Would we be having this fight if Obama had handled the Bush tax cut fight this way?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

Suppose, instead of capitulating to the Republicanites in order to "save" extended unemployment benefits, he had gone on national TV and said this:

"My fellow Americans, I'm speaking directly to you tonight because the Republicans are playing games with people's lives. Since we Democrats are concerned about the deficit, we want to let President Bush's tax cuts for people making over $250,000 expire as of December 31, 2010, as they were intended to. The taxes of a person making $250,000 would rise $xx per year as a result, an amount that a person at that income level spends on one night at a fancy restaurant. Taxes for people making less than $250,000 would remain the same. Let me repeat, taxes for 99% of Americans would remain the same. That's literally 99% of Americans.

"But the Republicans are saying that they want to extend these temporary tax cuts for the wealthy, and they say that unless we agree to do so, they will not agree to extend unemployment benefits for the millions of Americans who have been unable to find jobs for over a year. Let me repeat that, too. They would rather cut off the incomes of millions of ordinary Americans than have the richest 1% pay an extra $xx a year.

"As such, I will not sign any bill that includes an extension of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. I will not give into blackmail. If you are one of the long-term unemployed, gather with others who are in your situation and make a personal visit to your Republican House member or Senator and explain what this issue means to you. If you have friends or relatives in this situation, phone, write, or e-mail your Republican House member or Senator.

"And above all, remember that it is THE REPUBLICANS who are favoring one rich person's steak dinner over the survival of millions of Americans. Thank you."

You cannot negotiate with bullies and sociopaths. To do so is like putting a KICK ME sign on your butt.

[hollowdweller]

1. Obama would have been better off

To let them expire and then use the revenue to pay down the debt AND create some more gov't jobs.

All he did was give money to people who sat on it.

A lot of times I miss Bill Clinton. He always had a 5 point plan for everything. While I didn't agree with everything Clinton did he did seem to be more hands on regarding legislation and often supported his positions. With Obama he's really hands off. I don't think it serves us well really.

[ncteechur]

5. I don't think either of you know what the hell you're talking about.

The fact is that extension of unemployment benefits and DADT would never have passed without a short term deal on the tax cuts. Not to mention tax cuts for everybody else. President Obama said he would not raise taxes on folks making less than 250K. If the tax cuts for all had expired, taxes would have been raised on everyone. It doesn't matter what he says now, it matters what campaign commercials say later.

As I recall, Bill Clinton didn't get any healthcare passed. He screwed up on DOMA, Glass-Stegal, the Fairness Doctrine, and NAFTA. I like Bill Clinton but he didn't pass any more legislation than Obama has--in fact, I think Obama has passed more.

[Logical]

17. We will never know what a real fight would have produced. n-t

[KoKo]

2. Interesting thoughts...what you say. K&R

"You cannot negotiate with bullies and sociopaths. To do so is like putting a KICK ME sign on your butt."

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

3. No.

[Skittles]

4. that would have taken real leadership

[PragmaticLiberal]

6. Real leadership........

like getting DADT repealed?

[Skittles]

7. so why didn't he do that?

why did he give in to tax cuts for the obscenely rich, if he's such a great leader?

[PragmaticLiberal]

11. His goal was make sure that

unemployed people could continue to put food on the table.


Just something to think about....

[asphalt.jungle]

13. and that taxes didn't rise

for 98% of americans. i think more people would have been pissed at the breaking of this campaign promise that personally affects them than those that are pissed at other broken promises.

[Skittles]

15. WTF

how could he allow unemployment benefits to be held hostage to OBSCENELY RICK FUCKS. Please, ENOUGH ALREADY.

[vaberella]

24. You do realize that the Bush tax cuts for the rich had to be allowed to expire.

Democrats on his side said if you allow them to expire then you allow them for the middle and poor to expire as well. And he was never going to get a new bill passed just for the middle class and poor. Why? Because that billed failed TWICE in Congress. So why are you asking something that he can't do alone?

[TheKentuckian]

28. Only because they could continue to hide behind principle and going for the whole enchilada

when the increase was only a hypothetical.

