also left out the tax cuts for businesses.

Also, your limit for what defines a rich american is $250,000? I don't know, if a family is making $200,000 or even $150,000 I would think they are pretty rich. Here in NM if you are making $100,000 as a family you would be doing extremely well for yourself, much better than most.

[SDuderstadt]

53. Read the link I provided in post # 42, then...

tell me again what I "left out".

Duh.

[no limit]

54. You left out many of the siginifcant numbers from the article

but that's a sideshow.

You want to address what I said?

Is a family making $100,000 a year rich? Do they deserve tax breaks? How about a family making $200,000?

Why did Obama insist on an estate tax break when that wasn't originally part of the negotiations? Why did he add additional tax breaks for businesses when again that wasn't part of the original plan?

[SDuderstadt]

56. I PROVIDED the article...

Duh.

[no limit]

58. Still waiting for answers to my questions.

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

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

[Enthusiast]

198. Me too.....nt

[GOTV]

208. My family brings in over 100K. We don't need or want tax cuts which bring misery to the nation

[hfojvt]

103. that's true for most of America

$100,000 is more than most families make in America, at least 80% of families make less than that.

The other trouble with setting the threshold at $250,000 is that it still allows rich people, say those making over $500,000 to save money on their first $250,000 of income.

As I mentioned here (http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/147), even the deal that Obama campaigned on (the $250,000 threshold) gave most of its benefits to the top.

"13.3% of that money will goto those in the top 1%, or $400 billion over ten years (plus interest)
However, another 40.9% of that money will goto the other members of the top 20%, or $1.2 trillion
And another 19.3% will goto the other members of the top 40%, or $579 billion.

For a total of $2.2 trillion going to those in the top 40%. Almost 75% going to the top 40% compared to 13.9% going to the bottom 40%.

Leaving only $800 billion for those in the bottom 60%, a mere $141 billion going to those in the bottom 20%.

Obama's plan, which he wouldn't even fight for, gave most of its benefits to the top."

75% of the benefits going to the top 40% and only 13.9% of the benefits going to the bottom 40%. This is the tax cut plan of a Democrat? And one that he wouldn't even fight for, opting instead to create a 'compromise' that gives even more to the wealthy?

[hfojvt]

101. boy is that a load of crap

is that what Obama is giving us, crap Bush-type numbers to argue for the extension of the Bush tax cuts?

Boy, who "knew" that the Bush tax cuts gave so much to the non-rich? Besides Bush that is.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

33. It was $56 billion in unemployment benefits, not...

a few billion.

[no limit]

34. Compared to 800 Billion in tax cuts

I would consider that a few billion.

[SDuderstadt]

37. Bullshit...

It isn't "800 billion" in taxcuts.

Why are you using a ten year number, when the extension was only for two years?

[no limit]

39. It's not a 10 year number, its the cost of the 2 year extension

I said 10 years above, that was a mistake on my part.

[sabrina 1]

190. That is NOT a ten year number, the ten year number was

2 trillion. TWO TRILLION! That's what those ten years cost the US in revenues and not a single job was created as a result of them. And now we are giving them hundreds of billions more.

And don't waste any time on the so-called 'bargain' Obama was 'forced' to strike for an extension of UE.

That was NEVER NECESSARY.

Those two issues, the Bush Tax Cuts and the UE extension were taken off the table during the election and put aside until later. We knew then exactly what was going to happen, that a deal had been made and predicted it. And then they did it. They are so predictable because the formula is always the same.

Next time, try to be factual btw, especially with something this important. Two Trillion Dollars and they were not satisfied, they wanted more and they got it.

[SDuderstadt]

275. Read post # 39...

before you go off half-cocked.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bobbie Jo]

52. Dismiss it all you want...

UI extensions saved my home and fed my family.

I guess you didn't have the same experience.

[SDuderstadt]

57. Exactly...

Bobbie Jo.

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

93. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RaleighNCDUer]

233. Which would you rather have? Unemployment extensions, or a job?

When the rich suck hundreds of billions out of the economy, it costs JOBS. If the Bush tax cuts had not been extended, unemployment would be half what it is today.

[SDuderstadt]

235. Please prove that...

Be specific.

And, BTW, short-term I'd want the unemployed to have benefits so they don't starve and, longer-term, I'd want them to have jobs so they don't need unemployment benefits.

[robinlynne]

137. so what. It fucked our country up permanently! With the 800 billlion in taxes raised,

Obama could have easily helped the unemployed...duh. maybe with jobs even instead of unemployment? Dont you get that?

[polmaven]

73. Your concern for the well being

of the tens of millions of long term unemployed is touching! I am one of those whose benefits were extended, and, because of that, I remain able to keep my home and not be on the street.

He bragged about it because if the UI benefits had not been extended, we would have no money to spend, no ability to "stimulate" the economy.

Again - thank you for your concern for my well being -----NOT

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[no limit]

104. So lets say Republicans wanted to bomb Iran in exchange for unemployment benefits

I wouldn't care about the unemployed because I would think that is a shitty deal?

Your argument is based on emotion, not reason. There was many things Obama could have done that would have extended unemployment benefits without giving away 800 billion dollars to rich people. If they had their shit together they could have added it to their budget and passed it using reconiliation. But because they don't know how to lead that became impossible.

Yes, it sucks people are unemployed. And yes those people deserve these benefits, most of them paid for these benefits throughout their life. But our politicians and rich people using these benefits as a ransom to screw us over should never be acceptable.

[xphile]

106. That would be my reading of the argument. n/t

[Enthusiast]

196. PLUS FUCKING ONE! nt

[GOTV]

206. Amen. We will never know what the outcome would have been if Obama stood his ground and fought ...

... Many people are quick to believe the Republican threats. It's easy for them to make threats when they believe they are facing a man without the guts to force them to carry out his threats.

[xphile]

61. And what did that deal get for the 99ers? Nothing. Still plenty of misery.

Nothing done about it. Yet the rich got their tax cuts.

He didn't have to do anything and those cuts would have expired.

[SDuderstadt]

62. Along with the taxcuts for...

the middle class and below, dude. You left that part out.

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

94. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Big Vetolski]

120. "Tax cuts for the middle class and below." True, but they were so

small as to make no difference in our lives. I hate to say it, but Bush's one time $600 rebate helped me more because it actually paid the rent for a month and I was able to go out and buy new stuff that I really needed.

Obama gives me about 30 bucks a month in tax cuts. That won't even pay the cable bill that I no longer have because cable fell victim to my own personal budget cuts. I'd rather let the government keep the 30 a month and pay for REAL national health insurance. But that's just me. Dude.

[SDuderstadt]

123. Well...

good for you.

[GOTV]

211. Whoop-de-doo. We got a shit sandwich and it only cost us the economy. Good deal!

[SDuderstadt]

213. Love to hear your...

detailed scenario and strategy, dude.

Feel free to lay it out.

[olegramps]

224. Why couldn't there have been separate bills?

A bill to extend the unemployment benefits and one to rescind the tax breaks for the wealthy. What could not understand is why he agreed to decreasing the inheritance tax that only benefited the extreme wealthy. It appears to me the the Republicans got every thing they wanted totally at the expense of the working class who only got an extension of their benefits that he could have fought for with a separate bill.

[SDuderstadt]

226. If the GOP "got everything it wanted"...

that's news to them.

Why are you assuming everything was in one bill?

