So the question is was extending tax cuts worth getting unemployment extension for 2 million people

[WI_DEM]

worth it? The GOP wasn't going to give in on that unless we caved on the tax cuts. I'm not sure we should have done it but at least it will be a somewhat better Christmas for those who were to lose their benefits.

[GodlessBiker]

1. It should be unemployment extension until unemployment rate drops below 7%, and ...

DADT, and DREAM, and a few other things.

[udbcrzy2]

21. Wouldn't the unemployment rate fall when those people are dropped

I thought that if you no longer were receiving benefits that you would be dropped from the count of unemployed.
Maybe that's the republicons plan, to let those already collecting benefits to drop off thus reducing the unemployment
number. I dunno??

[GodlessBiker]

23. I think those people who have stopped looking for work get dropped, not those who ...

no longer get benefits. The two categories aren't the same.

[udbcrzy2]

26. Just wondering about that

I am unemployed and I have to file a claim each week in order to receive benefits. Now, if the benefits end,
then I won't be filing the claim since it would be a waste of my time. I just thought that those people who
have exhausted benefits have stopped filing and thus were now considered not part of the those being counted.
How else would they count them then?

[Bragi]

2. What is the cost of the tax cut for rich versus jobless benefits extension?

Does anyone know the estimated cost to the treasury of continuing with the tax cuts for the rich versus the estimated cost of the extension of unemployment benefits?

[lunatica]

3. The cost would be far more than just money

The cost can be counted in lives.

[Bragi]

4. Agreed, but I'd still ike to know the economic tradeoff here.

I'm opposed to the tax freebie for the rich, and support benefits for the unemployed, but I'd like to know how the estimated numbers work out.

[truebrit71]

11. I heard somewhere that the taxgifts to the rich would = $700 billion over 10 years...

...and extending unemplyment would be be about $18 billion. Not sure over what time frame that $18 Billion is..

[gkhouston]

15. $70 billion per year for two years for the tax cuts versus $18 billion per year for

one year of unemployment extension is the most commonly floated talking point I've heard.

[Bragi]

19. Then it's a foolish and stupid and immoral deal

If the "trade-off" here is that Obama gives rich people $70 billion a year continued tax cut, and in return he gets their party's support for an annual $18 billion extension of benefits for the unemployed, then this has to be one of the worst deals ever made by a sitting President. if this is so, then Obama must be held accountable.

[earthside]

5. No.

If this is the deal Obama makes, then it just proves what a crappy negotiator he is.

The unemployment benefits extension should be a stand-alone issue. Repuglicans would be under intense pressure to extend unemployment payments because they have unemployed constituents, too. Ultimately it is very bad politics for them to be Scrooge -- Democrats have the upper hand on this issue.

That Obama would allow Repuglicans to link unemployment insurance payments to tax cuts on the income over $250,000 is the total cave-in that so many on DU are talking about.

I think it is truly a sign that Obama is a one-termer and that Democrats will lose everything in 2012 if the final 'deal' is keeping the millionaire's tax bonus in exchange for feeding, sheltering and clothing the unemployed -- that's no deal!

[elleng]

8. They don't feel/care about the 'intense pressure' you mention,

they don't give a s**t, POTUS knows it, and we should, too.

[elleng]

6. Seems to me they've got us over a barrel, and as unemployment is SO important

he'd be right to go for it. AND we've got a good talking point: 'They say they're deficit hawks, but their actions prove the contrary. To secure much needed $ for unemployed, they've forced this unpayedfor tax extension for the rich.'

That's the way of the world, unfortunately.

[Bragi]

9. How about: rich pay fair taxes, their tax money goes to the jobless?

Seems to me that was a political option.

[elleng]

13. Not if they didn't want it that way. They have the discipline and the votes,

regardless of what is 'fair.'

There are LOTS of reasonable deals we could concoct; if they don't want it, we don't get it. That's the 'barrel.'

[RandomThoughts]

7. I don't understand the concept of deals like that.

I think I think in terms of what is just and long term effects on stuff like that, although some might think differently.

Maybe it comes from my bias, not taking the offer of soup. But it is different because that could be making the choice for someone else. Maybe it is a lack of respect for those that try to offer soup for what is already yours.


Would you take soup, would you tell someone they should not have soup, or would you chastise the person offering soup for their own gain.

Some say any 'welfare' is soup, but only if you agree to that kind of deal, I would say the soup is already theirs by flaws in the system where capitalism moves money upward, and from that, in my bias often do not agree with those that always want something to be able to feed someone.



I have been told many times that someone takes the stuff I write, and use it for ideas against things I think and feel. I believe that is to try to get me to stop expressing stuff, and believe that I don't have to say it, but choose to knowing that it can not be used against the ideas themselves, even if used against me and because if I express, it helps me learn also. And besides, thousands say the same stuff with same things in many places, without causation, so it is not about me saying it anyways.

