Obama shouldn't have had to broker a tax deal...this was Congress's failure.

[dkf]

All the House Dems who are up in arms needed to find common ground with the Senate. Because they couldn't Obama was forced to step in to broker a deal that he shouldn't have had to take the heat over.

Now the base is mad at Obama? Gimme a break.

If you are mad realize that your ideas must be approved by a fairly moderate-conservative Senate. Ruminate on how realistic that is and think about Blanche Lincoln and Mary Landrieu and all the rest of the Dems that give us a heartburn.

Your ideas need their vote. Be real.

[w4rma]

1. And Congress was about to broker a deal, but Obama undercut them with this. (nt)

[dkf]

7. They had two years!

Or were they going to let it lapse and leave us all in limbo for who knows how long?

I swear I was told they would never let the estate tax expire for the entirety of 2010 but they did! You only think maybe they could get something done.

[Ichingcarpenter]

8. Obama dealt and negotiated with Attila the Hun

and did it poorly, the gates of Rome are open.

[Statistical]

22. ROFL. They had 2 years did NOTHING and 15 days before the cuts would expire Obama undercut them.

Denial isn't just a river in Egypt.

[bahrbearian]

46. Would it have been so bad to let them expire?

[Statistical]

58. A gigantic tax increase on poor & middle class in middle of largest recession in history.

Yeah what could have gone wrong.

The reduction in post-tax income would be about -$300B. That is $300B not spend on goods & services. Especially at the lower income range where essentially all income is spent.

$300B in aggregate demand gone means $300B less jobs needed by employers. Think they are even going to keep employment stable seeing $300B worth of revenue disapear.

The economy is far to fragile barely growing above stall speed to absorb a shock like that. You want to see complete Republican (60+ votes in Senate, another 20 seats in House, and Presidency) control in 2012. Well that is what you would be looking at as "the Obama tax increase on middle class pushes US economy into double dip recession" would be the headline.

[LooseWilly]

55. The threat of letting them expire might've won a reasonable deal...

Instead, Obama blinked, blanched, and gave away the store... I'm sure the Republicans are all wishing they had employees who negotiated their pay like Obama negotiates with them... cowardly.

[MannyGoldstein]

2. Obama shut Congress out

And made a deal that many think is very, very bad.

[lamp_shade]

10. and it's a damn good thing he did.

[Marr]

27. How so? Could he have conceivably "negotiated" a worse deal?

Admit it-- Obama anxiously gave away the cow in exchange for some magic beans.

[JoePhilly]

20. He didn't shut them out, they RAN AWAY!!!!

The House and Senate DEMS made themselves irrelevant by PUNTING this issue into the lame duck.

They should have used it as an issue BEFORE the mid-terms when they had leverage.

Holding symbolic votes in the lame duck was just more weakness.

[MannyGoldstein]

28. Perhaps the strategy was to wait

The Republicans would have been in a world of pain had they allowed the tax cuts to expire and not renewed unemployment benefits. They had to do it, or suffer horribly - which is why they're so giddy over this. Obama totally saved their asses.

Obama's now expecting a quid pro quo for saving their asses. Good luck with that, Barack.

[JoePhilly]

38. Don't buy it.

First, the Republicans do not care about the unemployed at all. Period. And, most of the middle class doesn't really care either. What they wanted more than anything else was to keep their personal tax cuts. And anything else in there is only interesting to them if it effects their personal bottom line, today.

The Republicans would have simply let the tax cuts expire, and then push a new, even worse compromise bill through the GOP controlled House. The Dems in the Senate, now only a statistical majority, really a minority when we count blue dogs, would work out an even worse deal to pass in the Senate.

They would dare Obama to veto it, holding that pledges to not raises taxes on those under 250k again.

As for his expecting a quid pro quo ... ridiculous.

Obama doesn't expect the GOP to act any different today, than they did before he signed this bill. It is only folks on DU pushing that meme. Its a weak straw-man that doesn't stand.

