Is it me? Am I the crazy one?
Phew…it isn’t me. The Rude Pundit comforts me.
At some point, at some goddamn ephemeral point in this awful time we’re being forced to live through by the right, this rigged game of Texas hold ’em we’re playing at gunpoint, you gotta stop folding every hand you have. You gotta at least ante up to see what the next cards are.
This time, the Democrats had a pair of aces, man. The polls back the rollback of tax rates to their 1990s level on income over $250,000. Fuck, a CNN poll had only 46% of Republicans supporting tax cuts for the wealthy. And the end of the tax cuts was one of the central tenets of Obama’s campaign. To put it simply, it’s one of the reasons he got elected: because he said that the only responsible thing to do for the economy was to allow the tax cuts to expire so that we can pay for shit that we need.
Here’s speeches he made fucking everywhere on the matter:
November 3, 2008 in Jacksonville, Florida: “I will give a tax break to 95% of Americans who work every day and get taxes taken out of their paychecks every week. And I’ll help pay for this by asking the folks who are making more than $250,000 a year to go back to the tax rate they were paying in the 1990s.”
October 21, 2008 in Miami: “It’s true that I want to roll back the Bush tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans and go back to the rate they paid under Bill Clinton. John McCain calls that socialism. What he forgets is that just a few years ago, he himself said those Bush tax cuts were irresponsible.”
October 10, 2008 in Chillicothe, Ohio: I’ll give a middle-class tax cut to 95% of all workers. And if you make less than $250,000 a year – which includes 98 percent of small business owners – you won’t see your taxes increase one single dime.”
October 5, 2008 in Asheville, North Carolina: “I’ll cover that remaining cost [of health care reform] with a portion of the money I’ll save by ending George Bush’s tax breaks for people making more than $250,000 a year. They’ll go back to paying the kind of rates they paid when Bill Clinton was President. So we’ll get this done responsibly without blowing a hole in our deficit.”
September 18, 2008 in Espanola, New Mexico: “I will cut taxes – cut taxes – for 95% of all working families. My opponent doesn’t want you to know this, but under my plan, tax rates will actually be less than they were under Ronald Reagan. If you make less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increase one single dime.”
(To be fair, when that was his campaign line, he wasn’t promising to let the Bush tax cuts expire on the wealthiest Americans’ income over $250,000. But he was far more explicit before and after.)
July 30, 2008 in Springfield, Missouri: “I’ll pay for my plan – by cutting wasteful spending, shutting corporate loopholes and tax havens, and rolling back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.”
I am sorry – will no one acknowledge the structural problem with making change that exists in the Senate? I don’t understand why conservaDems and Republicans get a pass.
they dont get a pass.
But this is what Obama should have expected. he never really tried to make a stand and prevent this from happening. OF COURSE the scumpublicans thought to bring it to this.
I think we just have a different world view or something. You view conservaDems as the disease, but I see them as a symptom of the disease which is leaderlessness.
He wasted no time.
Before the lame duck session ended, he has shifted himself to be the mediator between Dems and Pubs. More conservative than Dems, less liberal than Pubs. It will be a hard candidate to compete against, that is for sure.
His major challenge will come from within his own party, dissatisfied with his lack of liberalness. . If he can navigate past that, he is home free.
You may be less pissed than me, over today’s kowtowing. But having McConnell as our next Commander In Chief, a scary possibility if the current trends hold true, would be worse.
I don’t think it will happen now.
Different world views? Perhaps.
http://projects.usatoday.com/news/politics/2010/elections/
The problem with the Senate is the 60 person rule… Nothing can get accomplished unless 60% are in agreement.
Most of our landmark legislation, we grew up learning and being proud of… never would have passed….
America voted for change, and a Senate rule stopped change dead. By one single seat.
And yet Bush could get all manner of whacked out, unpopular shit passed. You don’t get the psychology of the sheep that call themselvs the US Senate.
Obama is a so-called “conservadem” who consistently and constantly lied to get elected, and then continued to lie to placate and fool his liberal supporters as long as he could once he was elected.
When it became obvious that he cared more about Wall Street than Main Street and Corporate Welfare over the General Welfare, he (and his supporters) simply started trashing any liberals who pointed this out. Trying again to pawn the blame solely onto so-called “conservadems” now is simply more denial.
The fact is that Bush got his tax cut program through the Senate using a 10 year expiry and reconciliation. There was no reason Obama could not have done the same before the election. But, of course, he did not even try (although he’d probably lie and say he did).
Bush got stuff passed because ConservaDems voted for it. Why is that hard to understand?
As far as promises go – Obama had two competing promises here. One was to make sure that the middle and lower class did not get a tax increase. So he thought that one was more important than rolling back the high income tax breaks. I’m sorry but Democrats blew this tax debate when they refused to vote before the election on these.
