Someone tell me why Obama can't just propose the middle class cuts in the lame duck House session,

[coti]

pass them, and send them on the Senate.

We have the majority. Pelosi is still speaker, we can pass them without a single Republican vote. But why would they vote against middle class tax cuts anyway?

Would the Senate filibuster middle class tax cuts? No.

So what's the problem?

[ProSense]

1. The

variables.

People are opinionated.

[coti]

4. Pass the permanent middle class cuts through the House and let him argue with the middle class.

I still don't see the issue.

[ProSense]

7. " I still don't see the issue."

Issue: 56 blue dogs.

A few of them voted against unemployment benefits.

[coti]

11. You were talking about the Senate, first. Now it's the House?

Can you make up your mind what the problem is?

Besides, doesn't Pelosi have procedural ways of ensuring the thing can get through without getting messed up?

[ProSense]

16. "Pass the permanent middle class cuts through the House"

I'm sorry, was that your response?

[coti]

17. The Senate wasn't an issue. You're just throwing crap at the wall and hoping it sticks. nt

[ima_sinnic]

40. wow, as usual, the excuse that "well, it will never pass so let's not even try"

how convenient that we have members or our own party WE CAN COUNT ON to vote against things.
that has worked out really well for them.

[hfojvt]

2. because Republicans would offer amendments

that being an extension including cuts for the wealthy, and some disgusting conserva-dems might vote for those amendments, even after they have been defeated and cannot use that excuse. Probably enough would so that the Republican amendments would pass. That has always been the difficulty, and with the same story in the Senate.

[Hardrada]

5. We don't know that..

[coti]

6. There's something wrong with this reasoning. If it was valid, nothing would ever

be able to get done.

Health care reform, of all things, passed. Why can't we get only middle-class tax cuts through?

Look, there's even a story here with Boehner saying he'd be alright with just the middle-class cuts:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE68B0YH20100912

WASHINGTON | Sun Sep 12, 2010 1:32pm EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The top Republican in the House of Representatives said on Sunday he would support an extension of tax cuts for middle-class Americans even if tax cuts for the wealthy are allowed to expire.

Representative John Boehner said President Barack Obama's plan to renew lower tax rates for families making less than $250,000 but let the lower rates for wealthier Americans expire was "bad policy." Republicans want to extend all of the cuts passed under former President George W. Bush.

"If the only option I have is to vote for some of those tax reductions, I'll vote for it," Boehner said on CBS's "Face the Nation" program.

[laughingliberal]

19. Guess what? Reid managed to keep amendments out of the final fix to the health care bill that was...

done under reconciliation. Why do we never try out of fear of what the Republicans might do. Okay, make 'em do it. Why are we doing their work. Why can we never make a stab at doing the right thing?

It's nuts!

[Hannah Bell]

3. shhhhhh.

[Hawkowl]

8. Because he is a corporatist wuss?

That is the only explanation I could come up with. Of course it would have made more sense to force a vote before the election, but hey, how would they have pulled off the biggest disaster since 1894?

[grahamhgreen]

13. +1

[Hoopla Phil]

26. +2

edit to change 1 to 2

[ima_sinnic]

46. bingo (n/t)

[TheWraith]

9. They may. But I wouldn't count on the Repubs not filibustering.

Seriously. They would probably scream how inappropriate it was for a lame duck congress to do anything, or call it the "Obama Job Killing Tax Increase Bill" or something.

It's going to depend a lot on what the whip count looks like.

[demwing]

10. Because, ultimately, he doesn't want to

Since when has fear of failure to succeed been a valid justification for failure to try?

[Ozymanithrax]

12. Because he is not a member of Congress.

And he would still need to get it through the Senate, where the Republicans can filibuster.

The answer is, yes they would.

My question is what do we get from this exercise?

Besides, Congress only needs to extend the existing tax cut, which the Republicans are more than happy to filibuster because it isn't a tax cut for all Americans.

[laughingliberal]

14. Nope. That whole tax cut was passed under reconciliation. No reason the middle class tax cut...

couldn't be.

[coti]

15. He would have a Representative propose it for him and there is no way in HELL

the Republicans would filibuster middle-class tax cuts. NEVER. EVER.

Political SUICIDE. Look at the article I posted above about Boehner in the House, too- they know that if we pin them down, they have to vote for it.

[ProSense]

18. Really?

"there is no way in HELL the Republicans would filibuster middle-class tax cuts. NEVER. EVER."


Republicans filibustered health care for children. They filibustered unemployment.

A statement like yours ignores that Republicans will filibuster anything.

[coti]

20. Tax cuts for the middle class? TAX CUTS??

Look at what Boehner said above. There's absolutely no way they would stand in the way of middle-class tax cuts.

And, if they DID, wouldn't that be one helluvan issue to hang around their necks in 2012?

[ProSense]

21. Tax cuts and Republicans will filibuster it

if it doesn't include tax cuts for the wealthy. They will.

This is about the Senate. The House Democrats don't need Republican support, but they do need to keep most blue dogs.

