Have to agree with TPM on Obama tax cut cave. 'It's hard to read it any other way.'

[flpoljunkie]

(Make them all vote no on middle class tax cut extension --Republicans and Conservadems alike.

White House Signals Intent To Cave To GOP On Bush Tax Cuts
Brian Beutler
November 11, 2010,

When Congress returns next week, Democrats will still have large majorities in both chambers. They could in theory put their plan forward and let the GOP decide whether or not to kill it -- resulting in tax increases for everybody.

But the strong implication here is that the White House takes Republicans at their word: they won't cave, so in order to avoid raising taxes on the middle class, we'll give in instead. The White House is strongly objecting to that reading. The problem is that's it's hard to read it any other way.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/11/white-house-caves-to-gop-on-bush-tax-cuts.php?ref=fpblg

[Vincardog]

1. If you do not want to be seen as caving, DON'T CAVE N/T

[ProSense]

2. Come on

This is completely simplistic.

"they won't cave, so in order to avoid raising taxes on the middle class, we'll give in instead."

It implies that any compromise is caving.

There is going to be a compromise or the tax cuts will expire. That's reality.

[no limit]

4. What kind of compromise are we talking about?

Yeah, I know prosense. Lets just wait and see, right?

[ProSense]

6. OK, I realize that

people will avoid going to the link so here is the reality:


In terms of proceeding, there are only two choices: compromise or let the tax cuts expire.

You can't want the tax cuts for the middle-class to continue and expect that there will be no compromise.

If the vote is held on just the middle-class tax cuts, Republicans will filibuster it in the Senate. Effectively, that means the tax cuts will expire.

As for compromise, what's it going to look like? It's not simply a matter of extending the tax cuts permanently or temporarily. There is also the matter of who benefits, and there may be room for compromise there.

Robert Reich: Extend the Bush Tax Cut to the Bottom 99 Percent, But Not The Top 1 Percent.

[no limit]

10. So your definition of compromise is to give them exactly what they want and get nothing in return?

[ProSense]

13. Is you definition of not caving allowing the tax cuts to expire?

A compromise means Democrats get the permanent tax cuts for the middle class. That is not "nothing."

[no limit]

15. The republicans are for a permanent tax cut for the middle class as well

in addition to the middle class tax cut they want the tax cuts for the rich extended. Which is exactly what the Obama administration will give them.

That means they are giving them exactly what they want and getting nothing in return. What part of this do you have a hard time understanding? I know you're a smart guy, stop playing dumb.

[ProSense]

19. So you think they wouldn't dare vote no?

They control the House in January and Democrats have fewer Senators.

Do you think they might be feeling lucky?

[no limit]

21. Let them vote no. What's your point?

Only people like you would see the republicans being forced to vote no on tax cuts for 98% of this country as a losing issue.

[ProSense]

26. Repeat:

If the Republicans vote no, the tax cuts expire.

It's that damn simple. No one who wants the middle class tax cuts to continue, that is do not want them to expire, can realistically advocate that no compromise be made.

If they advocate no compromise, then they have to accept the reality that the tax cuts will expire.

[no limit]

28. ProSense, I would love to one day have an honest discussion with you without the bullshit

Currently the tax cuts are set to expire, we agree on that. We also agree on the fact that to extend the tax cuts new legislation must be passed, without that legislation everyone has their taxes raised.

If the democrats put up a bill that cut taxes for 98% of americans the republicans are saying they would block it. That means that the president would not be responsible for your taxes going up, the republicans would be responsible. And in 2012 you could fill the air with ads showing this and the election would be in the bag for democrats.

This is a winning issue. Only the democrats (because of blind support from people like you) could fuck this up.

So again, to be clear. Yes, tax cuts would go up for everyone. And it would be the republicans, not the president, that would be responsible. However, if the president actually put up a fight, I really don't believe republicans would block such a bill. But the fact is the president refuses to put up any kind of fight.

