Are you kidding me? Are you KIDDING me? This WAS possible, the WHOLE TIME??

[coti]

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/11/liberals_to_dem_leaders_hold_a.html

On Friday I reported here that liberal groups and labor have hit on a legislative strategy to make the fight over the Bush tax cuts work in Dems' favor: Hold a vote just on making the middle class tax cuts permanent, without tying it to any vote on the high end ones.

Now Dem Reps. Raul Grijalva and Lynn Woolsey, the two co-chairs of the House Progressive Caucus, have endorsed this approach, sending a letter to Nancy Pelosi asking her to carry it out:

As Co-Chairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, we would like to reiterate our support for President Obama's Fiscal Year 2011 budget proposal that would extend the Bush tax rates for the middle class, but permit the tax levels to return to previous levels for single taxpayers making more than $200,000 or married couples making more than $250,000. We respectfully request that we have a Caucus discussion regarding our position before any proposal is brought to the Floor....

We believe extending the Bush tax cuts would be a giveaway to the nation's wealthiest people and would significantly increase government debt. This debt, in turn, will be paid by the lower and middle classes through increased interest payments and decreased social services for generations to come. This astronomical sum could instead be used to close our budget deficit. It is critical that we pass President Obama' s middle-class tax proposal without providing an even greater lift for the wealthiest Americans who don't need it.

The Dems really CAN just force an up/down vote on ONLY the middle class tax cuts?

AND THEY HAVEN'T ALREADY DONE IT?

Why the hell are we even HAVING THIS DISCUSSION over the tax cuts?


Just put forward the permanent extension of the middle-class cuts and let the Republicans tie themselves in knots over whether they're going to vote for it. We win, no matter the outcome. If it passes, we don't have any more discussion about tax cuts for a long time without being able to dismiss it as cuts for the rich. And, if the Republicans vote against it, we hang it around their neck in 2012 like kryptonite on Superman.

Honestly, who would actually vote AGAINST this? Again- ARE YOU KIDDING ME?


This is freaking ABSURD. Why should we be having to pull our own representatives' teeth to do this right? This whole time, I was assuming there was some procedural hurdle that we couldn't get over, as I think most of us were doing. Turns out, the Dems have just been complete idiots.

[SpiralHawk]

1. "Make it so." - Americans

[SpiralHawk]

3. "N0000. More more more tax cuts for rich republicons." - Rush DraftDodger Limbaugh (R)

[Beartracks]

97. What would the middle class do with tax cuts anyway?

They're obviously not successful Americans, or they wouldn't be stuck in the middle class. Why is ANYone even considering rewarding SLOTH??






Oh, yeah: :sarcasm:

------------------------

[laconicsax]

123. Make it WHAT?

[CaliforniaPeggy]

2. Unbelievable.

How do we get them to stop being idiots?

*facepalm*

Recommended.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

5. I think you need this graphic to go with your reply:

:)






.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

13. Thank you! I do indeed need it!

[lark]

68. Thank you for capturing the moment so well

Dems didn't call the vote because they were afraid their rich contributors would walk away from them and support their Repug opponent even more abundantly than they already were. It was Dems being un-Dem, as usual. Of course, the un-Dem president totally supported this action!

Reprehensible!!

[fasttense]

134. Un-Dems, hmm, I think I like it. n/t

[Scruffy1]

146. Geat graphic

[coti]

37. Kick nt

[awoke_in_2003]

95. are they stupid or complicit? nt

[gtar100]

125. Complicit. They have a little bird whispering in their ear day after day

telling them what they need to do and must do with subtle hints of a threat if they don't. And that little bird is one of thousands of lobbyists who know nothing but their own self-interest. And those thousands of birds are drowning out the voice of the people.

[awoke_in_2003]

126. +1000. nt

[peace frog]

142. [phone]

:-(

[Jim Sagle]

96. Better yet, how do we get them to START being Democrats?

[amborin]

105. K&R

[Ozymanithrax]

4. Possible perhaps, but will it work in the Senate?

If Republicans don't want this to come up for a vote, it won't.

[coti]

9. Who's going to stand in front of this?

I'd be surprised if the bill didn't pass 95-0.

Who, exactly, would vote against this?

[Exultant Democracy]

15. It won't even come to a vote. The republicans will threaten to veto and the Dems will cave.

Because of course unlike during the Bush era, you need 60 senators to pass anything in the Senate.