[RaleighNCDUer]

241. So fucking what?

I'll TAKE that $600/yr loss, if it means the the top 1% won't be sucking BILLIONS out of the economy. Maybe, with those billions back in the economy my former P/T second job will open up again, and instead of losing $600, I'll make the $3,000 it gave me before.

Tax cuts are only sacred to the Republican and other idiots who don't understand the purpose of taxes.

[SDuderstadt]

243. Well...

It wasn't just up to you, was it...

[RaleighNCDUer]

250. as I said...

[cascadiance]

70. By putting it with the tax bill then, we lost the opportunity to let Republicons OWN not doing them!

If we'd just let the Bush tax cuts expire, even if we didn't get the unemployment benefit extensions, then we could have put a lot more blame on the Republicans in the following term for NOT passing them and had one more issue to go after them with in 2012 if they didn't. I bet with push coming to shove, they'd have had to pass some extensions too or a lot of the tea partiers without unemployment would start to turn on them too.

I speak as someone who was also receiving these unemployment benefits as well, and recognize that though I've benefitted from them, that ultimately even when they were passed with these extensions added to the bill, that we were all going to pay a lot more later for having passed that bill then. It WAS a failure!

Our party leaders should have known when we did budget reconciliation that THEN was the time to also put in place our versions of what tax cuts and unemployment benefits along with the health care bill stuff (as little as we got in that bill from using budget reconciliation for that).

Bush Republicans played their cards more strategically when they passed those tax cuts initially through budget reconciliation. Too bad we can't be as good at strategy as they are, or at least not have as many complicit with those outside our party's constituents (the Turd way or DLC) that probably "avoided" these outcomes.

[SDuderstadt]

71. Read post #...

52.

[cascadiance]

107. And more other people are NOT going to be affected by these newer cuts?

That would not have been as much on the negotiating table if we had more revenue that paid down our deficit now...

Yes, I'm not saying that people wouldn't have suffered, INCLUDING MYSELF, without the unemployment benefit extensions, but you're dismissing that the Republicans might have been FORCED to pass some in the following months if many people like her started illustrating what happened because they didn't do an extension to those unemployment benefits.

Congress at the end of 2008 should have tried passing the unemployment benefits as a separate bill and let the tax extensions die in their own separate bill, which would have put the Republicans on record for having filibustered it down, and then should have been called out when they didn't do any extensions at the beginning of 2009. Instead they can now ignore it until 2012 when it bites us in the butt during election season, and they'll try to blame it on Obama then along with all of the other cuts that they'll try to ram through with all of the cuts that are being made and no revenue increases.

[GOTV]

215. That's a good point. Obama failed to take another opportunity to differentiate ...

... between the Dems and the GOP. He could have offered a deal which replaced the Bush tax cuts with UI benefits and middle tax cuts only and let the GOP refuse them. Then he could have gone to the people and said I tried to do the right thing but I can't because you send to many Republicans to Washington. Send more Dems and look what we could do.

[lame54]

117. put 'em to work on the infrastructure...

and on green jobs

[rpannier]

128. The Republicans had approved every unemployment extension in the first two years of Obama's admin

I did notice that as part of that bargain the 99ers got the shaft

Yea Team

[Overseas]

153. Because REPUBLICANS wouldn't give up on tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires.

REPUBLICANS would have forced that issue. It should have been their fault.

As things went anyway, with Democrats too afraid to insist on letting those tax cuts expire, even though they saved the 99-ers, people still stayed home and others voted Republican again because they looked tough. Little did the voters know that they are also really tough liars, those Republicans.

[FedUp_Queer]

184. Let's look at the details...

TWO years of Bush tax cuts
ONE year of unemployment benefits
TWO percentage point decrease in the payroll tax

Now...here's just how bad that was. Now, the GOP gets to run on Obama raising taxes in 2012 (because if Amurka elects Barack....he will let them expire and, presto change-o, a tax increase). Next, that two percentage point decrease in Social Security taxes starts look ominously like setting the stage for cutting social security benefits because, after all, there are less revenues to Social Security because of it. NOW, Obama must run on INCREASING the payroll taxes back to the pre-two percentage point deduction. So...they get to run on this: If you elect Obama, he will let the Bush tax cuts expire...causing a tax increase AND, he will try and put the payroll tax back where it was...a double whammy. When, had he shown a backbone and called Boner's bluff, we'd have had the tax cuts minus the cuts for the rich, more revenue, a lower deficit, a year of unemployment benefits, a decreasing deficit.

[Enthusiast]

199. PLUS ONE! nt

[Taft_Bathtub]

189. Ah I see you buy into the "helpless democrats" fable

Those big evil republicans that owned neither the house, nor the senate, nor the White House at the time were going to do what exactly?

[SDuderstadt]

210. Maybe you should review the rules of the Senate...

dude.

BTW, nice strawman. I never said the Democrats are "helpless".

[fasttense]

192. Those unemployment benefits will run out in 6 months

and they only included less than half of the unemployed. But the bush tax cuts keep pushing us further and further into the red. It was a tax give away that keeps on giving away.

[RaleighNCDUer]

228. In which case the REPUBLICANS would be blamed for not extending

unemployment - they were bluffing, and Obama folded to their bluff.

[SDuderstadt]

230. Bullshit n/t

[mike_c]

15. that's why they campaign for the office and work hard to convince voters...

...that they're competent. It's not my job, or any other DUer's, to solve that problem. It's our democratic representatives' collective problem, and if they fail to accomplish it we have every right to criticize them, and to wish for replacements. Unfortunately, even that relief is rare-- the electoral process is now largely owned by the wealthy and by corporations.

[European Socialist]

16. Don't let wealthy special interests call the shots.

[SDuderstadt]

20. Let's hear specifics...

not generalities, dude.

[bahrbearian]

29. Do nothing and they would have Expired, Dude

[SDuderstadt]

31. Along with the taxcuts for those...

making under $250K. Duh.

[The Big Vetolski]

121. Those tax cuts were insignificant. Really, they were. Most of us

wouldn't even have noticed. What's your net worth, anyway?

[BobbyBoring]

209. REALLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

$300.00 isn't going to make or break me!

[jmowreader]

157. Everyone on this thread is neglecting something...

The Republicans were holding the Senate hostage until they got the tax cuts on the rich extended.

Yes, we COULD have just let the cuts sunset. And yes, that would have meant the cuts for the lower brackets would have also sunsetted. And after that happened, the GOP would have stopped anything from moving through the Senate. Translation: no unemployment benefits extension. No healthcare reform. No nothing. And the Republicans would have been on every talk show telling America it was the Democrats' fault the Senate was locked up.

Sunsetting the cuts would have been the right thing. The Republican Party as it is currently operated does not believe in doing the right thing.

[Bobbie Jo]

221. Thank you.

I tried to raise the point by offering a reality-based example and was immediately castigated. I am AMAZED at the level of political naivete' on a political message board!?! Not to mention a grasp of basic civics.

Thank you for this post.

[eomer]

263. Regarding basic civics, what is the budget reconciliation process and how many votes does it take

in the Senate to pass a reconciliation bill?

Hint: it takes just 50 votes and can't be filibustered. During 2009 and 2010 when Democrats had a majority in both houses they could have used the budget reconciliation process to do lots of useful things. They used it to do very little, purely by choice. The Republicans could not have done anything about it if Democrats had merely chosen to use the procedures that were available. Changes to Unemployment Insurance eligibility could definitely have been done under reconciliation with votes of just Democrats.