[ProSense]

32. You want the tax cuts to expire.

"If the democrats put up a bill that cut taxes for 98% of americans the republicans are saying they would block it. That means that the president would not be responsible for your taxes going up, the republicans would be responsible. And in 2012 you could fill the air with ads showing this and the election would be in the bag for democrats."

Yes, ideally that would be case: The millions of Americans who see their taxes go up would blame Republicans not the President.

[no limit]

40. stop making this about me, again I asked to have a discussion with you without the bullshit

and you revert right back to it. We are talking about what the president wants, not what I want.

They would have to blame the republicans because the republicans blocked the bill. Republicans, as shady as they are, can't change facts that simple. And the fact is the president won't even try. You think that's right?

[ProSense]

46. Did you really need to

ignore the fact that there is a response to your statement?

You: "If the democrats put up a bill that cut taxes for 98% of americans the republicans are saying they would block it. That means that the president would not be responsible for your taxes going up, the republicans would be responsible. And in 2012 you could fill the air with ads showing this and the election would be in the bag for democrats."

Me: Yes, ideally that would be case: The millions of Americans who see their taxes go up would blame Republicans not the President.

Is the response not clear?

[no limit]

50. And I responded to your response which you just ignored.

Let me be more specific in my question. How does a republican spin voting "no" on the largest middle class tax cut in history? Or are you of the opinion that the majority of americans are mental midgets that would not be able to understand this issue?

[ProSense]

54. "How does a republican spin voting "no" on the largest middle class tax cut in history? "

"Ask Republicans. They seems to have been able to convince Americans to vote for them after destroying the economy.

"Or are you of the opinion that the majority of americans are mental midgets that would not be able to understand this issue?"

I wouldn't put it exactly that way and wouldn't say a majority.

How do you explain the new Republican House majority: Dems voted themselves out of office?

Is allowing Republicans to win or voting for Republicans smart?

[no limit]

55. We could get in to a whole other discussion about why I think republicans took over

I'm sure you have an idea as to some of the reasons I think it happened. But that's irrelevant.

You're a smart guy, you can give me some specifics. Name a specific way that they spin this which the american people would buy. For example, lets say the democrats run an ad that says Congressman B voted against the largest middle tax cut in history. How does congressman B spin that?

[ProSense]

58. "You're a smart guy"

I'm a woman.

"Name a specific way that they spin this which the american people would buy. For example, lets say the democrats run an ad that says Congressman B voted against the largest middle tax cut in history. How does congressman B spin that?"

I don't know. I have trouble thinking like a Republican.

I do know that there were a lot of Democratic ads this election cycle telling Americans that Republicans destroyed the ecomony.

Seems Republicans were able to spin their way back into office. So it's possible.




edited for clarity.

[no limit]

60. So you can't name any specific way they would spin that

and I guess the president just wouldn't be able to counter such obvious spin on such a simple issue. We'll just have to leave it there because we will be beating this dead horse all day.

I'm sorry for the mistake on the guy thing, won't happen again. But I will just take this oppportunity again to ask you to respond to my question below about what Obama should do if the republicans reject his compromise. You will give me an answer, right?

[ProSense]

61. None, I'm fresh out of Republican spin ideas.

In fact, I'm not even sure they'd be able to come up with a spin. This may be the Democrats ace in the hole: allowing Republicans to block the middle class tax cuts and blaming them for letting the tax cuts expire.

If you don't mind the "little blue link," I've made the point about letting the tax cuts expire.

What I cannot guarantee is that Republicans will not spin it, and if so, that the spin will fail.

[no limit]

62. Thanks for the link, I appreciate it

I think for the first time since the 08 elections we actually agree on something.

If you don't mind I'll post a question to you in that thread.

[Skittles]

63. SCHEDULING NO LIMIT FOR ASS-KICKING

THINKING, WELL, REFERENCE THE SUBJECT LINE :rofl:

[Exilednight]

51. He's not playing. n/t

[Skittles]

64. CORRECT

DUMB AS A BAG OF HAMMERS

[vi5]

14. So hold it on just the middle class tax c uts,

let them fillibuster it, and then shout from the rooftops and on every single cable news show pointing out that they did this.