[creeksneakers2]

120. The GOP would still have to vote against it

by voting against cloture.

[Recursion]

31. Nobody would have to; it would be a debateable motion and the GOP would refuse cloture

That's the beauty/ugliness of a filibuster: nobody has to actually vote against the bill.

[coti]

33. With 41 votes- and we could tag every single one of them with it.

They can't filibuster middle-class tax cuts because they want cuts for millionaires. The anger would be amazing.

[Recursion]

34. *shrug* or they'd rail on us for increasing the deficit

Or they'll simply call it "the largest tax increase in history", and even with a little less dishonesty than they usually have when they say that.

We already cut taxes and nobody noticed or gave a damn; it would surprise me if anybody cared this time.

[coti]

35. That's just more defeatism, and it doesn't help. They need to play their best hand, and this is it.

[pnwmom]

83. No, we couldn't "tag" them in any important way.

The public isn't well educated enough, unfortunately. We couldn't say they voted against the tax cuts, because they wouldn't have. They just voted against having to vote! And all of them individually could pretend that they really supported middle class tax cuts.

[coti]

85. The line "The Republicans filibustered permanently extending the middle-class tax cuts."

You don't think that's enough? It paints their brand pretty badly.

They wouldn't do it. We'd KILL them in 2012.

"The Republicans filibustered permanently extending the middle-class tax cuts."

"The Republicans let the middle-class tax cuts expire."

etc., etc., on and on. Those would be some nasty campaign ads.

[harun]

129. It's more than enough. They'd make permanent the Middle Class cuts.

The reason this is so tough is because a lot of Democrat's want to make permanent the tax cuts on the Upper Class. They won't say so out loud but it is true. They haven't found a way to do it and blame the Republican's yet. I think they will find a way though, will see soon enough.

[laconicsax]

124. Republicans. n/t

[fizzgig]

then broadcast the hell out of it

if the pugs want to block tax cuts for the middle class, that should be mentioned every time we open our mouths. i'm tired of this. what is there to lose in making those assholes actually filibuster something and show who they truly work for?

[Ozymanithrax]

14. From whose media?

Olberman and RAchel will cover it, but their share of the market is small.

Republicans will appear on every other media outlet and say we are standing firm on lower taxes on all Americans.

A Tax cut will be broadcast from everywere as Obama is raising your taxes. The argument to cover it just doesn't hold water.

Their voters really believe that taxing 2% of Rich Americans hurts the poor AMericans. It doesn't maek sense, but that is what they believe.

[coti]

18. It should and I dare say would be on the front page of every newspaper in the country.

Why are you arguing against this?

Look at the polls. People KNOW who they want to be taking on the tax burden- the rich. It's the position Obama RAN ON in 2008 and DESTROYED the Republicans with.

[Ozymanithrax]

19. No it won't, but most of those papers are owned by conservative Republicans...

who will report that Republicans demand lowers taxes for all Americans.

[coti]

21. Talk about wanting Dems to fail. You won't even get behind the no-doubt winning strategy.

Come on, man!

You want us to win? Do it right!

[Ozymanithrax]

28. A strategy only works if it can be implemented.

I will applaud it the Democrats try this, but if the plan hinges on the media to ride to the rescue, it is doomed.

I am a realist.

[Kweli4Real]

109. Then the DNC and ALL OTHER progressive groups ...

Take out full page ads in every major metropolitan areas ... While "leaking" a memo to MSNBC (Keith and Rachael) the plan to take out the ads because the media is trying to hide the story.

One can get the media to do what you want ... You just have to pay for it!

[Chan790]

122. There is a dirty secret to the "corporate media"

The inmates at the bottom (the journalists) run the asylum and they care more about the "big story" than they do about the prerogatives of their owners.

Our problem, despite the railing of many, has never been that the conservatives own the media...they've always owned the media. Hearst? It's that we suck at the media game and facts matter less than the ability to deliver the "big story" in easy to understand and concise frames. Republicans are great at the media game.

If the media could run "Obama gets mad, smacks down GOP." they would...that's a compelling story. "Obama deliberates tax cuts, maybe he'll compromise on the top 2% or perhaps he won't. He's going to discuss it over lunch with GOP leaders. His advisors are saying conflicting things off the record anyways so who knows?" is a bit too damned wordy.

