Of course, Obama would not extend the Bush taxcuts again...

[kentuck]

But, should he come out and say that at this time? Of course, it would solve much of the revenue problem we have with our budget, if he let the entire Bush taxcuts expire.

Do you think he should make a statement that the Bush taxcuts are going to expire or has he already made that statement??

[FiveGoodMen]

1. I hope you don't have a lot of money riding on that bet.

[hfojvt]

2. he's still pushing to keep them for incomes under $200,000

a proposal which gives way too much in tax breaks to the rich http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/147

[FarLeftFist]

3. He's already stated he won't sign tax cuts for the rich again.

[truebrit71]

9. The operative word there being "again"....he's caved once, he'll cave again...

...and the gop KNOWS that...

'Change' my ass...

[FarLeftFist]

10. Of course the GOP was holding middle class tax cuts hostage. Remember?

It was signed because a failure to do so would have raised the middle class's taxes.

[kentuck]

11. Yep...$200K is in the middle ....

of the top 3% and the top 1% in this country. It hardly qualifies as middle class, in my opinion.

[FarLeftFist]

12. Depends where you live. Here in NYC middle class is considered $103,000/yr

But the people who make less than 200k/yr would have been affected.

[TheWraith]

13. Uh, ALL of the brackets were at stake, not just $200k and above.

As well as, lest we forget, UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS.

[FarLeftFist]

14. Exactly.

[kentuck]

17. Easy marks..

will always lose.

[redqueen]

18. Just about everyone forgets those pesky little details...

such as FDR having the luxury of a huge democratic majority in congress during his first 100 days.

[kentuck]

20. And FDR welcomed their hatred...

He was a fighter. He didn't win every battle but he was a fighter.

[redqueen]

22. Whose hatred?

Are we talking about getting things passed or the sentiment of the pundits at the time or... ?

He managed to get just about everything he wanted passed in those first 100 days (the New Deal, basically) because he had an overwhelming majority in congress, and they were very compliant.

Somehow people expected Obama to achieve the same kind of thing with a filibuster-proof majority, which you can only consider as filibuster-proof if you ignore the fact that it is a scant majority, as well as the fact that we have a number of Blue Dogs who do not mind voting with the GOP on key issues.

[FarLeftFist]

28. FDR had 69 seat Senate and 322 seats in the House.

Exactly why their presidencies are different.

[kentuck]

29. And he knew how to keep his own soldiers in line and how to fight...

I am not convinced that this President knows how to do that just yet? Perhaps in his second term?

[FarLeftFist]

31. Times have changed. The D's are a big tent party. We even have anti-choice members now.

[kentuck]

33. Just because they are under the tent ....

...does not mean they call the shots.

[FarLeftFist]

37. Each member of congress has free-will. We have the power to vote them out.

That's about all that can be done. Take Joe Manchin for example, no matter how much we prove climate change you think he's voting against coal?! Sorry. He won't even vote FOR alternative energy because it may mean his constituents lose jobs. Can only twist arms so far.

[redqueen]

39. He really didn't have to.

Congress was compliant.

[kentuck]

42. I doubt much would have been done without his leadership...

But he was FDR! I do believe that Democratic Party was much more for the People than today's Democratic Party. Also, I don't think the Republicans of that time would even think to do what Mitch McConnell and the Republicans do today. The Democrats would have made sure they paid a steep political price. Also, we must recognize that the media is not the same today and that the degree of pain is not the same because of the very social programs that FDR initiated. Times are different, I must confess.

[redqueen]

44. It was a different time...

more people were hurting so more people were willing to go along with the drastic measures put forward by FDR.

Also not to take anything away from him, but the planks that made up the new deal were largely taken from the socialist party. Perhaps if more left-leaning people who are saying they're independent because they're so disappointed in democrats would join the socialist party, and put forward their reforms as planks on the platform, we might see the same tactic used in order to draw voters from that party... you never know.

[kentuck]

45. Hunger and cold does tend to focus the mind...

there is no doubt.

[redqueen]

47. Nader seems to have called it correctly.

Until people are personally suffering, most just really don't care much to get involved.

[TheWraith]

21. Exactly. FDR had nearly a three to one margin of Democrats in the House.

There were 313 Democrats to just 117 Republicans. And it got BIGGER: in the 1934 election, the last before the original version of Social Security was passed, he ended up with a 69 to 25 margin in the Senate and 322 to 103 in the House.

[redqueen]

23. And he had Fightin Bob La Follette!

I wish we had Republicans like that these days... he supported the president, he supported the New Deal...

*sigh*

[truebrit71]

24. And he didn't have the stones to call them on it...

..."The Republicans made me do it" is an excuse that only works for a little while...They were going to expire....they didn't HAVE to do anything...but he signed off on extending them for another 2 years so that they could become an issue AGAIN right before an election...