[jmowreader]

279. Okay, time to throw ANOTHER wrench in your works

The Democrats talked about budget reconciliation, which as you correctly stated can't be filibustered. The problem with parliamentary maneuvers like budget reconciliation is the Republicans promised to use the various parliamentary maneuvers at their disposal to kill everything if we tried it.

There are two basic sets of problems this country is facing. You can draw them out like a Venn diagram. The first set is caused by George W. Hoover's attempt to pay for two wars with tax cuts. (Yes, the correct response to that is, "how the fuck is that supposed to work?") The second set is caused by the Republicans filibustering everything Congress has done since the beginning of the 2009 session. IIRC Mitch McConnell was the one who announced, at the beginning of the last session of Congress, that all bills needed to be approved by 60 votes--exactly what it takes to break a filibuster--before they could be advanced out of the Senate. A lot of people here have theorized it's a racist move--you know, there's a black guy in the White House and the Republicans can't allow him to be successful. Well...maybe, but I think it's more sinister than that. An elephant has a very long memory, and the 40 of them who were to be in the Senate in the 2009-2010 Congress knew Bill Clinton was able to do a lot of good for the country with 51-vote majorities. They know the tax increase that eventually sent the budget into surplus required a tie-breaking vote from the Vice President. In this Congress, that can't happen.

The reality of the current situation is, the Constitution only requires a majority vote on most legislation--not a 60-vote supermajority; hence, the Republicans, in order to keep a Democratic president from having very many legislative successes, are ignoring the Constitution. (You remember the Constitution, right? It's the god-damned piece of paper Boehner spent the second day of this session reading out loud and the rest of it wiping his ass on.) The term you're looking for is "Polish parliament."

[eomer]

283. The budget reconciliation process is established law and process for several decades.

Please provide evidence of your claim that Republicans threatened to use a nuclear-type response if Democrats used reconciliation. I never heard any such exchange. I don't believe Democrats ever seriously proposed or approached using reconciliation, except for the one instance in which they did use it to pass the final changes of health insurance reform and a tacked-on education loan reform. And in that one instance Republicans didn't go nuclear. The reconciliation bill passed routinely, just like they have for decades. You're just making this up, aren't you? Please provide evidence of your claim.

[rhett o rick]

118. Easy. Get some back bone and vote down the extensions, no matter what the Repukes threaten.

Get some guts, fight. I am so sick of the Third Way Democrats that try to encourage the real Democrats to compromise, compromise until we have nothing left.

Vote down the extensions. That's all it takes. Call their fuking bluff.

[SDuderstadt]

126. I asked for specifics, dude...

not generalities.

BTW, I have never been a "Third Way" Democrat.

[dbonds]

173. Are you any kind of a Democrat then?

[SDuderstadt]

179. Lifelong...

current Legislative District Official for my state's Democratic Party and member of its progressive caucus. Former precinct, ward, county and state Democratic Party official. Member of Organizing for America, Democracy for America and Progressive Democrats of America.

Now, be advised if you ask me that stupid question one more time, we'll let the mods deal with it as a violation of DU rules regarding questioning the character, motivation or good faith of a member. Got it??

[olegramps]

227. I would be more impressed if you told me what your accomplishments are. The same with Obama.

By the way what is it with this "Dude" thing. It appears to be demeaning and somewhat arrogant. What I would like to know is just why there could not have been separate bills to attack these issues rather than allowing the Republicans to make it a take it or leave it issue with the unemployed being the pawns? It is my understanding that the vast majority of American citizens are in favor of higher taxes for the wealthy, but what we got was lower inheritance taxes for the most wealthy in return for nothing that could have been obtained with a separate bill. I am open to an explanation of just why there could not have been separate bills, especially when the Democrats controlled both houses and presidency.

[SDuderstadt]

232. Watch Clinton's press conference...

dude.

He explains it well.

http://www.google.com/#q=clinton+on+obama+tax+deal

[Enthusiast]

200. A "funny" kind of Democrat.

You know the kind.

[SDuderstadt]

207. The kind that disagrees with you?

Did I miss something and someone put you in charge of party purity or something?

[Enthusiast]

270. I prefer my Democrats to have a common ideology

with, well..............Democrats. You know, as opposed to Republicans.

[SDuderstadt]

273. We do...

It's just that some of us are too busy going around calling Democrats Republicans. You might want to learn how coalition parties work and quit making assumptions about fellow Dems. I'll put my progressive credentials up against yours anyday.

[Enthusiast]

277. LOL.

I'll be the judge of actual progressive values. Progressives generally don't come with 'credentials'. When someone argues in favor of right wing positions, I judge them to fall short on progressive values. If this does not apply to you just ignore it. It is possible that I've misjudged you. Possible, but not likely.

[lumberjack_jeff]

229. If Schoolhouse Rock is right, congress passes a bill (to extend tax cuts) and Obama vetoes it. n/t

[SDuderstadt]

234. And veto the...

unemployment benefits, the votes necessary to repeal DADT, the votes to confirm START, etc?

[lumberjack_jeff]

253. I think I answered your question. n/t

[SDuderstadt]

254. No...

you didn't.

[lumberjack_jeff]

257. Pens are apparently cheap. When Obama signs a bill, he gives away a bunch.

One presumes that they're not any more expensive if you veto it instead.

I've given you a very specific scenario in which it is easy for democrats to eliminate the Bush tax cuts. It's only flaw is the inherent presumption that Obama is a democrat.

There is very little that is easier than "do nothing". Particularly if the alternative is "the worst political failure ever" a point which you apparently agree (or at least didn't dispute)

[SDuderstadt]

258. No, you haven't...

dude. You're oversimplifying a far more complicated situation and leaving out loads of detail.

[lumberjack_jeff]

259. I answered your question, laddie. n/t

[SDuderstadt]

274. In your mind...

maybe.

[lumberjack_jeff]

278. If you want a better answer, ask better questions.

It was stone easy to let the Bush tax cuts end. Whether unemployment extensions etc. would be possible without extending them is another question, as is the question of whether some of the Bush tax cuts are beneficial.

It would have been better to let them lapse as they were intended to do, even if it did mean that unemployment extensions would have to be voted on their own merits. The DC strategy of bundling a ton of shit with one gold nugget is part of the problem.

[grahamhgreen]

261. DO NOTHING, TAX CUTS EXPIRE, duh. Debt limit discussion unnecessary. SS cuts off the table, etc,.

[Blue Owl]

4. We didn't vote for a Democratic Prez to get more Bu$h tax cuts

That's for GODDAMNED sure and what's so hard to understand about that???

[mr clean]

48. +1

[Enthusiast]

201. Obama's CENTRAL campaign

promise was to allow the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy to expire.

[mike_c]

5. rec'd, but I'm not convinced it was a failure....

Few in political leadership actually represent the people any longer, and their real masters likely see the extension of the Bush tax cuts-- now the Obama tax cuts for all intents and purposes-- as something other than "failure."

[Ganja Ninja]

6. It was about the saddest performance I've ever seen.

And what did they get in return for renewing the Bush Tax Cuts? :shrug:

[Enthusiast]

202. What did they get?

Voters felt so disenfranchised that they stayed home resulting in the election of a Republican majority in the House. That's what they got. And I firmly believe they knew they would get that before the fact.

[CrossChris]

The Dems controlled everything, but the Koch's et al control the Dems.

