Rep. Michael Capuano on taking the President with him to buy a car

[andym]

“I’ve negotiated with people who are a lot tougher than Mitch McConnell, I understand negotiations,’’ Capuano said, referencing his time as mayor of Somerville. “I don’t mean to be a jerk, but I don’t need a lecture from the president of the United States on how to do negotiations.’’

He added, “I do know one thing: you never get anything unless you fight. And my analogy has been, I’m not going to bring President Obama with me to buy my next car. I’ll end up paying more, and it won’t have a radio in it.’’

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2010/12/09/democrats_rip_obama_look_to_alter_tax_cut_deal/

[somone]

1. Obama will ASK the dealer for the $500 Scotchgard Interior Fabric Protector

because it's such a great deal

[Very_Boring_Name]

11. Not only will he ask for it...

He'll offer to pay 200$ more than the dealer is asking

[roguevalley]

19. your remark is brilliant. did you know that?

[dennis4868]

2. ummmmm

does the rep know that when you buy a car the car dealer does not have a fillubuster and if you don't buy the car it will not effect millions of people in the middle class and lowest tax brackets? Is he stupid or what? Thank goodness he's not president. Thank the good lord for Obama who is a realist.

[Foo Fighter]

7. Ummmm, are you aware of something called an "anlaogy", which is what

Rep. Michael Capuano was using:

He added, “I do know one thing: you never get anything unless you fight. And my analogy has been, I’m not going to bring President Obama with me to buy my next car. I’ll end up paying more, and it won’t have a radio in it.’’

I doubt the Rep. needs you to school him about how things work in DC.

BTW, it's "affect", not "effect." I wouldn't go around calling anyone stupid if I were you. It certainly doesn't help bolster your case.

[truedelphi]

9. Hey there, Foo Fighter,

<sigh>

Many people on DU cannot comprehend the notion of analogy.

At all. I once posted something about Bush Adminstration and "The Handmaid's Tale" and was taken for task for the many ways that women were not yet relegated to the status they hold in that scary work of fiction.

Analogy is just over their heads or something.

Don't know what it is, but some people cannot handle analogy.

[Foo Fighter]

15. You're definitely right on that.

Some people just don't get it.

Sorry you went through that re: "The Handmaids Tale." That's a good analogy.

It seems that sometimes, people are blinded by lack of critical thinking and at other times, by party loyalty. All too often it's a combination of both.

[dennis4868]

10. ummmmm....

But it's not an analogy because when you buy a car and you don't like the deal you can go to another dealership to buy a car..,,obama has to deal with the repubs and they have the fillubuster in the senate and it's ABSOLUTE fantasy to think that the repubs would ever agree to not fillubuster a tax bill that increases taxes even 1 penny for those making over $250,000 a year..,,therefore there is no fight to be had here....There had to be an extension of tax cuts for the wealthy....the only issue what does Obama get in return. The problem is that Obama was dealt a shitty hand...,he has to protect the middle class and the lowest tax bracket whose taxes are scheduled to go up by 50% on January 1 not to mention millions who lost UI last week.

[Foo Fighter]

17. I forgot. The Dems aren't allowed to filibuster. Through some arcane rule

long lost to history, the Republicans are the only ones that are allowed to filibuster. Thanks for straightening me out on that issue as I've long suspected that to be the case.

Can you imagine what a hellhole this country would be in if Dems had EVER been allowed to filibuster Bush? Thank Gawd that never happened.

And Obama doesn't have the option of letting the Bush tax cuts expire. That's not a possibility as there was no timeline for expiration written in to the original bill. Oh wait...

[eomer]

21. It was not necessary to write a bill that would increase taxes for the wealthy.

That increase was already written into law.

The law they needed to get done was a tax cut just for the middle class. That is a change that is allowable within the reconciliation process, where it would require only 50 votes in the Senate.

So this explanation that you keep posting over and over is simply not true. Obama and Democratic leadership in Congress could have enacted this tax cut without a single Republican vote. They simply had to go ahead and do it.

Why don't you factor this fact into your future posts?

[dennis4868]

23. A tax bill that only extends the cuts for the....

Middle class (which basically raises taxes on the wealthy) can be and HAS ALREADY been fillubustered by the senate republicans and if this bill is brought up again it will DEFINITELY be fillubustered again by the repubs in the senate. The fillubuster will cause taxes on all people to go up on January 1, including the middle and by 50% on the lowest tax bracket (plus, no UI benefits for 13 months.

So obama needs 60 votes (because of the fillubuster) in the senate and he therefore needs republican votes which will never happen. As a matter of fact, 5 dems last week voted againt the tax bill extended the cites for everyone making $250,000 or less. Not sure why you say that Obama does not need repub votes when in the senate you need 60 votes for everything because of the fillubuster.