They never were forced to vote against "middle class" tax cuts and were instead allowed to continue to vote against tax increases.
By being afraid to lose (which in this case would have still been a net long term win) meant refusal to make Republicans take votes that count that cannot spin. Out of fear they would not vote for "middle class" relief, the situation was never set up.

Only by letting the package to sunset can it be decoupled and affirmative votes for specific relief be made.

What choice would they have but to just vote no for "middle class" cuts and yes for the top 1 or 2 percent or vote no on both and get battered like hell in commercials.

Over reliance on the momentum of the status quo risks getting caught in the undertow.

[vaberella]

47. Thank you for the response. So then it goes back---how was Obama at fault.

When you even clearly laid out it was Dems in Congress. They voted it down TWICE! He advocated for it since June of 2010 until December 2010---I saw all the townhalls. The Dem Congress---nada, except for Feingold who joined Obama towards the end.

[MatthewStLouis]

8. The conservatives choose "principle" over practicality...

and they win many of the little battles. Maybe Obama is looking to try and win the war (a 2nd term). I would hope that, but I'm afraid he's hurting the democratic party in general. People don't know what the democrats stand for (what we won't cave in on) and the only ones willing to tell them are the republicans.

[high density]

10. At the end of the "war," the voter will not care that he cut the budget

They will care if the economy is still in shambles and mass joblessness remains. The Republicans are simply doing all they can to keep the economy bad since they think this means better chances for themselves in 2012. Plus it helps out their rich buddies by keeping the working force desperate and afraid.

[GameOn]

9. we wouldn't be having this fight is Nancy Pelosi led in the House. Obama wanted them to vote on this

but I'm under the impression that Pelosi didn't want her guys taking another tough vote before the election

[Donnachaidh]

19. I'd love to see some links to back up this *impression*.

Nancy fought longer and harder on issues than Obama -ever- has. I call bullshit on this.

[JoePhilly]

20. It really wasn't Nancy, it was the blue dog house dems.

The Blue dogs were not willing to pass legislation that only extended the tax cuts for the middle class. They were afraid of making that a campaign issue in 2010. And Nancy could not force them to pass it, so it died in the House. Of course the House cowards got their butts kicked anyway.

So they punted the issue to Obama. And he had a choice.

As a candidate, he promised not to raise taxes on the 95% of the country making under 250k. If he lets all the tax cuts expire, he breaks that promise to 95% of all Americans. If he breaks that promise, the media runs clips of him making that promise right next to clips of Bush senior saying "read my lips" ... and those clips run endlessly from January 2011 until November 2012.

Oh, and here on DU, he'd have been crucified for "sticking it to the middle class".

[mkultra]

29. whos job is it to wrangle house democrats?

that would be pelosi.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

37. It's Pelosi's job to "wrangle" the House Democrats, but it was OBAMA

who strong-armed the Progressive Caucus into supporting his Health Insurance Company Corporate Welfare Bill. He has no trouble getting involved in "wrangling" Congress if it's for the benefit of the Big Boys.

[mkultra]

48. actually, he made a compromise deal while they did nothing

And then pushed them into passing it since they had been sitting on their hands the entire time. in the end, congress makes laws and Obama only has the single power of veto over congress. If congress sits and does nothing, he is powerless.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

50. The Progressives didn't "do nothing"

They had their own alternative single payer bill, which never got any traction, but might have if some of the leadership had a) PUBLICIZED IT and b) FOUGHT FOR IT the way they fought for the corporate welfare bill.

During the time this was all under discussion in Congress, I heard a lot of people talking about the HCR bills.

Of course, the righties had been brainwashed into thinking that this was going to be a total government takeover resulting in conditions worse than in the worst VA hospital there ever was.

However, and here's the significant point, since so little information was easily available (it took me forever to find an executive summary of the bill--and there were few details in the MSM until it actually passed), the middle-of-the-road and leftie types I talked to also thought that it was a single-payer bill and were wildly in favor of it for that reason until I told them what was actually in it. Then they were shocked and disappointed.