Obama has exactly zero votes in Congress. Because of our broken Senate he needs at least 2 Republican votes to get anything passed. That’s just the way things stand. If you want better outcomes from Congress, get a better Congress.
BTW, that survey showed tax cuts for the middle class was the most popular. You know what was least popular? Tax raises for everyone. So given the choice between those two options, he took the more popular one. So if this deal gets scuttled by a right-left alliance you guys are going to have Obama’s back right?
We’ll have to agree to disagree UI. I accept that there are terrible Dems, but Obama WON in Nevada and Virginia, so you need to admit that some of the blame accrues to the President.
Also, I stand by my point that he hasn’t tried to implement his campaign promises on rolling back the Bush tax policies. His opening move is to give up.
Obama had a 60 vote and then a 59 vote caucus in the Senate, far more than Bush ever had. He only needs 50 votes plus Biden to pass anything by reconciliation.
Fact is, Obama never tried. Never even raised the idea despite the fact that Bush used reconciliation to pass 4 major tax bills:
– The 2001 Bush Tax Cuts
– The 2003 Bush Tax Cuts
– Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005
– The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005
As you point out, UI, this could and should have been done before the election. But Obama went AWOL on it again.
I want all the tax cuts to expire now. This current “deal” sucks for the middle class.
Now that we are on the same side A1. You will use “the President” or Mr. Obama or simply Obama.
and the DOW is inching towards 12,000.
You know what was least popular? Tax raises for everyone. So given the choice between those two options, he took the more popular one.
I think anybody who reasons this way is seriously underestimating the corrosive effect of the tax cuts for the rich when they weigh the options. The priority is to kill those upper income tax cuts, because we will not get another chance.
Not so for the middle class tax cuts. Even with a GOP House, there is opportunity to pass a clean middle class tax cut in 2011, if the President stands firm on it. That is why the best Plan B is full expiration, not this crazy deal.
The only reason Republicans felt free to vote against the middle class tax cuts, was because Obama assured them they would have an opportunity to vote on the full extension.
Obama used the bully pulpit to misstate the priorities to lead us to the full extension. And Joe Biden too. The next time Joe comes around rolling up his shirtsleeves and telling everyone about his blue collar roots, give him a big old Skippertee salute.
and the DOW is inching towards 12,000.
Let them enjoy their little sugar rush while it lasts. When consumer disposable income continues to decline, and deficits continue unabated causing the prospect of interest rate hikes, the Dow will crash again.
Raygun 1981 = Shrub 2000 = Obomba 2008. President’s names, like their caricatures, have always been ripe for political satire.
Too bad people who are so offended about “Obomba” aren’t as offended about billions of dollars he is spending blowing up people with actual bombs.
Not so for the middle class tax cuts. Even with a GOP House, there is opportunity to pass a clean middle class tax cut in 2011, if the President stands firm on it. That is why the best Plan B is full expiration, not this crazy deal.
I’m having a lot of trouble envisioning this happening, but if you can lay out the pathway I’m all ears.
The way I see it is Republicans using the end of the tax cuts to scream “Obama and the Dems raised your taxes!” And they would scream this for the next two years. After all, passing a clean middle class tax cut would be viewed as a win for Obama and the Dems, and Republicans won’t allow that to happen.
I’m having a lot of trouble envisioning this happening, but if you can lay out the pathway I’m all ears.
The President would have to make it clear that he would veto any bill that included tax cuts for the rich. This is called “principle.”
The Republicans would bitch, and Democrats would take heat, but we are about as far from an election as we can get.
If Obama truly shut down the alternatives, the heat would be strongest on the Republicans to send him a clean bill.
Meanwhile Obama would restore his base, and win over independents who are fans of backbone in their presidents.
So… you’re saying that Republicans would cave? Really? And you think this because they have been reasonable on… ?
In the full expiration scenario, it doesn’t matter if Republicans cave or not in 2011. We win either way.
Remember the top priority is to kill the tax cuts for the rich. We can argue about the middle class tax cuts as long as we want, once the top priority is achieved.
While we are arguing, the deficit will be shrinking fast, and we will reap political benefit from that. Clinton failed to pass middle class tax cuts and he did just fine – because he had revenue to work with. This deal doesn’t leave us revenue options.
You are still buying into the false Obama frame that the top priority is the middle class tax cuts. That is just the smokescreen that allows him to deliver the tax cuts for the rich, even as he claims to disagree with them.
A1. I’m not kidding.
I failed to see mention of the extension of unemployment benefits. This is a major factor (concession from the Pubs). A discussion of the current deal must include consideration of this. I’m not saying that it is a game-changer, however it is very significant.
A Mexican standoff, with an expiration of the tax cuts, would have the additional impact of leaving millions of unemployed without unemployment benefits. Avoiding such a situation is also called principle.
Avoiding such a situation is also called principle.
No, it is called negotiating with terrorists. It is weakness and fear.
Clinton won his standoffs with the GOP; Obama could win his too.