[MannyGoldstein]

39. We'll agree to disagree. nt

[ThomCat]

47. Actually, part of the stated strategy was to hold the Republicans

here over the Christmas holiday, because every additional day they were hear closer to the break, and over break, the more they were willing to negotiate. Many of the republicans just wanted to go home, and were willing to deal just to go home.

Politicians who are used to their ease and comforts don't like being held over in DC, being made to do extra work, when most of their aids are gone and everything else is closed, and it is the holidays, and they are missing everything because works is stalled. Staying late apparently really is a strong incentive to get stuff done.

Obama short-circuited that pressure by cutting a fast deal, and it was a deal that gave the republicans Everything They Wanted. Everything They Asked For! :wtf:

If Obama had been strong enough, courageous enough, and tough enough to wait and say NO, and start his negotiation position by offering the republicans nothing, and incrementally offering them very small improvements, instead of starting by offering them everything and then giving them more, we could have had a great tax deal instead of this lump of coal Obama ended up giving us.

Starting every negotiating by giving your opponent everything, or nearly everything they want "to get them to come to the table" is a really shitty negotiating strategy. Your opponent is always going to come to the table. You don't have to pay them to come! You don't agree to start from your opponent's position and then agree to give additional concessions to so that you keep moving further to the right from there! That's the dumbest negotiating tactic of any president we've ever had!

:wtf:

[bahrbearian]

48. As a 99er I hate the deal, My wife is a 43er.

We don't fall for the credit card scams,or Zero down deals.

[Bluerthanblue]

3. "Yes WE Can!" not 'yes he can' - I don't think your

message will be very well received DKF, but that doesn't make it any less true.

Pres. Obama takes the heat for the failure of our party as a whole. It shouldn't be that way, but sadly it is-

K&R

[BlueJac]

4. The deal maker blew up congress......

shameful.

[TheKentuckian]

5. We didn't need a deal. We could simply do nothing on taxes. No approval required.

The conservatives in the Senate wanted to maintain the status quo and we ran on ending it.

The deal was just surrendering. Nothing was the best plan on taxes.

[Toucano]

11. BIngo!

The Republicans took the legislature hostage.

[MindandSoul]

14. Yes. We could have done that. But then, in January when the Republicans are stronger

They would have come back with a NEW bill that might have included even greater "donations" to the wealthy and BIG business (instead of a deal that included assistance for the unemployed and for SMALL business).

And they would have been strong enough to pass this "new" tax cut. . .maybe permanently. And what could the we have done. . .REJECT the tax cuts for the poor and the lower middle class because we didn't like the new deal??? We wouldn't even have had the voice to reject ANYTHING!

No, I don't like it either, but this needed to pass now. .. or it would have been much worse next year!

[Marr]

29. Obama would have to sign it. You're acting like a Republican majority in the House

can just steamroll the government and force anything they want through. DLC Democrats would love for you to believe that, but it just isn't so.

[TheKentuckian]

35. That is what the Senate and the veto pen are for.

What do we say? No!

What do we do? Deny the claim!!!

I think defenders misdiagnose the situation. If TeaPubliKlans have that much hand then they wouldn't have made a deal now. They made the deal because they wanted or needed it or they would have waited until next month when they could dictate.

[TheKentuckian]

54. VETO and FILIBUSTER

You use the tools you have to stop it all dead.

[dkf]

15. Or you could say Obama ran on not increasing taxes for the middle class.

His two campaign promises couldn't be passed as a whole. He had to figure out which one to choose.

[JoePhilly]

23. Correct ... and few on DU get it.

If the middle class tax cuts expire, its his "read my lips" moment. And that would be the media framing from now until Nov 2012.

The middle class doesn't care about the cuts for the rich. They don't care a bout deficits. They vote their own pocketbook.

[Marr]

30. Two problems with that:

1) I don't think we should be undermining Social Security or bankrupting the country with handouts to the rich just to protect Barack Obama's image.

2) Obama has been backtracking on his campaign issues since Day One. Sometimes he even denies ever having supported those things. So I really don't see how the "but he said he'd do X" carries any water.