As for "Congress making laws," yes, technically, only a House or Senate member can introduce a bill, but since the beginning of American history, presidents have tapped House and Senate members to introduce bills that were THEIR idea. How do you think the Patriot Act got into Congress?

[mkultra]

51. congressional leadership yes

like i said, they didn't get their shit together. There was no way Obama was going to come out against a program that had virtually now public support. Yes yes, i know that you guys bandy about some stat about 70% support but that was for a government "based" system. When put against the PO, it lost 20% to 80%

[asphalt.jungle]

12. it's easy to fight that way if you make up the facts to suit your argument.

taxes would have risen for everyone if it had just expired. there was no way to separate the two. the only reason the two were separated is because he campaigned that way, but when they were instituted back in 2001 it was just an overall tax cut. he had the choice between two campaign promises: ending the tax cut for those making more than 250k or not raising taxes on anyone making less than 250k (200k individual). he chose to keep the promise that affected 98% of americans.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

14. My point is that he didn't really TRY

He didn't explain the fight to the American people. Reagan was good at laying out his (lousy) ideas in understandable terms.

He didn't ask them to pressure Congress. Reagan did this all the time.

He didn't horse trade in ways that would not harm the vulnerable. LBJ was a master of this.

He didn't call their bluff and make THEM the bad guys. Any PR person with half a brain can do that.

He didn't use the ammunition that he had. Did he even want to?

[asphalt.jungle]

16. try what?

explaining to americans that their taxes would go up even though he promised it wouldn't? you started your initial post on a faulty premise that simply allowing the tax cuts to expire would only affect the top 2%. it wasn't just about unemployment and DADT. taxes going up for those making less than 250k hurts president obama and the democrats way more than it would any republicans in a lameduck congress.

[JoePhilly]

21. He did speak to the US about this, and he did call on House Dems ...

to pass a bill extending the tax cuts for the middle class while letting those for the rich expire.

The Blue dogs were not willing to pass legislation that only extended the tax cuts for the middle class. They were afraid of making that a campaign issue in 2010. And Nancy could not force them to pass it, so it died in the House.

Of course the House cowards got their butts kicked anyway.

The American people understood the issue pretty well. In larger numbers, they supported letting the tax cuts for the rich expire, but NOT if that meant that their own middle class tax cuts also expired.

So the House punted the issue to Obama. And he had a choice.

As a candidate, he promised not to raise taxes on the 95% of the country making under 250k. If he lets all the tax cuts expire, he breaks that promise to 95% of all Americans. If he breaks that promise, the media runs clips of him making that promise right next to clips of Bush senior saying "read my lips" ... and those clips run endlessly from January 2011 until November 2012.

Oh, and here on DU, he'd have been crucified for "sticking it to the middle class by raising their taxes".

[Lydia Leftcoast]

25. Then the Blue Dogs should have been told that they would get no support

from the party if they refused to vote with the rest, or else being a Democrat means nothing.

[Tarheel_Dem]

18. Unrec. If your only life goal is naked politics, then you may have (and I stress "may have") a ....

point. Fortunately, anonymous folks on the internet only have a responsibility to themselves. The president doesn't have that luxury. A case has been laid out upthread for why the president did what he did. Look up recent polling on what the American people wanted, and if you exclude the teabaggers and the ideological left, you'll find the president did exactly what the American people wanted. Sorry....:(

[dionysus]

35. naked politics?!?!11 them's fightin' woids! put up yer dukes!!11

:hi:

[Tarheel_Dem]

45. Hey dion. You old scamp.

:rofl:

[bvar22]

22. Rec back UP to +5

It would be much better FIGHT and Lose.
At least THEN, America would KNOW where The Democratic Party STANDS.

Obama has NOW put his Seal of Approval on the Republican frame:

The RICH deserve MORE money,
and The Working class & The Poor should pay for it!
----co-signed by President Obama & the "Centrist" Dem Leadership

Obama did NOT object to the Republican Plan In Principle,
he merely dithered about How Much More the RICH should get.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Exilednight]

26. Link to the speech? n/t

[Lydia Leftcoast]

27. Nuance shmuance

The voters don't get "nuance." They like to know where a politician STANDS, what s/he won't give up on.