As long as we continue to suck at this media game & continue to blame everything but our failings instead of fixing this problem, nothing will ever change.

[jeff47]

27. Media lives on spectacle

So create a spectacle of it.

Instead of quietly accepting the Republican's notice that they will filibuster, roll out the cots. Make a big show whereby the Republicans actually have to filibuster. Sure, it's not going to be a "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" event, but it's a plenty big show to fill time on cable news.

[Ozymanithrax]

45. The media loves a specatacle but also knows which side of the toast...

is buttered.

Any strategy that hinges on the media waking up is doomed for failure. It is not in their interest to wake up. Their bottom line is best served by dishing out entertainment and division.

[jeff47]

86. This isn't about the media "waking up"

This is about turning government into a reality TV show for a night. And there's no good way for the Republicans to spin holding the rest of the country hostage so Wall Street executives can keep more of their bonuses.

And fortunately, since it's not a "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington"-style filibuster, we'll have hours and hours to talk about how the Republicans are raising everyone's taxes.

(In the modern filibuster, a member of the filibustering group just has to object to any motions to move the legislation forward. They don't have to speak. Meaning we can give the Democratic Senators all night to talk about what the Republicans are doing.)

[jeff47]

26. Yes, it will work in the Senate

It works in the Senate because it either passes, or it makes fantastic 2012 campaign commercials.

[RaleighNCDUer]

38. Well, why not try it and watch the Republicans filibuster AGAINST

a middle class tax cut.

Either it will pass, or we HAMMER them on it for the next two years.

THAT is the kind of hardball we should be playing. Enough with the preemptive surrender.

[sabrina 1]

50. Okay, let me get this straight. When Republicans were in the minority

the excuse was 'we don't have the votes'. Which translates into 'the minority is going to get what it wants'.

NOW, we are in the minority. How about we apply the same rules and not start with any more excuses? If they could do it in the minority, so can Democrats but they have to stick together with no one going over to vote with REpublicans as they have in the past.

And, fwiw, right now Dems are still in the majority, THIS is the time to take action.

[truedelphi]

73. yes, where are our threats to FILIBUSTER? n/t

[Cali_Democrat]

108. A filibuster is actually a VOTE to end or not end debate

Use that and beat them over the head with it.

They'll essentially be on record opposing middle class tax cuts.

Pretty simple actually.

[TBF]

151. We still have a majority in the Senate - despite what the DLC will tell you. nt

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

6. In the House they can

[jberryhill]

7. "Why the hell are we even HAVING THIS DISCUSSION over the tax cuts?"

I dunno.

Did you start it?

I didn't start it.

Seems like it was all the rage while Mr. Obama was out for kimchi.

[coti]

12. I meant nationally. The Republicans shouldn't even have a chance on this issue.

If this IS possible, the winning strategy is totally clear and anything else is COMPLETELY unacceptable.

[jberryhill]

17. I would just hate to deny the Republicans an opportunity to take up some rope first

Asking them what they intend to cut to pay for extending the tax cuts is too good.

There's a fresh crop of teabaggers in waiting who have a lot of answers that Americans should hear.

[spooked911]

99. hearing them won't change any minds

reversing the tax cuts is actually something concrete that can be done

[tsuki]

It was the rage of the millionaire elites of the Tea Vee Party that want a tax cut. nt

[lonestarnot]

114. Tee Vee baggers want all the money, not just some of it.

[disillusioned73]

8. A lot of DUers have been saying this very thing...

for some time - it is rather mindnumbing!! Grow a spine Dems!!

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

11. Yep. We've been screaming at the top of our lungs but has fallen on deaf ears.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

10. They sure can, through Reconciliation. That's how the Repukes got their Bush tax cuts

in the first place. They are crooked assholes. But they have spine! Something that the Democrats simply don't have.

Just think of how many House seats could have been saved had they just did Reconcilitation..."up or down vote." That's all it took.

[subterranean]

25. They can't do it through reconciliation.

For one thing, they already used reconciliation to pass the health care reform "fixes." According to the rules, reconciliation can't be used more than once a year.

Second, reconciliation can't be used for anything that would increase the deficit beyond ten years. That's why the Bush tax cuts were set to expire after ten years. They couldn't pass permanent tax cuts through reconciliation.

But the Democrats can and should hold a regular up-or-down vote on this and let the Republicans go on record opposing it.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

71. Thanks, I had forgotten about the health care reform reconciliation procedure.

My mind is forgetful.