I think that is why some monks took vows of silence, since filters in some people made them hear what they said in a hurtful way. They would sometimes say things that were not seen as nice, but to stop expressing is to somehow to think the side that says bad is more then the thoughts that are good, based on your own view of things.

I can even think of ways this comment could be used differently, but that is not the point.

[BeyondGeography]

10. This is a fig leaf for avoiding a bruising but necessary confrontation

You never trade something will not become permanent (unemployment benefits on the scale needed at present) for something that threatens to become permanent (tax cuts).

Worse, you never trade something worth $18 billion to the budget for something worth $500 billion.

This is why it's being called a cave-in, not to mention it's Obama's last and best hope for real policy relevance before the Party of No takes over the House.

He will enter his re-election campaign ill-defined generally and with major damage control to be done with the base. He is more likely to be a one-term President as a result.

Holding the Republicans' feet to the fire would have had the opposite effect, plus, he would have won in the end as the public is on his side policy-wise.

The answer to your question is, "no."

[Cosmocat]

28. The OP was a false question ...

It should have been reversed ...

And, that is a CLEAR no ...

This was a battle that should have been waged ...

[FBaggins]

12. No. But that isn't what really happened.

The tax cuts were going to pass all along. The only real question was what would be temporary and what would be permanent. The unemployment extension was also going to happen all along, with only the length of the extents ion really in doubt).

Republicans wanted to make noise about "paying for" the unemployment benefits with other cuts (to placate their base) and Democrats wanted to make noise by passing a taxcut extension bill in the House that they knew would never become law (to placate their base) .

Now both sides are happy to "give up" something they knew they could never win to "compromise" at the point where they knew they were going to end up anyway.

IOW. Both sides are pretending. Democrats will be able to say "well, at least we got these benefits extended" and Republicans will say "at least we got the tax cuts through".

[totodeinhere]

18. That's a good analysis. n/t

[Bragi]

20. The Repubs have a much better talking point than that

"We allowed Obama to put through an $18 billion a year extension of jobless benefits" the GOP will say "in exchange for getting a $70 billion annual tax cut for rich people."

[Sheepshank]

14. How could those cold hearted bastards

attempt do that to the unemployed? It would appear the Dems can't understand using the unemployed as a body shield. Makes one wonder what else the Reps would be willing to sacrifice for money.

I'm upset that the rich get yet another tax break....I'm mollified that it was given up for a good cause.

[jefferson_dem]

16. You are correct. ... And yes, we should do it...

Because it's the right thing to do. Period.

[chelsea0011]

17. This isn't a trade off. It is extortion. Two entirely seperate issues are

being used to get the repukes their way?

[Phx_Dem]

22. Of course. Why should unemployed suffer more than they already have just

because of deep-seated hatred for the GOP? I hate the GOP too, but that's just inhumane and wrong.

[Jakes Progress]

24. Gotta be the worst poker player ever.

First, why did we get in the position where it was one or the other. Poor political skills.

Second, it's a bad deal money wise. We definitely needed the unemployment extension, but it's like trading your mint conditions Mickey Mantle card for a minor league player. Maybe you need the minor leaguer for your collection, but you could get a lot more for the Mantle. Poor bargaining skills.

Third, the republicans have his number. They growl and he blinks. He folds on every bluff. It's probably too late now to change the perception.

Most of those giving out excuses are using their old tried and true "Well, it was the best we could do." They are probably right. Given the players on our team, this was probably the best we could do.

[Clio the Leo]

25. We need to lower our expectations....

... if last year's HCR fight wasn't proof that Dems dont control Congress and progressives dont control the caucus then we're only asking ourselves for continued frustration.

This IS NOT what we elected...



Those who ONLY want emotional vindication from the Bush Presidency need to buck up. The poorest among us who aren't even sure if they're going to get another pay check dont CARE if you think the President is caving or not. They only care that they can feed their kids and pay their light bill. The primary goal of the Democratic party needs to be taking care of the American people, not scoring political victories.

[ibegurpard]

27. haha

the mating cry of the DLC
"lower your expectations"
whatever...
:barf:

[Milo_Bloom]

29. No.

You know why? Because most of those people will STILL be unemployed in 13 months, because we are not taking steps to bolster an environment to create the jobs to get them off unemployment.

[Dawgs]

30. No. The question is, was there a better option?

For many of us the answer is yes.

1) Use the remaining stimulus funds to pay for unemployment benefits and promise to veto any tax cut bill for those making more than $250,000.
2) Force the Republicans to accept the Democrat compromise of tax cuts for those up to one million dollars.
3) Tell the Republicans to go fuck themselves and make them actually filibuster unemployment benefits.
etc..