So there's control either way. Kind of like watching a game that's prescripted, like Globetrotters vs. Generals.

[SDuderstadt]

11. What bullshit...

why don't you layout what actually happened?

[no limit]

18. What happened was the tax cuts were expiring...

and if Republicans didnt want to give 98% of americans tax breaks because their rich friends weren't going to get any then Obama could have simply let them expire and lay the blame on republicans where it would belong.

Like I told you above, even the orange man said that if Obama did that he would be forced to vote for such a bill. Instead Obama refused to fight for this and allowed an extension that will cost us 800 billion dollars in exchange for unemployment benefits that would cost 30 billion. What a great fucking deal, right?

[SDuderstadt]

26. You're leaving out a great amount of detail

Is that on purpose?

[Name removed]

174. Deleted message

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

[SDuderstadt]

28. Self-delete n/t

[NYC Liberal]

112. Because attacking Democrats and ignoring the Republicans

is the "in" thing these days.

[SDuderstadt]

113. Exactly...

it's getting really tiring.

[NYC Liberal]

114. The justification for attacking Democrats 2009-2010 was that they

held the majority in Congress.

But now the Repugs control half of Congress -- the half that controls spending -- yet I only hear how horrible the Democrats are and how everything they do is wrong.

What's the new excuse?

[FedUp_Queer]

185. It's called LEADERSHIP...

Andrew Cuomo pushed through the same-sex marriage bill with a GOP Senate. Obama couldn't push anything controlling both. One is a leader, and one is not. I sat here and watched the Senate goings-on in New York State (in my little old NYC apartment) and followed it constantly with the Stonewall Democratic Club. The bottom line is that one person lead and pushed and pushed pushed the other cow-towed and let the GOP (who was in the GD minority) push him and push him and push him. Obama laid the track for the train ride for the destruction of Social Security. He could have had the tax cuts absent the portion that went to the rich, and he squandered it. Only Nixon could go to China. Only Obama could destroy Social Security. Yeah!

[NYC Liberal]

187. So you think the national Republicans in the national legislature

are in any way comparable to local Republicans in a pretty liberal state?

Obama has Michelle Bachmann, Paul Ryan, and a whole bunch of right-wing, tea bagger nut jobs to contend with. Cuomo does not. Obama also has many Blue Dog Democrats who vote with those Republicans. And Obama has the resources of the entire national GOP and right-wing groups opposing him; Cuomo does not.

No offense to Cuomo, whom I like, but Obama has accomplished much more facing much more opposition than Cuomo has. Obama is a leader. Cuomo is a leader. Anonymous posters on the Internet? Not so much.

And when more criticism is directed at Democrats every day than is at Republicans, I call bullshit. I call bullshit when more time is spent tearing down Democrats than tearing down Republicans. Because the result is the same: Democrats lose and Republicans win. It matters not what the reasons are. The result is the same.

[FedUp_Queer]

280. Have you ever left New York City?

I didn't grow up in New York City. I grew up in a "red" state. Lived much of my life in another "red" state. Hate to tell you, but upstate New York (the state's "red" portion doesn't look a whole lot different than "real" red states...with the GOPers to match). Try it. You will see teabaggers all over the place. What you are saying is just plain nonsense. Get out of the City more. Finally, your crap about "tearing down Democrats" etc. is just that, crap. I don't care what party the president or anyone is. I look at they DO.

Let's recap:

Gitmo...still open...and Bagram getting bigger ON OBAMA'S watch.

Afghanistan...still there...no real down...more drone attacks...more civilian deaths..ON OBAMA'S WATCH.

Citizens suing for damages because government spied on them...state secrets means "you can't sue government"...ON OBAMA'S WATCH (oh, and let's not forget that OBAMA'S justice department WENT FURTHER THAN BUSH'S EVER DID IN ASSERTING THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS COMPLETELY IMMUNE FROM SUIT"

Bradley Manning...tortured.

Tax Cuts for the Rich...renewed!!!...ON OBAMA'S WATCH.

ever increasing defense budgets...ON OBAMA'S WATCH.

The same things I know I criticized and protested against Bush for are the same things Obama is doing. Just because a Democrat does the same things does NOT make that person immune from the same criticism. Sorry to say it, but if whether you criticize the same actions depends on who's doing them, that is the very definition of unprincipled.

[RaleighNCDUer]

244. Yeah - defending the indefensible is exhausting, isn't it? nt

[SDuderstadt]

276. "defending the indefensible" = an attempt at "psychic foreclosure"

Instead of debating the facts, just pretend the subject is not debatable.

[BobbyBoring]

212. Had the Dems done anything of substance

When they had it all, that wouldn't be the case. We also wouldn't have 100 Freshman rethugs in the house of Reps.

[SDuderstadt]

216. I'd love to hear your...

detailed strategy, dude.

Lay it out for us.

[NYC Liberal]

251. Tell me: how many "things of substance" have been done under

a Republican majority?

[gateley]

7. It was only extended temporarily (although I agree they shouldn't

have extended it for ONE MINUTE) and "sources" said Boehner agreed not to put up a fight when the NEXT expiration date is looming (which I think is next year?).

[gratuitous]

9. The Hyde Amendment is "temporary" too

But it gets re-authorized every frickin' year, in spite of the fact that women die without access to health care.

[gateley]

24. I'm not talking about the Hyde Amendment. We can't afford to

extend the cuts any longer, and hopefully that will help us put up the inevitable fight (regardless of what Boehner says now, I've no doubt it will rear its ugly head).

That being said, it's criminal that the Hyde Amendment keeps on going - we need to bring awareness and contact our representatives.

[gratuitous]

66. Of course we can't afford another extension

But like the Hyde Amendment, the issue gets demagogued to a fare-thee-well on Fox and other popular media outlets so that it is oversimplified to a nonsensical sound bite that no one ever gets around or questions. In the case of the Hyde Amendment, it's "I don't want my tax dollars paying for abortion." Unsaid is how ridiculously stove-piped the notion of "tax dollars" becomes, and how the concomitant issues of women's health and overpopulation are completely subsumed by the yammering of the anti-abortion forces.

In the same vein, the folks who control public discourse on letting lower tax rates expire are all subject to the horror of paying an additional three cents on the dollar in taxes on their "earnings" above a quarter million dollars a year. Totally lost in the "They're raising your taxes!" yammering is any mention of the history of the tax rate cuts, the two (or three) military actions we're trying to pay for since those rates were cut, and so on and so forth. Like Hyde, there's only one facet of the issue that merits any mention from our librul media.

[gateley]

72. I've said, ad nauseam, that the Dems have to learn how to message

better. So when they are on National News (as opposed to MSNBC that only we watch) they can get the sound bite out regardless of what question it is they're being asked. How many times did the Republicans get "job killing Obama care" out there? Whenever there was a microphone in their face, they always made sure they said those words. That's what the people remember = Obama care kills jobs. We have to learn how to do the same and why they don't is beyond me.

[gratuitous]

100. I suspect

I suspect the reason Democrats don't demagogue the issue (and you can see ample evidence right here at DU) is that when they reduce their counterargument to a sound bite, it's their own putative allies who lead the attack against it. Republicans don't have to lift a finger. Let's say Democrats decided to say "We need to pay for the Bush wars" as a sound bite to return to the former tax rates. It would be other alleged "Democrats" who would be out front, yammering about "supporting the troops" or some other such nonsense as the counterargument. Republicans wouldn't have to say a thing.