As far as increasing the deficit, you are right, which is why the Repukes resorted to Reconciliation in the first place. The Dems' mistake was passing PAYGO legislation *before* dealing with this issue. They knew that the tax cuts were about to sunset.

And you're right, make the Republicans vote on it!

[Recursion]

32. A permanent extension can't be done with reconciliation

They could extend the middle class cuts another decade, though.

And remember, the second they do extend the middle class tax cuts, the GOP is going to go absolutely apeshit ballistic about the trillions of dollars that will add to the deficit over the next ten years.

[yodermon]

16. I *think* it's because the House really, really couldn't get enough BlueDogs

to vote for this because it's a "decoupling" of the tax brackets, and it still defacto "raising taxes" (on a tiny percentage of people), etc etc, puke, puke.

...i know. :eyes:


but,

Now that the election's over and virtually all of the BlueDogs have been wiped out, we'll see if they can muster an ounce of decency and vote for this.

Or, they've all been promised cushy private sector jobs and/or lobbyist positions awarding them for their obstructive DINO-ism.
Keep an eye on these ex-blue-dogs i say.

[coti]

20. How can the REPUBLICAN house members even vote against this?

Who, seriously, CAN vote against this without getting CLOWNED with it in 2012?

Nobody can vote against it. Nobody!

[laughingliberal]

22. That's what I've been saying all along-write one bill that extends the cuts for the middle class.

Pass it under reconciliation in the Senate if need be.

All the theater around this just looks like cover for people who want the rich to keep their tax cut.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

23. They should, but they probably won't

All the lame duck Blue Ball Dems want to run again in '12.

[coti]

24. If they want to run again, you'd think they would vote FOR the middle-class tax cuts, not against

them.

[progressoid]

29. Democrats? We have Democrats in Congress?

Hard to see them through all the corporatists and millionaires.

[librechik]

30. Wait, what to Republicans get out of it? Nothing?

then we should all go die.

I hope they stick to their guns and do this, but ever since the election I can barely move or breathe becasue I feel like I'm being swarmed. Busy littl RWers wanting their extra large piece of the action and spitting on the people.

[KeyserSoze87]

36. I can count the number of REAL democrats we currently have in congress on one hand.

In this day and age, being a democrat now automatically means being centre-right.

[no limit]

39. Yup, I posted about this a few months back. People thought I was crazy

[Warren Stupidity]

40. of course. But that would be rude.

And our leaders don't do rude. Or winning.

[BzaDem]

41. The Republicans will just offer a motion to recommit that has the rich tax cuts, and that will pass

the House. That's why they didn't do it before the election.

[Recursion]

42. Yeah; it's easier to get stuff in to a bill than to keep stuff out NT

[coti]

44. After Jan 1? When the cuts have expired? So, THEY will block the bill AND let the cuts expire? nt

[BzaDem]

52. After Jan 1, we won't have control of the Hosue. So it would be moot. n/t

[coti]

57. No, are you saying that the Repubs will re-introduce in the new session,

with the top 2% cuts?

I'm saying that they'll still have let the middle-class cuts expire.

[coti]

61. Also notice that the outgoing Blue Dogs wouldn't have a chance to "make up for it" if they did

decide to run again in 2012. They'd be on the record as voting against, while not being able to vote on a re-introduction.

[coti]

59. Not to mention that they'd be blocking a PERMANENT extension of the middle-class cuts.

Even worse.

[hfojvt]

43. it's too late now - the election is over

Republicans would vote against it, saying it is just a political ploy to increase taxes. They are not facing an election for another two years, and they know that after January they will be able to pass an extension of ALL the tax cuts anyway, which is well before the next election. That will force Obama to either veto it or else cave in.

At this point on DU, cave has about 100-1 odds in favor of it.

[coti]

46. If they wait until after the 1st, the Dems will be able to say the Repubs let the cuts expire. nt

[sofa king]

54. ...And then take credit for reintroducing them...

...and then force the Republicans to vote against it because it doesn't have the high-end cut...

...Which will lead to 350 different versions of a devastating commercial such as this in 2012:



Which is going to harm the Republican party severely.

All for doing nothing, thanks to a little Christmas present in a time capsule sent to us by the Democrats of the bad-old-days who insisted upon a sunset clause when this bill was originally crafted.