[JoePhilly]

34. Not so much.

Regarding #1 ... the main goal is to get more money into the economy in the immediate term. That does so. I know, I know, Obama is about to end Social Security ... blah blah blah.

Regarding #2 ... not from what I find here ... http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

I suppose that you can demand that every promise must be fulfilled, in total, and in 2 years, not in 4 or 8. But that seems a bit impossible to do, particularly given the 50/50 split in Congress (I count the blue dogs as Rs, and I think everyone should).

[Marr]

37. So in a nutshell...

...you support the Bush Tax Cuts, don't give a shit about the undermining of Social Security, and don't think it's a big deal to fail to achieve a campaign promise-- except when it supports your argument. Then it's vitally important.

Gotcha.

[JoePhilly]

42. Why put words in my mouth? Having a bad day?

I don't support the cuts for the rich, those suck, as do the estate tax provisions.

I like the extension of the middle class tax cuts, those under 250k need the money. I also like the extension of UE, and the extension of some of the elements from the original stimulus.

I'm ambivalent about the SS tax holiday. Unlike some on DU, its does not cause me to flip out. It puts money in the hands of working people now, which is likely to have a short term stimulative effect. I could have done without it, but it does not cause me any anxiety.

The provision in the bill with the greatest potential political is the extension of the middle class tax cuts because of the promises Obama made in this space, that is the one he pushed hardest. No increase of taxes for those making under 250k. He said that over and over. Tons of video on it. If that expires and the political fall out is huge because that was a promise he made to 95% of all Americans. Extend those, and the political fall out on any other aspect of this bill is minimal. Most Americans SUPPORT the compromise, and my point above explains why.

Hope that helps.

[LooseWilly]

56. The tax cuts for the middle class aren't that huge, but letting Republicans take the blame?

If they obstruct?... how is that bad? the $500 per child under 17 difference in the child care credit... is that worth sacrificing all the revenue of the elimination of the 33% top marginal tax rate (potentially rising to 39%), not to mention the 15% cap on capital gains taxes( which would rise to the levels of ordinary income), for the wealthiest — which would've meant money that the feds could've used to help states with their recession related deficits so they could continue to pay for social programs like education (how many teachers, fire fighters, and even police, could be kept on the job with a careful allocation of those funds?).

Do you really think that the elimination of this tax break would break the economy? I don't. Do you really believe all the money the government would have, and the stimulus spending it could then make, wouldn't more than make up for it? I think it would much more than make up for the loss of half of the chid tax credit.

Do you really believe that the continued availability of the accelerated depreciation for business will create a new boom of business investment (one that won't just involve purchasing more equipment from China or what have you)? I don't. In fact, the availability of the §179 limits for depreciation write-offs (with a $250K limit) make the accelerated depreciation benefits of the Obama tax-cut extensions irrelevant for all but the companies who are looking to write-off more than ... $250K worth of capital investments.

And... the Earned Income Credit mentioned doesn't even affect the "middle class", because they don't qualify. Those who do qualify would be much better off if the feds had more money to allocate to states to cover their hemorrhaging deficits so they could continue to provide the social services (medicaid, education, HUD §8 housing subsidies, etc.), rather than with a little spending cash that won't amount to enough to cover these same expenses at Full Market Value once the subsidies are cut because the states don't have the money.

And the Social Security tax holiday is an awful precedent to set, which undermines the very viability of Social Security in the long run by creating the impression in the public's mind that even Democrats consider the fund to be negotiable... if a Republican had proposed this the board would be up in arms... why not just go ahead and reduce the marginal tax rate at all levels below that of the $106,800 Social Security tax cap? It has the same effect, but doesn't carry the same precedent. Of course, we all know why, unless we're in denial and pretending that this president's deal wasn't dictated to him by the Republicans who've long wanted to eliminate social security... or at least force it to be invested through Wall St. (as Bush wanted to do, and this board went apeshit about).