[gateley]

102. You're right. Well put! nt

[RaleighNCDUer]

281. Remember that, when it comes time for those taxes to go up

IN AN ELECTION YEAR.

The Bush tax cuts are as good as permanent.

[Davis_X_Machina]

8. That everything was in the hands of people called Democrats..

isn't the same as having everything in the hands of the Democrats.

We have only two labels but at least three parties, certainly in Congress, from which a governing coalition from time to time is cobbled together.

There are:

1. the Democrats who are Democrats,
2. the Democrats who are Republicans
3. the Republicans who are Republicans.

(There used to be Republicans Democrats—Javits, Brooke, Hatfield, Chaffee, Stafford, Jeffords -- but they're extinct.

Obama’s got 1, mostly, most days.

Bush could count on 2 and 3. Which is why he was able to privatize Social Security.

[TDale313]

10. so far...

If this president and the Congressional Dems enable the Republicans in their decades-old effort to undermine/ undo the New Deal, IMHO that will be worse.

[Hydra]

13. Failure?

It was a perfect success. Expect even more cuts in the future...after all, according to the President, Gov't can't make jobs.

We're all going to die because wealth = importance. No wealth = you don't exist.

[Zorra]

14. We have been totally set up by "Third Way" DLC corporate Democrats

and their "corporate friendly liberal" stooges that don't know or can't perceive the difference between a Democrat and a republican.

[TheKentuckian]

27. Make that do not want to. They are willful in the line blurring as much as most of the politicians.

They can perceive the differences quite clearly, those that represent those differences draw their ire.

[dbonds]

36. And they will defend every fuck up and failure to the end...

Then claim that there wasn't any other option because this country has some republiCons. They never look at reality, only try to twist and confuse.

[provis99]

21. DU has plenty of people that defend the Obama tax cuts.

[Enthusiast]

203. And they're wrong......nt

[Tom Rinaldo]

23. And there's not much solace in "I told you so" is there? n/t

[tekisui]

25. Yep. I called it at the time. I knew the social safety nets would be on the

chopping block to pay for Obama's failure.

[indepat]

75. That was the grand scheme in a nutshell: the grand scheme from day-one, I would

proffer. ;) :patriot:

[Enrique]

30. failure? look how many Democratic votes Obama got

Bush didn't get any dem votes when he got the tax cuts. Cheney had to come in and break the tie. Biden got to sleep in when Obama's tax cuts passed.

[cascadiance]

68. Bush and Republicans used budget reconciliation to pass those tax cuts...

... and just at the end we found out that we only could use budget reconciliation once and we'd already used it to negotiate WHAT to get next to nothing to what we might have gotten with the health care bill? We were had when used it then and didn't also work on tax cuts then to just renew the tax cuts for those under $250k then at the same time. That's what you get when you have the Turd Way and DLC remnants f'ing with our party now.

[Gregorian]

38. Not impeaching Bush and Cheney was the worst political failure ever.

Not to diminish what you said. Just to point out the obvious.

[indepat]

80. That's so in the past for a forward-looking nation that primarily only prosecutes whistle

blowers and a few small fry for show. ;) :patriot:

[Gregorian]

110. Really.

If only I could have included my tone of voice in that reply, you'd have sensed the futility.

The term I use for almost everything now is- Madness.

[indepat]

115. I sensed the futility as surely you did mine. Things seems to be getting more

and more Orwellian by the day. ;)

[mr clean]

44. What I don't understand is why is Obama scared of the Republicans?

Putting the taxes back to Clinton times would go a long way in fixing the system, but as long the Rethugs control everything, including Obama, nothing will ever change.

[slay]

46. AND not even TRYING to get us single-payer or a public option

:mad: :grr:

[cascadiance]

108. And we WASTED budget reconciliation for what we got on that without getting a better tax cut bill...

through budget reconciliation that would have really helped Americans by passing the RIGHT set of tax deductions and put in unemployment benefits for TWO years to boot.

Why did our democratic leadership "miss" that we couldn't use budget reconciliation again to do the right thing with the Bush tax cuts. Maybe they didn't "miss" it but the DLC/Turd Way contingent did that as part of "the plan" for their corporate buddies.

[slay]

109. Looks like you've seen through their crap as well

there is just no way the Dems are that stupid/incompetent - i think it was indeed a dlc/thirdway plan all along.

love your sibel edmonds pic! :hug:

[Cali_Democrat]

47. "For two years The Dems controlled everything and all they had to do was nothing"

Exactly.

It boggles the mind.

[JoePhilly]

51. So let's look at the failure.

The House Dems could have passed a bill that extended only the cuts for the middle class.

The Senate could have done the same.

Why didn't this happen?

In the House, bluedog dems were terrified to touch this vote. As a result, no such bill every came to the floor.

In the Senate, same thing. There, all you needed was a Ben nelson, or a Joe Lieberman to vote NO. And that's it. It can't come to the floor.

Nancy could not get enough of her bluedogs to vote on such a bill, and nothing was going to get Nelson or Lieberman to vote yes on such a bill.

Which drops it all in Obama's lap. And if HE let the tax cuts for the middle class expire, he would have been CRUCIFIED, both in the media and on DU. It would be PROOF that he does not care about the middle class, because he took money from them in the middle of a very fragile recovery.

THAT is the political reality.

[EFerrari]

55. And for being abject cowards, those blue dogs were all voted out. n/t

[JoePhilly]

79. Also true ... I think it was a winning issue.

[gkhouston]

60. For starters, a hefty segment of DU *and* of the American public

didn't want the tax cuts extended, so I'm not sure the crucifixion would have been what you imagine. More importantly, if Obama's going to get crucified for something, he should be smart enough to choose something that will actually address our debt situation and help the economy. By not vetoing the tax cuts, they merely kicked the can down the road several months and now Social Security is magically on the table. Oh, but we have DADT--which is still not being observed. Way to horse-trade.

[JoePhilly]

83. Wrong.

Yes, many on Du were against extending them.

And I suspect that you recall that around 70% agreed that YES, let the tax cuts for the rich expire, right?

Except ... when you asked the 95% making under 250k if it was OK to let THEIR tax cuts expire along with those for the rich, they said NO!!!!

Many on DU don't know that. Or pretend not to know it.

btw ... the "trade" was DADT, extending the middle class tax cuts, and extending unemployment insurance.

And ... when DADT is fully gone, what issue will you replace it with when ranting on this topic???

[xphile]

88. Two years of tax cuts for one year of unemployment extensions

(which didn't do anything for the millions who had already run out of unemployment benefits. They were left out in the cold. Not that anyone seems to give a shit) is a really shitty deal, exacerbates the revenue problem, and made it even more difficult to do anything for those who need it because "there's no money" to help them.

Shitty bargains made by waiting until the last goddamned minute with shitty results.

And we'll probably get more of the same. But I suppose we're not supposed to point out how shitty the new shitty deal will be as well.

[gkhouston]

89. Ranting? I suggest you consult a mirror. And there were more

than a few DUers who clearly stated that they were willing to give up their own tax cuts to see the Bush tax cuts expire. But go on living in your fantasy world where the "bargain" we got in December we got was a good deal and the debt ceiling crisis we currently face is a genuine calamity that the President will rescue us from.

[Zorra]

97. 95%? Got a source for that "statistic"?

I seem to recall a much larger percentage of DUers saying that they'd give up their tax cut if it meant ending tax cuts for the rich.