[kenfrequed]

152. Exactly!

The Democrats have to reintroduce it to defeat any attempts at the republicans stating that the democrats let the tax cuts expire. As a matter of fact they have to reintroduce an extension as loudly as possible on as many different outlets as possible stating this is a benefit for the working poor and middle class. By the way, we really need to start pushing that term. Working poor over just calling them poor.

[bigtree]

47. you forgot the obstacles in the Senate

There are likely enough conservative Democrats in the Senate already having expressed support for an extension of the TCFTW who won't vote for cloture and would block it from a vote.

All these histrionics without a clue about the consequences of the political make-up of the legislature. All you'd get out of it is a show vote putting republicans on record as opposing it. That may be worthwhile, but it's far short of any actual prospect for success.

"AND THEY HAVEN'T ALREADY DONE IT?" :eyes:

[coti]

48. That's the whole point. They wouldn't do it. Putting them on the record as letting

the tax cuts for the middle-class expire is just as good as getting them passed.

[grahamhgreen]

53. Those who vote aganst middle class tax cut can be painted as

hypocrites, liars, and pro-rich sycophants.

[jeff47]

88. Republicans aren't that stupid

All you'd get out of it is a show vote putting republicans on record as opposing it.

Republicans aren't that stupid. They know that a vote against middle class-only tax cuts is untenable. That's why they're fighting so hard now - they need a bill that includes the tax cuts for the wealthy, or they won't be able to get them passed.

And if they do prove me wrong with their insanity...that's fantastic! I've now got utterly devastating ads to run against 40+ senators in 2012, 2014 and 2016.

[Lucky 13]

49. It would fail cause the conservadems wouldn't pass it.

Those that voted against it would have to answer to the understandably angry public.

But even the Dems that would vote for it can't have their close friends and colleagues actually face the music, because THEY might eventually face the music over some other issue down the road.

So they provide them cover by never even putting it up for a vote.

Wa-la! Democracy at work!

[grahamhgreen]

55. After what they just went through? They would be signing the end of their Senate carreer.

[Jakes Progress]

51. It's the club.

This is the kind of things senators sort of agree to not do. It's a place where the most important thing is not making other senators look bad and voting against this would make anyone look bad. There are all sorts of unwritten rules and odd behaviors involved in being a senator. They often describe it as the most exclusive club in the world. Anytime there is a maverick, he gets put in line pretty quickly by his own party. Just notice how the firebrands get calmer and calmer over their terms.

Basically the senate is not a place where the people are the top priority.

[coti]

66. They've been using the tax cuts against us like this for years and years.

I have no idea why it would be so wrong for us to do it.

[rucky]

56. Congress is either dumb, or they think we're too dumb to notice.

Maybe I'm too dumb to decide :shrug:

[defendandprotect]

58. K&R --

[NorthCarolina]

60. I believe the DLC New Dems would be against this move. It would take away their only bargaining chip

for retaining tax cuts for the wealthy. Granted, the GOP wouldn't like it either, but my bet is that the conservative Dems will work to put the kibosh, likely successfully with WH backing, on any such vote. Kudos to the Progressive Caucus nonetheless.

[xultar]

62. Why blame the DLC if Obama wanted this vote we'd have done it. I blame the WH

They didn't want to piss off corporate people any more than they felt they had.

But as usual the wh fucked up.

They went with the impotent playbook and lost.

[NorthCarolina]

75. Well, Obama is a self declared DLC New Dem....so if the shoe fits... nt

[harun]

130. I think so too.

[obxhead]

63. Not complete idiots, but COMPLICIT in trying to find a

way to keep the breaks for the 1% that don't need them.

[Better Believe It]

64. "the Dems have just been complete idiots." I disagree. They don't want to put pressure on

so-called "moderates" and "centrists" in either party to vote for "middle class" tax cuts.

And they prefer a bi-partisan compromise that will maintain the tax cuts for the rich at least until the Republicans regain control of the Senate in two years who can make the cuts permanent.

[felix_numinous]

65. A small question...

Why just a permanent tax rate for the middle class?? Are the rate for 'lower' class low enough not to include in this measure? Oh, perhaps permanent rates for all except the wealthy sounds too---crass? Obvious?

[coti]

67. I'm talking about the lowest 98%, all the way down. Everyone not in the top 2%. nt

[felix_numinous]

69. Thanks

[Jamastiene]

70. K&R

I like the way you think. :thumbsup:

We could burn the Republicans with this one.