Unfortunately, the US population isn't as idiotic as the statisticians would have us believe. The statistics about the effects of a 2% tax cut are all based on previous performances, and I'm sure you realize this if you think about it. In the current state of the economy, however, those who have jobs are all too often worried about them being off-shored... and many are facing over-abundant credit card and other debts, not to mention probable underwater housing... they aren't going to use a meager 2% tax cut to "live it up" and spend to stimulate the economy, they're going to use it to try to stabilize the hemorrhaging of their personal financing situation (and good on them for all the good it will do them), but it will not stimulate fuck all.

And as for the unemployed... even the Republicans wouldn't've been likely to have the cajones to cut unemployment during the Christmas season... there are plenty of unemployed Republicans. If they did, then they could bear all the political brunt, while the increased revenues from increased taxes on the rich (or everyone in the "middle class" with kids) could be used to help states stabilize cuts to services (and jobs) which might be as useful... and the anger could be useful too... just as it will no doubt be useful in 13 months when it runs out (unless Obama negotiates a deal... though, shy of requiring that the unemployed fellate the rich to continue to receive their checks, I'm not sure what else there is to sell out).

If the majority of Americans wherever you live support extending the tax cuts for all just for some extra money for themselves for their children, then they really need a voice to explain to them how awful the extensions are policy-wise, though I gather you're not the one likely to tell them.

Too bad you're not likely to help more. <string of expletives deleted>

[bahrbearian]

50. When the repugs start attacking the Deifict again, there will be no money for the Economy..

in the immediate term. blah blah blah

[bahrbearian]

49. Those middle class tax cut that chimpy gave me put $20 a week in my pocket.

The tax cut that Obama gave me saved me $2000 a year , Fuck Chimpys tax cuts.

[Ichingcarpenter]

16. The Senate is a worthless piece of Shit.

Obama knows this from being there.

He didn't work with the House which is the last bastion
of democracy in our government.

[Statistical]

25. No Democratic senator ran on allowing all tax cuts to expire.

The net effect would have been almost $300B in aggregate demand destroyed.
No economist even the most liberal is going to advocate raising taxes (and lowering demand) in a recession.

Some compromise was necessary.

[Edweird]

6. It was the president furthering his agenda.

[lamp_shade]

9. The bickering and whining would have gone on for weeks. He stopped it. This is the man I voted for.

[Statistical]

26. +1. Compromise is rarely popular. Being a purist is rarely useful.

[Marr]

31. Where exactly is the "compromise"?

From where I'm sitting, it looks like the Republicans get everything they want, and give up exactly nothing. UI would've been extended anyway. The Republicans have repeatedly caved on the issue when it came down to it, because they know blocking it would spell electoral disaster. In fact, I suspect Obama could've done better than a 1 year extension that excludes 99ers, had he chosen to force the issue and actually campaign for it. He would've been assured of getting what we have now at the very least.

The Republicans are already signaling that they'll withdraw their promised support for START, and demanding "compromise" (ie, capitualation) on other issues in exchange for that one. What's more, that's an issue that should be a winner on it's own. There should be no need for compromise.

[bahrbearian]

51. +1

[MindandSoul]

12. I agree with you! And bashing Obama for doing what was the most reasonable to

protect the poor and middle class (even if it was at the advantage of the wealthy also) is absolutely non-productive!

I'm not happy with the outcome either. . .but let's remember where the REAL guilt lies. . .and it is square on the shoulders of the Republicans. . .

And continuing to bash Obama just means that the Republicans win again: They have managed to turn Obama's base against him. . .so that their main goal (to see Obama fail) will be realized!

Time to grow up. . .this is NOT a perfect world, "Change" doesn't happen in a couple of years, not even in 10 years. . .it happens slowly and, in the big spectrum of our Country's history, slowly may mean 15, 25, even 50 years. . . NOT 2 years of a new presidency, not on the back of ONE President, but with the continuation of several good, honest, and intelligent Presidents whose social conscience and vision takes us forward. . .
And the Republicans leader know that. . .this is WHY it is so important for them to make Obama fail. . .because they KNOW he cannot accomplish much in 4 years, but in 8 years. . .he could accomplish a lot more, and if his presidency lasts 8 years and is successful, it is very likely that the following 8 years will also remains in the hands of a decent person, with decent, not extreme but socially forward politics. . .and in 16 years. . .that's when the change begins to really happen!