In a 2011 standoff I don’t see how Democrats could be blamed for failure to pass a UI bill. Yes there would be a gap in UI coverage which would suck, but the pressure for Repubs to pass UI in 2011 would be unbearable. The unemployed are a pretty big constituency now.
Anon, I’m really not trying to be difficult, but I’m not seeing this play-out the way you’re saying. More likely (for me, at least) is all the tax cuts expire, the Republicans hammer the raising taxes issue, the media does it’s job of feeding it and, in the end, ALL the tax cuts are reinstated – probably without any Unemployment Benefits.
I just think there’s a Republican reasonableness you’re applying that doesn’t exist.
the Republicans hammer the raising taxes issue
Newsflash: they are going to do that anyway. It doesn’t have to be true. In 2012 Republicans will believe Obama implemented a government takeover of healthcare and raised taxes on everybody.
I just think there’s a Republican reasonableness you’re applying that doesn’t exist.
I am not counting on their reasonableness. I am counting on their reaction to pain (political pain). We haven’t tried that yet. We have been too busy pre-capitulating everything.
Great point. Senators don’t vote based on values. They vote out of a fear of not being re-elected. Republicans know how to leverage that fear. Democrats don’t.
pandora, polls have shown that people are overwhelmingly for extending the middle class tax breaks and against extending the ones for the wealthy.
Let the Bush tax cuts expire. Veto anything that has the tax cuts for those over $250k/year. Start campaigning for the new “Democratic tax cut plan” and apply political pressure on the repubs. Bush/Cheney/Rove did this type of thing all the time.
anon is right. Lay some political pain on ’em.
Jason, to have you, of all people, claiming some sort offense (or what?) at using the satirical term “Obomba” is pretty much the height of pearl clutching.
Do you remember how satisfying it was to see Boehner’s face when Pelosi laid that “chicken crap” move on him?
Wouldn’t you like to see that all the time in 2011? Obama could make that happen if he wanted to.
Republicans are bullies and cowards. They need to be confronted.
They keep delivering greater and greater ultimatums. My philosopy is, ultimatums should always be accepted. Make them follow through on their ultimatums; they’ll cave.
A1, everybody gets your point by now. It is time to let that dead horse ride off into the sunset.
And one more thing A1. There is going to be civility. If you happen to disagree with a fellow progressive, you disagree like a motherfucking gentleman.
You mean like the Rude Pundit?
Does anyone else find it convenient that the Dem’s are repeatedly beaten by the GOP?
Isn’t this game very similar to the one you saw at the old Spectrum? You know the Globetrotters v. the Generals?
I don’t think this is any different. Yet, here we are pointing fingers at one side saying, “it’s them! and a few D’s!!! But mostly it’s them!!!”
I mean really, how can intelligent people not see this for what it is. The few people we like are the fucking outliers in this.
And one more thing A1. There is going to be civility. If you happen to disagree with a fellow progressive, you disagree like a motherfucking gentleman.
lol. The totalitarian nature of that statement is hilarious. And it pretty much captures the essence of DL…
A1, there is an anon code you are missing. If you are going to protect yourself by being anon, that’s fine, but you don’t get to do ad hominem against real people you are responding to on the blog.
Look on the bright side, at Least Now most people will stop calling Obama a ‘Socialist’ because of his no-taxes-for-the-wealthy capitulation. 😉
Gotta’ love ‘Obomba.’
at Least Now most people will stop calling Obama a ‘Socialist’
No, they won’t.
Let me say that last night when I heard about the deal, I was pissed. So I went out, had a few beers, watched a football game (for lack of a better word) and slept on it.
This morning, I woke up and realized that I am still pissed.
@anon10:23: when the bloggers here ever even begin to try to hold themselves and each other to the same mythical standards of discourse that they try to hold me, then come talk to me.
I love the surprise ending LG. You’ve composed a mini novel.
A1. This side of the debate does not need churls and boors obscuring my well developed and expertly crafted arguments.
This morning, I woke up and realized that I am still pissed.
As are we all. Hey but at least we all worked together and fought the good fight, for the public option and against the tax cuts… didn’t we?
anon @10:05 “Republicans are bullies and cowards. They need to be confronted.”
they need to be lined up and…….
when the bloggers here ever even begin to try to hold themselves and each other to the same mythical standards
The identities of the bloggers here are known. They are allowed to call you an idiot if they want, because they are taking responsibility.
If you want to live under the same standard, then reveal your name.
I am glad that you have this all figured out, anon. Help me understand: someone is allowed to call someone else “an idiot” if the person calling the other person “an idiot” knows that the other person knows their name but the person being called “an idiot” may or may not be anonymous. That is, in your world, responsible idiot name-calling.
What if both people are anonymous to each other? Because you’re a moron.
See? This is the kind of churlishness that this side of the debate can do without.
Why doesn’t Russ Feingold just throw a monkey-wrench procedurally as his last act for the good of us all?