[JoePhilly]

105. The 95% refers to the % of those making under 250k

About 95% of Americans make LESS than 250k a year, and most of them (~70%) support letting the tax cuts for the rich expire, but not if their own taxes go up at the same time. When you add that to the question, their support dropped significantly.

And that question, which was only asked in some of the polls, was the correct question to ask.

Here is one article on this ...

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/09/a_sixth_national_poll_shows_ma.html

Only 31% supported end all tax cuts.

[defendandprotect]

160. Depends on how the question was asked -- and other factors -- as usual, polls

can be gimmicked -- quite easily --

Any rational person would understand that $120 billion/per year in tax cuts for the rich*

would certainly buy us MEDICARE FOR ALL -- which our nation desperately needs --

provably less than half that amount would do it --

and it would save the government money -- end suffering -- and create 2.3 million jobs!!

Wonder if the poll mentioned any of that?


*Also heard today that the Treasury had to go out and borrow that $120 BILLION -- and in

order to draw in the money they had to up the interest rate by a half of a percent!!


We need to get the elites off our back -- and we need MEDICARE FOR ALL ---- NOW!!!

************************************************************************************

[canoeist52]

181. Are you kidding? Most of the people making under 250K

that I know didn't even know that they were GETTING a tax break. Polls,as you probably know, can be skewed by the phrasing of the questions.

[Enthusiast]

205. Millions still actually believe

that Obama raised their taxes. Those tax breaks were pretty small spread out over an entire year's worth of pay checks.

[BobbyBoring]

214. That's true

The guy that pumps my septic told me Obama was taking 60% of his pay check! Here's a guy that makes MAYBE $8.00 an hr. Not the brightest bulb but still, it shows how powerful propaganda is!

[ctsnowman]

231. It always makes me sad

when I see some poor guy making $8 hr. listening to rush etc all day say stupid chit like that. There is not enough time to teach them how wrong they are. You just gotta let it go.

[defendandprotect]

158. Obama has no right to be "trading" anything -- especially DADT which is a human right ....

All of this is out of balance -- and nuts --

Our main view of Obama since 2008 has been him chasing down the GOP to beg them to do

something -- and waving a white flag of surrender!

Don't know what info your suggesting re those making less than $250,000 -- but the American

public certainly wants taxes increased on the wealthy -- and corporations!

And certainly with our Goebbels' style corporate press the public isn't getting any reliable

info what's going on in the nation --

[Enthusiast]

204. Nice post! nt

[sendero]

129. Whereas..

... a president like drooling Bush could make his party toe the line almost every time. It's called LEADERSHIP and Obama has NONE OF IT

[SDuderstadt]

131. Bullshit...

we have a much more diverse party and, unlike the GOP, there is a wide variety of viewpoints. Bush had the success he did because the GOP is far more cohesive.

Maybe you should learn more about coalition parties.

[sendero]

139. There is always...

... an excuse for ABJECT FAILURE. You go ahead and keep making them and believing them, I'll believe my lying eyes.

[SDuderstadt]

143. Dude..

your "lying eyes" see a greatly oversimplified situation in place of the actual greatly complicated one that was there.

[U4ikLefty]

175. sometimes a duck is just a duck

dud

[olegramps]

236. Let me ask you, honestly do you think that Obama is an effective leader?

I think that perhaps he has appeared too often publicly and that he should have limited his access to major issues in which he clearly explained to the citizens just what was at stake. FDR's fireside chats were limited in number and used to inform the public on key issues. The explanations should be simple and direct. I think that he loses the people's interest when he goes on and on and overly complicates the issues. It seems to me, I am just an average citizen, that it wouldn't be too complicated for him to clearly explain that the Republicans are unwilling to make the wealthy pay their fair share and are doing it at the expense of the average Joe Six-pack who they don't give a damn about. I have listened to FDR's messages and found them to be very clear. He was unequivocal in that he welcomed the hatred of the wealthy and was determined to break their greedy hold on the economy and provide the working class with hope for a better future.

[SDuderstadt]

238. Yes n/t

[TheKentuckian]

141. I doubt the Turd Way fans would crucify Obama over the tax cuts going away

I know I wouldn't have because I never wanted any of them passed and certainly was against re-upping on them because they are horrendous policy.

The only thing I favor is strong relief for the bottom offset by increases on the top bracket or better yet the creation of a new top bracket.

Other than that I'm driving the bandwagon for expiring the whole deal. If someone is serious about low income relief they can deal with it from a blank slate.

[grahamhgreen]

262. Bullsh!t. The reality is he would have walked away a hero.

[Palmer Eldritch]

65. You must have very limited political experience.

[fascisthunter]

77. maybe not, what difference does it make?

counter the argument with something other than a put-down.

[mythology]

168. A post this obviously ill-informed doesn't exactly merit a well thought out response

But off hand, millions of Germans voting for Hitler, the US dropping the atomic bombs, killing the Native American populations, the Missouri compromise, the decision of the Confederate states to try to secede, the treaty of Versailles, England trying to maintain its empire, and any number of choices made by communist governments in eastern Europe.

Most of those decisions resulted directly in many people dying.

[fascisthunter]

272. I have no idea what you are trying to say to me

[Scurrilous]

67. Ever?

:rofl:

[MissDeeds]

69. Sickening isn't it?

K&R

[WinkyDink]

74. It was the death-knell for a successful Obama Administration.

[Harmony Blue]

82. It will have consequences for the next administration for sure too

It just prolonged the recession with these tax cuts, and puts many important government programs in danger. The damage can't be quantified until maybe 30 years out.

[hifiguy]

90. Indeed it was.

That is the point at which I lost my last faith in the Current Occupant.

[fascisthunter]

76. And This is Why I Think we are all being Lied to

[loyalsister]

78. I see that perspective...

But my unemployed friend was relieved to be able to by xmas gifts for her kids.

[QC]

81. It's not a failure when one does something on purpose. n/t

[tekisui]

85. Good point. It may have been his greatest success.

[defendandprotect]

162. +1000% ---

[Johonny]

87. I agree

Last December lead to this summers pain.

[Renew Deal]

91. Finally someone points out that it's not just Obama...

[JHB]

92. No. Failure to break up the Republican voting phalanx was key to all the others...

Republicans in congress have been voting as a bloc with near Soviet-grade conformity to the Party Line for over a decade now. It's the key to their radicalism. If more than a token were willing to break with the party the wingnuts would be standing on quicksand.

Yet the Democratic party leadership treats this as immutable, that there's only one shot to change it every 2 or 6 years.

Where is the effort to put pressure on them as individuals constantly? Even where you won't get much traction about them opposing a Democratic majority or president, you can go after their independence ("if he votes with these other guys every single time, is he working for you?"). And with this debt limit fight? Go to the businessmen in their districts and let them know who's going to have to take a raincheck on getting paid on their contracts ("Care to guess on who's going to have to take a backseat on getting their cash up front if this gets held up? You, or Martin Marietta? and Bechtel? and Boeing? and General Electric?")

Make them sweat as individuals, and enough can be cracked loose to break the stranglehold.

The Great Wall of Elephant Dung can be undermined, but it needs actual mining to work.

[European Socialist]

95. Lots of things in politics seem simple, but really aren't...

But getting rid of the Bush Tax Cuts seemed like a no-brainer, and was a no-brainer.

[ClarkUSA]

96. Bullshit. I'm glad Pres. Obama had more compassion than to let the long-term unemployed suffer...

... without a UI extension in order to justify screwing the rich out of some pocket change.