So. . .keep on bashing Obama. Play in the hands of the Republicans. Act like little children and DEMAND your cookie right now. . .or have a tantrum. But if you continue to do that, YOU are the people who abandon the hope for change!

[lamp_shade]

13. Bravo!

[Ichingcarpenter]

17. I will continue to criticize

I find his rule weak especially him knowing the Senate's bullshit.

[AC_Mem]

18. Exactly!

This is what I have been stating here for a year. Thank you for putting it out there.

Change does not happen overnight and President Obama can NOT do it without our support. We must send energy to him and let him know that we support him. This is the hardest presidency I have ever witnessed in my 52 years on this earth - the least democrats could do is to look at his accomplishments before helping the republicans throw him under the bus.

For those who constantly bash the President, we could have had .... McCain and Palin. And without our support, we could end up with worse in 2012.

Think about that.

Annette

[MindandSoul]

21. Absolutely!

What upsets me the most is that so many of us are ready to turn on the only person who CAN bring change. . .and in this way we join with the people who make this change so hard. . .impossible if we join them!

Now, we know how we feel about the "IQ" of many teabaggers and the rest of Republican "sheep," I am beginning to feel that some among us are not more intellectually endowed that those teabaggers. . .Anger, if misdirected is destructive!
Anger, if properly channelled is a tool for change.

Right now, our anger is misdirected!

[TheKentuckian]

41. He is part of the status quo caucus and a pro establishment global corporatist

He is as resistant to structural change as any conservative.

He doesn't want change but to do clean up at the edges.

Is he serious about regulating the financial sector? No, he favors letting people know how hard they're going to get hosed and make "wise consumer decisions".

Is he serious about civil liberties? Fuck no.

What did he push for health care reform? An overlay of the existing toxic system that depends on us being "wise consumers of health care" rather than putting a heel on the necks of a predatory middleman cartel. Public option??? Hell, we can't even remove the anti-competitive anti-trust exemption.

The man totally buys into the establishment ideology.

[MindandSoul]

43. Sounds to me that you are in the wrong forum. . .did you lose your way to InfoWar???

[TheKentuckian]

44. Hardy Har Har

[MindandSoul]

45. Whatever that mean! You don't make much sense, do you???

[TheKentuckian]

52. You just lack the context or fail to make the connections is all

[JoePhilly]

24. +100000

[Davis_X_Machina]

19. But...

...LBJprimarychallengeFDRcommitteechairsHSTarmtwistingJFKbullypulpit!

[obxhead]

32. Never once did I hear of a meeting with Dems.

No meeting to get them moving on the tax deal.
No meeting with them to get Dems to unite while still in power to push just the middle class and lower tax deal through early.
No use of the bully pulpit to alert the people to the need to get the Congress critters moving on this.
etc

I'll not give you a break.

[Ichingcarpenter]

33. He meet with the Senate and not the house.... the OP is trying

to spin,

[obxhead]

36. He met with Senate Republicans.

He never met with Dems to get them moving or united on the tax issue. At least he never met with them until he brokered a deal with Republicans.

On every major issue Obama goes to the Republicans and gives them a list of what he will concede before he ever talks to a Dem about it.

[Ichingcarpenter]

40. The OP leaves this information Out.

I think its full of crap......but thank you on smelling bullshit.

[The Second Stone]

53. This is America and the OP is entitled to his opinion

I think that Obama negotiated out of weakness and gave up way too much. Either that or it was what he really wanted, which is more likely. It would have been far better for our country in the long run if the deal had never been made.

[Kalun D]

57. Wrong

Obama hasn't led on anything of consequence, except the $700 billion crooked banker "bailout" and extended funding for wars

he has proven himself a winner by defeating the Clintons. He was nowhere to be seen when it came to the majority of his substantial campaign promises.

Where was Obama? Behind closed doors making backroom deals with the corporations that own him and the repugs.