[rhett o rick]

72. You make the assumption that Democrats want to extend tax cuts for the middle class and not their

friends the super-wealthy. WE ARE IN A FUCKING CLASS WAR. THE DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS ARE NOT, I REPEAT, ARE NOT ON OUR SIDE. Jeeeze

[Jakes Progress]

74. Agreed, but it does look like

we might could get at least a couple to put this up for vote. Of course, those couple would be banned from the popular table in the Senate dining room for a year.

[bc3000]

76. This is an obvious solution. Too bad Obama is a coward.

[coti]

77. Self-delete.

Thanks

[bc3000]

78. I changed the language, my point remains.

If the progressives in congress can get this done, they will have to do it without Obama because as my first post stated, he is a coward. He will not stand up for us. He has proven that time and time again.

Obama will pull for the temporary extension of all cuts because when that extension comes up he will either be out of office or can claim to be hamstrung by a republican majority in both houses, a majority which he will have helped create.

[femrap]

79. They're not idiots....they are merely

playing the role assigned to them by TPTB. Give 'em an Oscar for best in Kabuki Theater....exit, stage left.

They could have done a shitload of things....but, they know where their campaign funds come from.

[PassingFair]

80. "The Dems" haven't been acting as a block under Obama...until now.

So many Blue Dogs were voted OUT, that
the Progressive Caucus is now LARGER than
the old Blue Dogs and "New Dem" caucuses
COMBINED.

Now the "Neo-Dems" don't have the Blue Dogs
to hide behind.

Should be an interesting 2 years.

[pnwmom]

81. We can in the HOUSE. But in the Senate, they can filibuster

to prevent a vote.

We should still do it in the House, but that's as far as it will get, probably.

[DallasNE]

87. A Filibuster Vote Can Be Forced

Which puts the Republicans on record.

[rhett o rick]

93. Of course it CAN. So what? The Dems either dont want to fight or cant. nm

[jeff47]

89. We want a filibuster

2012 election ad: "Senator _____ raised your taxes, because we in the Democratic party did not want to give more money to Wall Street executives."

Go ahead and filibuster. It'll make 2012 really easy for the Democratic party.

[adamuu]

82. Who here has written to your congresspeople about this?

Anyone may answer.

[coti]

92. Yes, I just did. My Representative, two Senators and Obama himself. nt

[DallasNE]

84. This Is Exactly What I And Others

Were posting some 4-5 months ago, forcing a vote before the election on only middle class tax cuts. Maybe the law makers should assign someone to monitor the progressive blogs for ideas.

[Skittles]

90. catching on now are we?

THEY GIVE A FUCK ABOUT "WE THE PEOPLE"

[hulka38]

91. If there's a silver lining in this latest mockery of representation

by the Democratic Party, it is that it is becoming impossible for the party to act as though they are defending the middle class' interests. It's also becoming impossible for apologists of the party leadership to make coherent defenses of its actions. For how long can you put your personal faith in an individual(s) above the ideals that the Democratic Party espouses but repeatedly does not live up to and as in this case may be working against?

[bobburgster]

94. Great post!

Thanks for the info.

K&R

[DutchLiberal]

98. Because the Democrats WANT to extent the Bush tax cuts...

They're corporatist, most of them. They don't work for the working or middle class. They work for those who are paying them: the richest Americans. They only say they want the Bush tax cuts to expire, in order to look good in the media; they want to fool the people into believing they're working for them, but the Republicans are just too darn evil...!

[ooglymoogly]

100. Yet who knows what darkness lurks in the hearts of men and women

of power; of Potus, and congress.

You are talking common sense. How many times in the last two years or ten for that matter, have you seen any common sense hailing down from the Senate. It really comes down to whether Pelosi, Reid and (0) really want to let the taxes for the rich expire. Judging from the past, Pelosi would fight for letting them expire, if she had the Presidents backing. Of that backing, I am very dubious.

If they were serious, they would have done this when they had a majority.

If not we will see another Kabuki dance like health care; to the stylings of the (0)chorus band, confusing the issue into an enigma, rapped in a riddle, baked in mystery and ultimately the taxes for the wealthy will stay non existent; with all their loopholes for poodle clips, yacht taxes and umpteen houses around the world; add infinitum. Frankly I do not believe (0) when he says he is "strongly" for letting the taxcuts for the rich expire.