Being POTUS and members of the only responsible political party in DC is rarely as simplistic as a three-sentence OP would make it out to be.

[hvn_nbr_2]

98. Blowing a 10-run lead in the 9th...by intentionally walking 14 batters. nt

[kentuck]

99. Being compassionate is a good quality...

But Democrats should have let the Bush taxcuts expire and jump all over the shit of the Republicans until they renewed the unemployment benefits. It was just before the election. It would have helped the Democrats - maybe have kept them the House? But look at where we are now? It was a very unwise decision with long-lasting effects. The deficit would have already decreased by a trillion dollars if they had done the right thing and got rid of that destructive piece of crap.

[gateley]

119. Yeah, we should have. But we didn't. We should have done (or

not done) a lot of things, but we have to be pragmatic and play the hand we dealt ourselves.

[NYC Liberal]

111. "All they had to was nothing" - yes, and screw over millions of

middle-class and working-class Americans in the process, which is what the Republicans tried to do.

[SDuderstadt]

130. I would really love to see...

some of our fellow DUers negotiate with the GOP. I'm pretty sure their claims that "we just need to get tough" or "we just need to grow a spine" would go away pretty quickly.

[NYC Liberal]

133. I love when FDR is held up as the standard for how Dems should act, when

in fact, FDR was criticized by many liberals of his day for being too moderate, for "capitulating," and for not being "liberal enough."

Liberals also wanted to primary FDR in the 1936 election.

Sound familiar? :rofl:

[SDuderstadt]

135. Yep....n/t

[russspeakeasy]

166. Your "tag" line is appropriate.

[Dawgs]

220. Consequences of extending tax cuts will make things much worse. n/t

[NYC Liberal]

249. Temporarily extending them to save unemployment benefits

for millions and tax cuts for the middle class was absolutely the right thing to do.

[Dawgs]

267. Different than ending tax cuts for the rich. n/t.

[NYC Liberal]

268. That was the deal, forced by the obstructionist Republicans. n/t

[Blasphemer]

116. No, the worst will be if Obama does not get re-elected

And it seems unbelievably likelier by the day. After what the GOP did for 8 years under Bushco's rule, it is a shocking failure that just 4 years later a Democratic president is putting himself in a position to lose an election that he would easily win with even just an above average level of competency. Retaining the Senate was going to be hard as it is, team Obama seems ready to hand the Senate, House AND Presidency back to the GOP.

[newspeak]

122. the point is that the expiration of Little Boot's obscene tax cuts

should not have even been tied to extending unemployment benefits. It sounds like an excuse to keep the tax cuts by tying it together. Like some mob boss shakedown, "hey, we won't break all those little guys knuckles if you get us our payoff."

Every time there is compromise, the people are the ones to take the kick in the butt.

[SDuderstadt]

125. If you have a scenario for how it could have gone down differently....

by all means, share it with us. Please be specific.

[GoCubsGo]

124. Worse than lying the country into a war?

You're fucking kidding us, right?

[defendandprotect]

163. One makes the other better or worse .... ???? You're kidding, right?

[saras]

171. Like Obama hasn't pulled that one a couple of times already? How many countries are we killing in?

I could care less whether it's labeled a "war" or not. If the USA sent soldiers there to kill people, or if we shoot our weapons into that country, it's a war. Are we in more or fewer countries than in 2004?

[Anakin Skywalker]

127. EPIC FAIL!

[fascisthunter]

148. neeb-nyub

[bloomington-lib]

132. I could be wrong but I believe the pubs would have had a lot harder time winning 2010

if Obama would have let the cuts expire. Listening to the GOP and extending them, along with other follow-alongs, took the wind out of the Obama sail. Libs seemed to not be as energized for the vote and I believe that was the pubs goal.

[SDuderstadt]

134. The GOP had already won....

2010, before the cuts were due to expire.

Check your calendar.

[bloomington-lib]

138. There was talk of letting it happen leading up to the race.

Same as talk leading up to the probable cuts in Medicare and SS. The writing is always on the wall before it actually happens. You weren't caught off guard when the actual vote took place were you?

Dated Sept 23rd
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4551177

[SDuderstadt]

142. How do you...

"let it expire" if the expiration date has not occurred yet??

[bloomington-lib]

146. The delayed vote was to extend the cuts to those making less than

250,000. They delayed the vote until after the election which is one of reasons in my opinion that people cared so little about showing up. People questioned who's side the Dems were really on. Read some of the comments in the link and if you want check out more from that time period. People were pissed. I see what you're saying, but what I'm saying is by backing down to see what happens after the 2010 election, people felt let down and therefor didn't show up.

If that's not what happened I'd like to know what you think about why people (dems,libs) were so pissed before the election took place.

[robinlynne]

136. YES!

[Samantha]

140. Repealing the Bush* Tax Cuts would have saved the U.S.

government I believe about 4 trillion over 10 years (due to increased revenue receipts). Now that would have been just as big of a bonanza as the current haggling could bring without the pain and suffering of all of these weeks of threats, fear-mongering, etc. I guess that just would have been too boring...we need drama in our political arena to convince the public the politicians are earning their keep. Right.

Sam

[crim son]

144. I don't believe the rethugs would have been willing, in the end,

to deny an extension of the unemployment benefits, and since I don't believe it, Obama's failure on this one issue changed my perception of him. Since then there has been no reason to believe again in his story about Change.

[SDuderstadt]

145. Based upon what???

They had the majority in the next legislative session.

If you think the GOP is wary of flexing its political muscle, I'd suggest you observe the current Congress very carefully.

It's really easy to say "I don't think the GOP would have been willing to deny an extension of unemployment benefits". You're assuming they are rational political actors. Try saying that to one of your constituents after you'd just called the GOP's bluff and they won.

[olegramps]

242. Let's assume that they wouldn't pass a bill to extend unemployment benefits:

Do you think that this would have endeared them to the majority of citizens? I would venture to say that it would have resulted in their out right condemnation of being the heartless bastards that the are who only care for extremely wealthy. What would have happened if Obama vetoed the bill and told the congress to pass a bill extending the unemployment benefits? I think that their is ample evidence that the citizens would have supported him.

[SDuderstadt]

246. You are assuming it's a critical issue to...

the average citizen, other than those that are unemployed. There are far too many people who are not sympathetic to the unemployed.

Don't confuse the way you think about things for the way the average American thinks about things.

[paparush]

147. Bush would be on TV every freaking day pounding the same message over and over again.

And ya know what? Most of the time, Bush got what he wanted.

I want to see Obama stand up for me. I want to see him get angry and defend my wife and my son.

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results.

Does Obama have Stockholm Syndrome?

[SDuderstadt]

150. "Does Obama have Stockholm Syndrome?"

Oh, please.

[roberto IS beto]

149. Worst political AND worst economic failure

Ever.

[julian09]

151. That would have gotten rid of middle class tax cuts as well

Unemployment compensation would not have been extended. He was in same ransom situation as he is now. Will he stand his ground this time, let markets crash, interest rates rise on mortgages, credit cards, US credit ratings downgraded causing deeper deficit problems. Kill the already limping housing market. Banks aren't lending now in modest recovery, will they lend when we are back in another recession or worse.

[harun]

183. This is why you don't negotiate with terrorists. The demands never end.

You got to stand up to them and let the chips fall where they may.