What is so hard about this? No, I know they can't make them actually fillibuster but even if it's just a silent fillibuster the point is still the same. Hold them accountable for this.

I'm not sure why that is so hard to do? In fact it's even easier to do that then it is to actually force a vote because this way you don't have to have the conservadems on record, since i know the admin is loathed to ever make them uncomfortable or hold them accountable as well. So it's a win/win. The republicans are the bad guys and no conservadems have to cast a vote against their wealthy donors.

[no limit]

17. It's not hard to do. The fact is this administration wants tax cuts for the rich to be extended

they simply want us to believe otherwise.

[stranger81]

44. Exactly right.

Nobody's tying their hands. They're choosing to do this of their own accord. Just like they chose to let Alan Simpson decide what to do with Social Security.

If they actually wanted a different outcome, they would have played the game differently. Simple as that.

[stranger81]

41. Compromising on an issue you said you would not compromise on IS caving.

And THAT's reality.

[no limit]

3. Anyone that doesn't read it that way is pretending to be naive.

This administration thinks we are stupid. And apparently some people here love to pretend that they are too dumb to realize what's about to happen.

[benlurkin]

5. ?

Make them all vote no on middle class tax cut extension --Republicans and Conservadems alike.

How?

[ProSense]

8. They will vote no, but

is TPM advocating that the tax cuts should expire? No, they're simply claiming that if Democrats compromise that's caving.

[no limit]

11. A compromise means you get something in return. This administration wants nothing in return

[flpoljunkie]

25. Giving in before any debate or votes is a cave--not a compromise.

Make them all go on the record--Republicans and Conservadems alike.

[no limit]

12. To extend the tax cuts new legislation must be passed.

So if they put up a bill that says 98% of americans would get a tax cut the republicans would have to vote no on that. Which means Democrats would have a 2012 victory in the bank.

Why they don't do this? I guess because they want to see their rich contributors to get richer.

[ProSense]

16. "So if they put up a bill that says 98% of americans...the republicans would have to vote no"

And they will.

Do you want the tax cuts to expire?

It's not a new bill, it's a bill extending a current law.

[no limit]

20. Yes. I want all the tax cuts to expire. But what I want is irrelevent

I'm willing to compromise. And I actually know what a compromise is. My compromise is to allow tax cuts for 98% of americans while not extend the ones for the top 2%.

This administration, and apparently you, don't understand the concept of compromise.

And if they vote no let them, that would mean the democrats would have 2012 in the bag.

[ProSense]

23. "My compromise is to allow tax cuts for 98% of americans while not extend the ones for the top 2%."

That's what the President is advocating. The Republicans say no.

So you get your wish: Tax cuts expire.

[no limit]

So let the republicans say no by forcing a vote. That's on them.

if you give them exactly what they want because they won't compromise on their positions you are caving in.

[ProSense]

27. Right

"if you give them exactly what they want because they won't compromise on their positions you are caving in."

So compromise is caving and not caving is allowing the tax cuts to expire?

[no limit]

31. Jesus. again, you just admitted above the republicans said no to the compromise position

so if you give them everything they want because they said no you are caving in. It is no longer a compromise.

[ProSense]

34. You seem to be under the impression that

anything is everything.

"so if you give them everything they want because they said no you are caving in. "

Everything to Republicans is a permanent extension. There are several other proposals that could be offered as compromise.

[no limit]

45. can you please tell me what you think Obama should do if they say no to even that?

If the republicans don't allow temporary extensions for the rich while making the middle class tax cuts permenent what do you think Obama should do. I would appreciate a reply from you on this.

[ProSense]

47. Hmmmm

"If the republicans don't allow temporary extensions for the rich while making the middle class tax cuts permenent what do you think Obama should do."

Let them expire? What do you think is going to happen if Republicans refuse to compromise?

[no limit]

49. You didn't answer my question. And I honestly would appreciate if you did

I already told you what I want to happen. Now I am asking YOU what YOU want.

What do you think Obama should do if they don't agree to the "compromise" Obama is probably going to offer?

