Obama could have gotten everything we need by pinning it all on their damn tax cuts

[lunatica]

The Republicans would have done anything to keep those tax cuts. Anything. Obama could have turned the tables on them and used those same tax cuts as his weapon to get everything we need. He could have reduced the giveaway to the rich and the greedy Republicans would have taken it, because there is no way in hell they would give them up. Their greed would be the very thing Obama could use to get major concessions out of them.

THAT would be a chess game.

[polichick]

1. Yes, everything we need but looks like not everything HE WANTS. nt

[lunatica]

2. Yeah, it isn't rocket science to use what the enemy wants against them.

Many of those politicians thought of this and dismissed it. I'm sure someone as intelligent as Obama thought of this.

He could have gotten what he wants and still helped Americans. That's the part that shows very little vision. I clearly remember him telling Joe The Plumber that it was OK to 'share the wealth'. That was when they started screaming about him being a Socialist.

[dkf]

3. Exactly what do you think he could have given and gotten?

[lunatica]

5. Just about anything the American people need

I'm sure you can think of something if you apply yourself. Extended unemployment benefits tied to a massive stimulus program to rebuild our infrastructure exactly the way FDR did. Social programs for the rapidly growing number of children in poverty. Giving the $250 Social Security payouts to the elderly with a plan for yearly raises.

You know, stuff the American people need. Anyone can add to this.

[dkf]

9. Sorry but I gotta laugh at that one.

Personally I don't think they would have done most things we want for that. Single payer? Nope. Extensions past 99 weeks? They are having problems past 26 weeks. Increasing the minimum wage? Forget it. Fair trade? Doubt it. All of the above? You gotta be kidding me.

[lunatica]

10. I'm not kidding

Greed is a very powerful emotion, and it can be used.

[dkf]

12. Actually I would say their tax breaks for the rich is more ideological than anything.

Most of them aren't THAT rich after all.

[Cant trust em]

4. I think they would have let them expire. They don' take any politcal hit for it.

It would have been a piece of cake to blame it on the democrats since most of their constituents believe that anyway.

[lunatica]

6. They would have lost their bottomless corporate support if they took the hit.

Greed trumps everything.

[Cant trust em]

7. So those corporations are now suddenly going to start favoring democrats?

No chance.

Again, the republicans will always find success in blaming democrats for tax increases. It's not about what actually happens, but who takes the hit. It certainly won't be republicans since they don't actually have to go against conventional wisdom.

[lunatica]

11. Corporations will simply replace the Republicans who didn't tow the line

They don't have to ever back Democrats, but they can punish the Republicans who don't act in the Corporations' selfish interest. This really isn't that hard to understand.

[Cant trust em]

18. It's not that I don't understand. You are wrong.

The republicans take no political hit for this. It's the democrats that get blamed and the current slew of republicans don't even change.

Your analysis is not a realistic scenario.

[lunatica]

23. Obama will be blamed by the Republicans no matter what they win

Obama could have gotten something much better out of this, and given them their tax cuts, and they would have nothing to use against him, other than what they're going to use anyway. But the American people would be better off.

So it basically comes down to what is it that really motivates Obama. I don't get it, because taking care of all Americans is a win win for everyone. Why would he think it's better to do what he's doing?

I guess it's his motivation that I'm interested in figuring out.

[Cant trust em]

24. Our disagreement here is more about Obama's leverage than anything else.

I think that the republicans always knew that they could call his bluff because his biggest campaign promise was that no one under $250K would see a tax increase. They knew that he could never break that because it was his "read my lips" moment. Knowing that he had to give in regardless, then they would have no incentive to give up more than they did.

[ncteechur]

8. Yes, they would have because failure to act would have been an increase in tax on those making less

than $250K. And they would have crushed him with it the same we Bill Clinton crushed GHW Bush with the tax increase prior to 1992 election.

[Cant trust em]

21. I 100% agree.

Obama's no taxes for people under $250K was his "read my lips" moment.

[Overseas]

13. K&R. And as Bernie pointed out, the GOP has always gone along with extending

unemployment insurance payments-- no compromise was required on that.

And giving me a 5% reduction in my Social Security payroll tax, when you have the disgusting proposals of the Deficit Commission looming? Cutting revenue coming in to Social Security just before your Supply-Side-Dominated Deficit Commission gets around to pontificating about the necessary Sacrifice From the Poor and Struggling because-- golly gee, look at SS' Declining Revenue! -- seemed like a cruel joke.

Come on! Is my delight with an extra $20 per month now supposed to overcome the desperation I am sure to experience when looking for my next temp job at 65 years old?

I am so sad that the whole block of Democratic legislators didn't just start off very early in this administration letting the President talk bipartisanship, while they pointed out like Bernie did yesterday, how Republican Supply Side Economics (a.k.a. Cash for Hoarders) has utterly failed and Democratic Demand-Side Economics is far more pragmatic.

The "New Democrat" "Third Way" stuff was really outdated in the 90's when it was first promoted. It looked destructive to our nation's long term health back then, and here we are having lost millions of manufacturing jobs, still desperate without national health security, and the top 1% owning as much wealth as the bottom 90%.

[Divernan]

17. Excellent comment - well stated!

[niceypoo]

14. He should have let them expire

Instead he chose to own the Bush tax cuts himself.

Stupid

[lunatica]

15. If I didn't know better I would wonder if it was deliberate

:sarcasm:

Of course he could have let them expire. He could have also used their greed to gain something for the American people if he wanted to. But then, that's the question we're left with. What exactly does he want?

[jillan]

16. And that is exactly what he campaigned on.

[cui bono]

19. Obama doesn't WANT to get us what we need.

What he really WANTS is to make Republicans think he is a nice guy. It's more important to him to appear nice than to govern this country.

I think it's that coupled with someone having sat him down and explained to him who really runs this country then either threatening him or making him promises.

Either way, he is not worried about doing what it right. He is worried about appearances, and only towards the Repubs. His base he could give a fuck about. He just desperately wants everyone to like him, so he keeps trying to win over the racists not realizing it is futile and no matter what the cost.

[lunatica]

22. That's been a puzzle to me for awhile because

He could get us what we want and he could give the Republicans what they want. Why does it always seem to be Disaster Capitalism. Has any country that's gone through it become better for anybody there, even the rich?

It just seems that everyone being lifted is best for everyone, even the rich.

[Kablooie]

20. If it looks like it's going to fail we may still get something.

Whether Obama wants it or not.