[pnwmom]

152. Maybe the word about this didn't get out to everyone in Europe.

But we never had control of the Senate, because of the filibuster. At the time when we had the most votes, Lieberman was an Independent who had beaten the Democrat in the general election. More often than not, he voted with the Rethugs from that point on. Without him on board, it was impossible to overcome a filibuster.

[defendandprotect]

164. Stop -- Must be a magic wand that keeps Dems losing whether they're majority or minority ...!!!

AND JUST THE OPPOSITE FOR THE REPUGS -- !!!


:rofl: ---



It's over --

[pnwmom]

176. It's simple arithmetic. In the Senate, 41 votes can defeat 59.

That's the reality of the filibuster.

[defendandprotect]

269. The reeality is 51 votes is the majority -- and no one was made to filibuster ...

were they?

[saras]

154. Nah - not getting rid of the Patriot act has more, worse, long-term consequences

The Bush tax cuts screwed America. And we're almost out of money.

The Patriot act screwed the world. And it's still out there, working with what was our money.

[defendandprotect]

165. Neither of them makes the other better or worse ... it just LENGTHENS THE LIST OF DISASTERS -- !!

[davidwparker]

155. Not getting rid of the Bush tax cuts needs to get behind

not prosecuting the previous admin for war crimes.

No justice. No peace.

[defendandprotect]

156. +1 --

[pansypoo53219]

159. please god. END THEM ALL IN 2012.

we do not need zombie bush TOO!

[BOHICA12]

161. Would have ment one less girl in college ....

... my daughter. Could not have afforded the increase and the college costs. Family income below 100K ... no Pell, only medallion Bright Futures.

Would have cut the heart out of the middle-class when we could take little or no surgery.

[Tx4obama]

167. Under Obama the dems had 60 votes in the Senate for only 49 days.

Senator Al Franken was sworn in July 2009 and Teddy Kennedy died in August 2009.

So, your OP is WRONG.

The democrats did NOT control everything for two years.

[Drale]

169. I disagree in 150 years when we are all dead

no one is going to remember the Bush Tax Cuts, but people will always remember that Hoover caused the Great Depression by doing nothing or possible it might be common knowledge that Bush lied to start the Iraq war and did it so his friends could make tons and tons of money.

[amborin]

170. unconscionable

[Major Hogwash]

172. After the elections! They put it off until after the mid-term elections!! Boneheads!

I couldn't believe they put it off until they were thrown out of office!!
Well, that'll teach ya.
Go into Congress promising to act like a liberal, get tossed out for acting like a neocon!!

Dumbass bluedawgs!!
Dumb, dumb, dunb!!

[Skittles]

177. ABSOLUTELY FUCKING CORRECT

[Deep13]

178. Reagan Jr. nt

[Nothing Without Hope]

180. One of the indications that the government is controlled by

corporatists. Very bad, one of many very.

[harun]

182. Sadly we learnt who the Dem's really represent, and it ain't us.

[Hubert Flottz]

186. And now the Centrist democrats want the seniors to pay for those

extended cuts.

[somone]

188. Obama did what he was put in office to do for his base

the haves and have-mores

[JDPriestly]

191. European Socialist, now you are on to something, right on to something.

That is the absolute truth. Why didn't the Democrats do anything about this when they had a majority in both houses? Because there are too many Blue Dog Dems in our party. They get elected because they have a D after their names, but they aren't really Democrats at all. They are a bunch of phonies. We need to have union-picks in every congressional district.

The AFL-CIO should rate every Democrat and when the Democrats don't measure up should run a real loudmouth union favorite in the primary. We should use the Tea-Party trick.

[Divine Discontent]

193. +1 my friend

[ScottLand]

194. "Failure" is too kind a word, closer to "betrayal".

[Enthusiast]

195. That was the day Obama lost me.

If that was not bad enough, he proposed a FICA tax holiday. Now why would he do that? Allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire would have solved the deficit problem. Extending unemployment benefits only solved a short term problem for a limited number of people. Obama made a horrible decision.

[Clear Blue Sky]

197. They failed to act when they had a majority. Now what?

[treestar]

217. The Democrats did not control everything

You have a lot to learn

[Doctor_J]

218. Also a complete moral failure

Although more of a political failure. As wishy-washy as Bill Clinton is, he never would have signed off on that turkey.

[SDuderstadt]

219. Maybe you missed the press conference where...

he supported it wholeheartedly.

http://www.google.com/search?gl=us&source=mog&tbs=vid%3A1&tbm=vid&q=clinton+on+obama+tax+deal&aq=f&oq=&aqi=-k0d0t0&fkt=1936&fsdt=17913&cqt=&rst=&htf=&his=&maction=

[lobodons]

222. 1 month

Dems had control of "everything" for 1 frickin month. It was the 1 month after Al Franken was finally seated and before Ted Kennedy died. Other than that, the GOP has had control of the Senate with their 41 votes.

[Dept of Beer]

225. But if we let the tax cuts expire for everybody then it might have cost

the Dems the 2010 election.

Oh, wait...

[iamthebandfanman]

237. yep.

we were sold out so the rich could get richer, and now we are ALL (besides them of course) going to pay for it.

i dont think people here, let alone the rest of the country, understand what impact its really going to have on all of us down the road.

it was a huge mistake and a broken promise that i dont know if i can forgive.

[SDuderstadt]

239. What a ridiculous...

oversimplification.

[olegramps]

245. Please inform me just why there could not have been separate bills?

[SDuderstadt]

248. You are assuming there weren't separate...

bills. The House and Senate often take up legislation as a package. There ate many good resources where you can learn how Congress works.

In the meantime, if it was really SD simplevas people imply it was, don't you think the Dems would have done that?

[avaistheone1]

247. HUGE recommend on this one.

It was obvious this needed to be done, yet Obama and the party leadership failed.

[masonjason22]

252. +1

Let's hope Barack obama can get rid of the tax cuts sooner rather than later

[Doctor_J]

255. He also doubly screwed himself and the Dems, since

the UE benefits were extended for only one year, and the tax cuts for two. So next year during the campaign people's unemployment benefits will be expiring, and those people will be pissed, while the tax cuts roll merrily on.

[mother earth]

256. Yes, that one was ridiculous, and would've been a game changer.

K & R

[grahamhgreen]

260. Exactly, and we told them it was at the time, but would they listen? Noooooooo.

[kestrel91316]

264. It's a WIN for the folks who actually run this country. America:

Of the 2%. By the 2%. For the 2%.

[mmonk]

265. It's where any way to win ended.

[backtomn]

266. I agree completely......

....even if you supported extending the cuts, you would need to agree that this puts Obama in a bind. Only 6 months later, he sees tax increases as critical.....doesn't make much sense. If you are consistent, you don't need to remember what you last advocated.

[yurbud]

271. I wonder why they couldn't let Bush tax cuts expire then simply put up a bill re-instating them for

middle class and below.

Then the GOP would have been forced to vote against tax cuts for the middle class.

The only answer I can think of to my own question is the right has the media microphone and so can set the narrative of whatever happens, and if Obama and Dems do something right, it will either be distorted or ignored.

[Major Hogwash]

282. Are you out of your freakin' mind today, or what??

That would make too much freakin' sense!!

The lamestream media lies to everyone!!!
Haven't you been listening to Sister Sarah for the last 2½ years??

By the way, pass the tambourine around the tent when she is done speaking.
Got a rented bus to pay for, ya know.

LoL