[frylock]

52. you're wasting your time..

all your going to get in reply is your post in quotes followed by another irrelavant question, with a possible blue link to more WH talking points thrown in for good measure. don't feed it.

[no limit]

53. I just want to find out if prosense has a mind of his own or not. I'm hopeful he'll answer

He always defends the president for any decision he makes. So I'm curious what he thinks about an issue where he doesn't know what Obama will do.

[ProSense]

56. Wow,

are you smarter than the poster?

"with a possible blue link"

What color are your links?

[no limit]

57. I'm looking forward to your answer to my question.

[frylock]

65. some are purple..

yours will always be blue.

[disillusioned73]

18. I believe the implication is to..

propose an extention to the middle class tax cuts ONLY, thus allowing the upper tax breaks to expire - daring them to vote against it/fillibuster it.

Political win/win

[BrklynLiberal]

7. I wish I could conjure up a mental image of Obama standing up to the repukes....but it just won't

happen.....x(

[vi5]

9. Sadly, it's not hard for many on here...

I really want to know from some of these folks if there is pretty much anything this administration can do that will make them not continue to support it and defend it at every turn and with every single event. Because every time the threshold seems to be raised for them. And if it's a limitless ceiling to what they will tolerate and defnd, then why bother with any of it. Just make one post saying "I will support this president no matter what he does and nothing he does will make me not do so.".

I'm curious whether this latest cave-in will peel off any of the hardcore crowd of if we've pretty much reached the Democratic equivalent of the Bush 27% crowd.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

22. Let me guess. The "compromise" will be to let the mega rich tax cuts expire in 2 years. Thereby

giving the pukes the chance to say on 2012: "TAX AND SPEND TAX AND SPEND TAX AND SPEND". Then what's the "compromise" going to be then?

[BeyondGeography]

24. At the very least, Axelrod should have either kept his fucking mouth shut

or not say what he said.

Trying to remember the last time he didn't sound like a bumbling milquetoast fool...

[flpoljunkie]

29. I'll second that.

[ProSense]

37. Here's

HuffPo's headline and lede:

"White House Gives In On Bush Tax Cuts

President Barack Obama's top adviser suggested to The Huffington Post late Wednesday that the administration was ready to accept an across-the-board continuation of steep Bush-era tax cuts, including those for the wealthiest taxpayers. ..."


Here is Axelrod's quote: "But plainly, what we can't do is permanently extend these high income taxes."


The piece was a complete distortion.

[BeyondGeography]

38. "We have to deal with the world as we find it."

Has a Republican operative ever conceded that in public? Let alone before the confrontation has even started? This is why they call us spineless.

Axelrod can be seen as signaling that they don't even plan a confrontation, which is why this is a headline. He either completely messed up or is telling the truth. Hope it's the former.

[ProSense]

39. He was talking about the new Congress, and they are not seated until January.

Why the hell would Stein spin that as relevant to the tax cuts? They are not.

[BeyondGeography]

42. Better not to give him the excuse in the first place

Wouldn't you say?

[ProSense]

48. So

it's Axelrod's fault that Stein spun his comments?

He should only say stuff that no one can spin?

[BeyondGeography]

59. Yeah, that's it

:eyes:

[flpoljunkie]

43. A temporary extension for all the Bush tax cuts is just what the Republicans want.

Tying them together is just what the GOP desires and will work to their advantage in 2012.

[DrToast]

30. They're going to cave. And this is why it was stupid to put this off for so long

And I and many others are pissed off because we saw this coming. They've had two years to get this shit done.

[flpoljunkie]

35. That's why there was no vote before the election. They knew they were going to cave.

Grow a spine, Democrats!

[OHdem10]

33. You could read it as Obama can count. How Many DLCers

and Blue Dogs will vote with the GOP. They are
now the "swing vote". If Republicans have DLC
Blue Dogs, there are not enough Liberals in the
Senate to stop it. Liberals should make a lot
of noise explaining why this law is bad.

[flpoljunkie]

36. Make them vote no--Republicans and Consevadems alike. Don't cave and let them off the hook!