[eomer]

24. Do you know what "budget reconciliation process" means?

A bill that is done within the budget reconciliation process cannot be filibustered. There is no cloture vote. It needs 51 votes to pass in the Senate but the Vice President gets a vote so Democrats need 50 Senators plus the Vice President. There is no point at which it needs 60 votes -- that rule just does not apply to budget reconciliation bills.

It is now too late to use budget reconciliation during the remainder of this Congress (in other words, during the lame duck session). That's because there are some specific steps in the budget process that have to be followed in order to use reconciliation and those steps weren't done for this budget (as I understand it).

But earlier in this Congress (2009/2010) it was completely within the power of the Democrats to use budget reconciliation if they had just gone through the steps. Obviously there would have been some Democrats who would have held out for something in return in exchange for going along. But that's just normal business. If Democrats (and especially the de facto leader of the Democratic Party, the President) had wanted to get some things done, their best bet all along was to work these things out in private caucus meetings, come up with a compromise among Democrats, and then pass the Democratic plan with a simple majority. There would have been nothing the Republicans could do about it but moan.

If they had done what they could when they had the opportunity to do it then it would not be such a dismal situation going into the coming period when nothing can be done unless Republicans agree to it. In the next Congress (2011/2012) the Republican majority in the House will most likely vote in a block because that's what they do. So the best that progressives or anyone that's somewhat to the left can hope for is that nothing much gets done. The price they will make us pay is going to be too high. However bad this current tax deal is, deals in the future are only going to be worse since the Republicans will have even more leverage.

You should search for "budget reconiliation process" and read up on it. There are some specific constraints on what can be done within it so a solution that uses it would have to be properly crafted. But they definitely could have found a way to deliver many things from the campaign platform that going forward are no longer possible.

Here is a good high-level explanation of the budget process:
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=155

[asdjrocky]

18. Thanks!

I always get confused on affect and effect. It's affect when you're talking about people, right?

[tblue37]

26. Here is my article on the difference between the two words:

"Learn the Difference Between AFFECT and EFFECT"
http://grammartips.homestead.com/affect.html

[Foo Fighter]

27. No problem!

Looks like tblue37 already answered your question but a quick synopsis would be "affect is a verb, effect is a noun." Here's an example that might be helpful:

Foo Fighter: "How did Obama's friggin' tax cut bill affect you?"
asdjrocky: "I upped my dose of, er, recreational chemicals."
Foo Fighter: "Did that have a positive effect?"
asdjrocky: :B-) :7 :hippie: :headbang:

Hope that helps. ;)

[eomer]

20. Do you know that there was a thing called reconciliation process?

Obama started with the bipartisan BS right from the start when what he should have started with is claiming a mandate and getting about the business of passing the legislation he could through the reconciliation process with 50 Senate votes. That's how all modern era Presidents have done it. Obama clearly knew this. He didn't use it because he wasn't supposed to get done and didn't intend to get done many of the things he promised in the campaign.

It's clear now that his goal all along was to work on behalf of his wealthy and corporate sponsors and to only pretend that he had some of his campaign promises as goals. That's why we were told things like maybe the public option could be addressed later -- the real game was to run the clock out. The public option could have been enacted in reconciliation with only Democratic votes so they had to mumble some excuses and move the focus to something else to get through those two years without enacting something that his corporate sponsors were dead set against and he had made a secret agreement not to let happen. Yes, Obama has been playing chess these two years, we just didn't realize that *we* were the opponents.

[libmom74]

25. thank you!

you are exactly right, Obama and Congress did not get this done because they did not want to, not because the couldn't.

[Foo Fighter]

28. +1000000

Wish I could rec your post.

[laughingliberal]

3. K & R nt

[Ramulux]

4. If it werent for Martha Coakley...

This guy would be the senator from Massachusetts instead of Scott Brown.

[UrbScotty]

5. +1

[dennis4868]

6. I hope not...

His comparison tells MD HD doesn't understand the rules of the senate..,,

[Initech]

8. How is it possible to buy a car without a radio in it?

[delightfulstar]

14. In 1984, it was...

Because my Dad did. (He did get one installed later, of course.)

[tomm2thumbs]

12. he's right about that - dealmaking isn't best left to amateurs

especially those that have a personal stake in it - someone who will grab the last item on the shelf because they see someone else eye'ing it despite the cost or need for it. buyer's remorse is the only outcome

[LinkUP]

13. Supported

By Local #537 handed out pamphlets and held signs for that guy. Feel rewarded for my work there. good job keep it up.

[tblue]

16. I was just thinking this today!

[whistler162]

22. Bummer from the President's record he would probably make

such a deal for you that you would get a 12% or better return on your investment!

But, apparently the Congressman prefers losing money!