You might as well believe; for every drop of rain the falls; a flower grows. But that is perhaps substantially more believable and is a far prettier thought and far less benign.

Watch for a lot of grandstanding before the fall to get the contributions greasing the wheels. This one should be worth plenty.

If in fact, The taxcuts expire at the end of the year and a bill extending the taxcuts on the middle classes passes into law; I will be the first to clap myself into slobbering delirium.

Otherwise, anybody taking bets??????? I'll give 50 to 1 odds.

Thats 50 don't believes to your 1 believe.

My dream? To be proven wrong and lose all my believability, if there ever was any to be had

Unfortunately history is heavily on my side.

Just for starters, the catfood commish, the patriot act, the presidential power to designate whoever a terrorist and disappear that person.


And yet it is time for the exception.

The roulette ball has fallen on odds so many times in the last 10 years, it is as if the game is fixed (hahahaha add infinitum, till the straight jacked and muzzle brings silence); it is time for change.

Que the (0) chorus band.

So I'll put out whatever effort is available to me, letters, donations, petitions, phone calls and whatever; just on the chance that it matters.

[earcandle]

101. The Dems are hoping we are stupid too, the ones who are among those who would also get those rich

tax cuts themselves.  Remember, it is not just the Repugs
getting tax cuts.  Its the wealthy, some of which are Blue Dog
Dems.  Maybe even Pelosi herself is among those making more
than $250K.  

Nevertheless, even if we gave up the middle class tax cuts, to
give up all, it would be worth it as we will have more money
in our economy with giving up the 700 Billion for the rich. 
Whereas the tax cuts for the middle class is probably pennies
in comparison.  Don't have that number. 

[budkin]

102. Republicans might have a fit about it... so table it

[laughingliberal]

103. It can be done in the Senate under reconciliation. If they say otherwise, it's obvious...

they just don't wanna do it.

[coti]

104. Shouldn't even need reconciliation, though. If they did this right, pretty much everyone

would vote for it.

[Misskittycat]

106. K&R. Honestly, my head is about to explode from all of this compromising and capitulating. n/t

[causamortis]

107. Let Them Filibuster

Big deal, let the GOP filibuster on middle class tax cuts.. Let them hold up on tax cuts for the middle class, and play partisan politics... They stand to lose a lot more than the Dems by doing this.. We'll be sticking up for middle class America, they'll be sticking up for the richest 1%.. Capture it all on tape, then blast their antics during prime time campaign season.. We need not say a word, they will fall on their own sword...


it's a win-win proposition.

[Misskittycat]

116. Totally agree. n/t

[joshcryer]

110. If this happens I will be blown away.

I will spend 40+ volunteer hours working for my Democratic candidates in 2012.

[MrMickeysMom]

111. As discussed on Olbermann tonight, they're SCARED...

Howard Fineman, I think, was theorizing where this absurdity comes from. He and Keith were having a WTF moment that was underplayed and palpable.

My version is - So.....Congress.... you might, by taking a big chance, not be able to come back after a useless career and slip into a Washington Lobbyist position. Since you have no leadership, the House wants to see first if the Senate has any bold leadership on this before it's brought to a vote. They're useless and fucking scared.

Well, they're going to just have to be scared and do the right thing for the right reason. Maybe that's too hard for the ones that have completely lost touch with the American people.

You are so right - it's absurd. Someone will have to have an absurdity thread to celebrate the absolute inability to act on the the one issue they can act on.

[coti]

112. I saw that conversation too, and you nailed it. Great post.

Yeah, they just don't think they can control the message.

Well, if they don't take the initiative, they WON'T be able to control the message.

They need to grow up, is what they need.

[MrMickeysMom]

148. "They need to grown up, is what they need"...

This could be the cry of parents who spawned a demon child...

Flashing back (circa 1991)).. Wasn't Paul Tsongas correct in saying the single most important issue was campaign finance reform? Well, he was right, rest his soul.

This is what you get when "the children of the house" turn zombie, answerable only to a demon toy company from hell!

[Major Hogwash]

119. The Democrats couldn't pass a healthy fart

if they ate a hill of beans.

All they care about is themselves and their fucking jobs!

[Change Happens]

155. Good thing we elected a brilliant President too.....

:sarcasm:

[StarsInHerHair]

113. no, they're just pretending to be idiots

they go along for a reason. These 2 at least are not.