I hate the Republican agenda, but at least I know what it is and what they refuse to bargain away.

The Democratic agenda? Mmmm, depends on who you talk to, and it seems that there is nothing they won't bargain away if the Republicans hold their breath and stamp their feet.

[mkultra]

30. many middle ground folks would be pissed that he put tax cuts before humans

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

31. Obama wanted the Democrats to do TWO things last year: (1) pass a budget and

(2) take up the tax issue. Those two issues are constitutionally mandated for the U.S. House of Representatives, NOT THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH!!!!!!

The House passed a budget in the lame duck congress. The Senate, however, stalled. That's a failure of BOTH Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.

The House REFUSED to take up the tax fight. I remember Obama begging the House to do so, but Pelosi buckled under pressure from Blue Dog Democrats who got their asses handed to them anyway!!

I am so sick and fucking tired of DU Obama haters blaming him FIRST and not knowing the fucking facts, the U.S. Constitution, notwithstanding!

When Obama is WRONG, he is WRONG. But this bashing is becoming somewhat of a pathology on this board.

If you're going to bash the president, at least get the fucking facts straight!!

NOTE: Bashing does not equal criticizing!!

[AtomicKitten]

32. I remember he tee'd up the tax issue for the Dems BEFORE the midterms.

It would have been a powerful issue for debate and would have left the RW on their heels. It's a damn shame the Dems in Congress didn't run with it. If they had I suspect the midterms might have turned out much different.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

34. EXACTLY RIGHT!!! n/t

[stevenleser]

33. That would have played right into Republican hands

In your suggestion, you mention and attack the Republicans three times.

That is all the Republicans would have needed to say that instead of worrying about policies, the President was interested in making this a partisan fight.

Instead of seeming to be for Americans, the President then comes off as being more interested in fighting a partisan battle.

With that spin, the President loses both the tax issue AND the unemployment issue.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

36. "I welcome their hatred," said FDR

Good Lord, what kind of LEADER hesitates to lead because the opposition is going to fake being offended?

You know the standard response to fake indignation in real life--"If the shoe fits, wear it."

[stevenleser]

38. FDR didn't have Newscorp/Fox News. If he did, he would have altered his strategy. n/t

[asphalt.jungle]

39. and i think that FDR quote was about

bankers anyway.

it seems like you were saying it would play into the hands of republicans and could turn the voters against his/dem's side. so the FDR quote definitely doesn't apply because who would welcome the hatred of voters.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

43. If presented right, if the Dems were SMART about PR and really wanted to

help the people, this aggressiveness would win as many people as it lost, maybe more.

The voters like FEISTYNESS.

[stevenleser]

44. There are two conditionals a "really" and a "maybe" in your statement.

And that assumes everything works in the real world the way you think it does. Which it doesn't.

Fox and the rest of the NewsCorp holdings will jump all over you if you go partisan like that. I know, I've experienced it first hand. You will have given them a bona fide reason to criticize you.

[OwnedByFerrets]

41. Do you HONESTLY think they are treating him with kindness and flowers NOW?

It doesnt matter what he says, the repugs will still say the same smucky shit about him.

[stevenleser]

42. That is not my assertion. I am asserting that this would open a new line of attack...

and one that would be supportable based on the statements it was suggested that Obama should make.

[OwnedByFerrets]

40. It takes a fighter to fight for anything. He is proving to be no fighter.

[Hippo_Tron]

46. What makes you think the American people would have heard him?

The networks aren't going to interrupt programming so that he can give an address on tax legislation before congress. At most they would get a soundbyte on the evening news. The American people were disengaged as usual and left it up to the politicians to make the decision.

[dennis4868]

49. maybe not....

but a hell of alot of people out of work would not be able to put food on the table and taxes for the struggling middle class would have gone up considerably....

[hollowdweller]

52. He could have claimed a HUGE reduction in the deficit

My bet is that even w/o the unemployment extension the economy would be no better or worse than it is now and he could have used that money to create more jobs or projects that created jobs instead of giving it back to the rich to set on.