[coti]

22. Fine, let 'em do it and we'll KILL them in 2012!

Filibustering middle-class tax cuts. Republicans.

That's one of the most absurd things I've ever heard. They can't and wouldn't do that.

[ProSense]

25. Did you know they're

trying to destroy the economy, shut down the government and investigate the President seven times a week?

"Filibustering middle-class tax cuts. Republicans."

"That's one of the most absurd things I've ever heard. They can't and wouldn't do that."

For someone lashing out at the President, you sure have a lot of confidence in Republicans.

[coti]

27. Most of them would lose their jobs, and they'd know it.

We'd destroy them.

This whole line of argument is ridiculous.

[ProSense]

29. Let me see if I understand your argument:

The President is crazy enough to cut Social Security and not address middle-class tax cuts, but...

Republicans are not crazy enough to filibuster middle-class tax cuts.

"This whole line of argument is ridiculous."

Agree.

[coti]

31. ??? Get some sleep.

You've totally lost me.

[coti]

28. You were better off arguing about the House. nt

[Ozymanithrax]

23. Sorry, I disagree.

There are a lot of things they have been willing to filibuster that they once agreed to.

They won't mind filibustering a middle class tax cut, because it will be sold to their base as a redistributing the wealth of others and giving it to the poor, socialism.

They will say only a real tax cut for everyone is American and Capitalist.

About 38% of the U.S. voting public believes whatever Republiconservitives tell them. Just say redistribute wealth, socialism, and they will salivate to vote for Republicans who are their saviors.

[coti]

24. Not even people as stupid as teabaggers would buy that.

Middle-class tax cuts are middle-class tax cuts.

[Ozymanithrax]

30. They have bought every Republican filibuster.

They buy the idea that a black President is also a Nazi, a Godless Communist, a Muslim, and a Liberation Theology Christian.

Like Alice, they are willing to believe six impossible things before breakfast every day. It will be sold to them by media they trust (FOX, Brietbart) and they will not accept the word of untrusted media.

These are people who believe that Medicare and Social Security are not government programs.

They will justify their belief set with whatever self delusion is necessary. It has been clear that they act on belief not on fact.

[coti]

32. They're awfully gullible, but the Republicans don't believe enough in their gullibility on

this issue to have the gall to do that.

Again, look at Boehner's statement above. They know that if we pin them down, they have to vote for it.

It's just a matter of making it happen procedurally.

[laughingliberal]

34. The tax cut that's expiring was passed under reconciliation. I don't see why an middle class cut...

couldn't be. End of filibuster boogey man.

[Ozymanithrax]

43. Here is the process...

The House and the Senate must write a new bill to be passed via reconciliation.
The bill must go through committee.
It must be voted out of committee.
It then must be debated and passed in both houses.

The process takes time, and in a lame duck session there is generally no time to go through this process.

With the Bush tax cuts, we have existing law and just need a vote whether to make it permanent, some permanent some temporary, all temporary, or just let the damn thing expire.

Republicans don't want to vote on a permanent tax cut for middle class and a temporary tax cut for people who make more than $250,000.00 because they do not want to face another vote in the future for just tax cuts for the rich.

And, by the way, any bill that is passed under reconciliation must be temporary in scope or not affect the deficit. Tax cuts for the middle class will cost over 3 trillion over the next ten years. the Wealth adds about another 700 billion to that. IN order to claim they are deficit neutral, they would need to do a study and find a fig leaf to cover the lie that these tax cuts have no affect on the deficit.

So, they are not going t write a whole new bill during the lame duck session.

[treestar]

44. +1 OP just assumes that the President is in charge of what goes

through Congress.

[frylock]

45. it's like when they post a list of congressional accomplishments and try and give the pres credit..

it's crazy!!1

[Warren DeMontague]

33. Because every time Democrats behave like they have a pair

God kills a kitten.

Please, think of the kittens.

[DeltaLitProf]

35. Too many Dems in the current Senate would not vote for it because

. . . they'd feel it inappropriate to try to pass it in a lame duck Senate. At least 10 of them would be in that category.

[coti]

36. Wouldn't even have to pass the lame duck Senate, it could carry over

as far as I know, unless there's some kind of procedural issue that I don't know about.

[DeltaLitProf]

37. It can't. All legislation has to start anew in each new Congress.

n/t

[coti]

38. Why would the lame duck Senate be okay with passing both the middle class and high end cuts, but

not the middle-class cuts?

[anAustralianobserver]

39. Yes, isn't it crucial that they try to do it? and if necessary isolate recalcitrant Dems?

What have they got to lose?

[unblock]

41. outgoing house members are playing to their next lucratic gig, not to the voters.

if they couldn't pass it before the election, why would they be able to pass it now?

the outgoing members are focused on their lucratic post-congressional career now, and that means appealing to corporations they want to become directors of, and so on.

[Vinca]

42. Well . . . isn't it obvious?

The POTUS is "looking forward" and will be able to "work with Republicans on common ground.":sarcasm: Hold onto your Social Security people.