[inna]

115. K&R, and... KUDOS to the Progressive Caucus, they really need our support.

To me, they represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic party (to quote the late Senator Wellstone).

:kick:

[Hawkowl]

117. Clueless Obama

Really. To not do this before the elections is perhaps the biggest political blunder in the last 50? 100 years?

[Crunchy Frog]

118. I have already decided that the next time I vote will be AFTER

the Bush tax cuts for the megawealthy have been allowed to expire, and not before. I'm fully expecting to sit out the 2012 election.

[harun]

131. Me too. They won't expire them. Conserva-Dem's to the uber wealthy's rescue.

[Marr]

121. Of course. The Democratic leadership has been doing this sort of thing since 2006.

They tie themselves into knots coming up with transparently phony ways to "lose" on issue after issue. They aren't incompetent-- they're complicit.

There are some items on the supermarket shelf that are identical, but sold in different packages. I think Raisin Brand is one of them. The actual cereal you buy is the exact same thing, regardless of brand. It's coming out of the exact same production plant, in fact. The manufacturer sells it to different companies who do nothing but package it up for a specific audience and advertise it to a specific audience. Raisin Brand vs. Raisin Flakes.

That's our two political parties. They're selling the same thing, to different audiences.

[DesertFlower]

127. this is so simple. nt

[leveymg]

128. Originally separate Bills in '01 and '03. The Dem leaders don't want to separate them now.

They're in the pockets of Wall Street and the Multinational Corporations, particularly in the Senate. They'd rather lose the next election, and the one after that, than offend their base. The real one - $$$$$$$$$$.

[RBInMaine]

132. The Pubs and corporate media will still spin it as a "tax increase on small business." Just watch.

[fasttense]

136. Yeah, I saw some RepubliCON saying that on the TV last night.

Tax increase on small business??? Now, how did we get from income tax increases for millionaires to tax increases for small businesses? I thought we were talking about income tax? Income Tax is NOT on a business, any business. It is on an individual's income. Businesses are NOT incomes. They may provide an income but they are not levied taxes as if they were a person (unless the Dancing Supremes have weighed in on this).

So, when the RepubliCONS said tax increase on small businesses, I wondered what the hell they were talking about. I didn't know we were talking about business taxes. When did the discussion switch around?

RepubliCONS are such idiots and they momentarily confused me until I realized they were referring to the billionaire income tax give away.

I wonder how they keep their lies straight? They are so confusing.

[sam sarrha]

133. both parties are owned by the Oligharcy..

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

[DailyGrind51]

135. It reminds me of the guy who was locked out of his house and had to break a window

to get in, only to discover his spare key in the lining of his jacket.

[BrklynLiberal]

137. Kind of makes one wonder, doesn't it?????????

WTF else could there be a simpler solution to that we have not been told about...

[xchrom]

138. recommend

[Enthusiast]

139. Procedural hurdles are in the minds of

the individual legislators.

[Vinca]

140. By the time they get done apologizing to all the Republicans for stepping on their toes,

the session will be over.

[dotymed]

141. "Complete Idiots"

or, more likely, Complicit.

[molly77]

143. Brilliant strategy. Go Dems.

[Overseas]

144. Yes indeed. K&R! Get them on the record! /nt

[pleah]

145. K&R

[dsc]

147. because the Blue Dogs rebelled

but since most of them lost anyhow it is time to tell them to be quiet.

[TBF]

150. That is the silver lining of the midterms - blue dogs gone. nt

[Mafia Killer]

149. Let them eat Cake !

when I was a young boy......I recall watching a movie about a country where Aristocrats basically owned and controlled everything and everyone. When the general population became tired of being treated like a tool...for the benefit of the Wealthy, they decided, enough was enough.

I think it was called the "French Revolution" or some other nonsense. Hollywood....they make anything believable.

[soryang]

153. They could have done it in 2009

I love all this posturing. No session of Congress can bind a subsequent session on tax matters.

The tax code represents the balance of power of social groups in a society. When Obama came into office without changing it, he completely nullified the impact of his election in favor of the Bush balance of power from years earlier.

[Change Happens]

154. Yes, all is required is one vote and ONE VOTE ONLY....

It is really that simple.

[hendo]

156. Oh, they made a big deal out of this a few months ago.

Our party just dropped the ball.