Guess what, I stand behind my statement...he caved once (in an election year) and he'll do it again (in an election year)....

[FarLeftFist]

25. I'll stand by his statement.

[truebrit71]

26. That he caved once but he won't again? Okay...i'll book mark this...

...and try and remember to comeback to it when he caves again...

Fool me once, shame on me, fool me twice..won't get fooled again...

[FarLeftFist]

27. That wasn't his statement. His statement was a pledge to the House Dems to not renew again.

Would you rather have had the middle class and unemployed suffer because we're all mad about tax cuts for the rich?

[kentuck]

30. Weak...

fucking weak and cowardly. When you are backed in a corner, you fight back. You don't surrender everything you have. Weak.

[FarLeftFist]

34. And bypass congress? Some things are just not possible within the realms of the Constitution.

He did fight back.....For the middle class and the unemployed. Lets get him a HUGE majority. Congress speaks for the constituents. The president signs or veto's bills.

[kentuck]

36. That's why we lost the Congress...

Do you know where those unemployed are today? No, he didn't fight back, unfortunately.

[FarLeftFist]

38. Yet we retained the Senate.

[kentuck]

40. Ah, yes, the Senate...

The crown jewels of the Democratic Party.

[redqueen]

41. We lost the congress because people don't understand politics.

We can't seem to get through to enough voters to manage to oust Blue Dogs who enable the GOP... so what do they do? Give up the seats to out and out Republicans.

Genius.

[kentuck]

43. Have you thought?

that maybe the Democrats are not getting their message through? And whose fault is that?

[redqueen]

46. The mighty wurlitzer, for confusing people?

The education system, for making people so easy to confuse?

The democrats, for not being sound-bitey enough?

Who cares? It boils down to one thing IMO... voters shooting themselves in the foot. When Blue Dogs get re-elected despite having excellent primary challengers, we can point the finger at the party and say how dare you support those incumbent sold-out traitors to the party... or we can point it at the idiot voters who don't bother to read a damn thing before election day and just go pull a lever every few years. I know where my finger strays most often.

[kentuck]

48. One of these days...

we will have to come to the realization that we cannot continue with the same old tired, worn-out status quo conservatives that all fight against the will of the people. We have to be willing to get rid of the dead wood and let a new forest grow.

[redqueen]

49. I hope it happens soon.

Sadly it seems most voters still don't get it. Did you see that Rahm Emmanuel is the keynote speaker at the Jefferson-Jackson dinner?

These triangulating republican-lite types are dug in like ticks, and it seems most voters are just fine with it. That being the case, I don't know when to expect any significant change.

I mean if 8 years of Bush didn't get people's heads out of their asses, what will it take? I guess we may yet get to find out...

[kentuck]

50. After Bush, it was a time to educate the voters of this nation...

I think we Democrats, from the top to the bottom, failed in that respect. The times called for much more change than what President Obama has been able to provide. It is easy to blame him but we are all at fault, in my opinion. We didn't do the job.

[redqueen]

51. Well you know what they say:

You can lead a horse to water...

I think Nader was more right than I like to imagine. Perhaps the fact that the recession ended over a year ago and yet wages are still flat might cause some people to open their damn eyes and ears and learn for a change. I'm not very optimistic.

[truebrit71]

32. I remember the bush tax cuts for the middle class...they amounted to less than a hill of beans...

...I would be more than willing to have that extra $10 deducted from my paycheck if it meant that the rich got all of their much larger tax gifts taken back...

So he pledged to the House Dems he wouldn't renew again...same thing...he'll cave, just like last time...he may very well offer up some other new lame-ass excuse, but he'll cave just the same..

[FarLeftFist]

35. I wish I was psychic. Sounds fun.

[truebrit71]

52. Oh trust me...it is....

:evilgrin:

See you next year!!

[H2O Man]

15. Correct.

[Autumn]

4. I wouldn't bet on that

He should have said that and refused to extend them when he extended them. He has no credibility with me on anything that involves solving our budget problems.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[gratuitous]

6. Now is a good time to set the narrative

Last time around in 2010, Obama and the congressional Democrats made the issue too easily demagogued, and the Republicans ran them right over, winning the majority in the House, keeping lower tax rates for their wealthy pals, and running up an even higher debt. If there's going to be a different outcome in 2012, Obama and the Democrats could ride on the momentum we the people have generated for them through the Occupy movement (cf. Elizabeth Warren), and whomp on the Republicans for an entire year.

We'll see if that appeals to them, or if they will once again fumble it away and let the Republicans frame the issue, the discussion and the media narrative.

[kentuck]

7. You make a good point.

That would be the wise way to go, in my opinion.

[msongs]

8. seen this movie before and the hero caved and sold out. past is prologue nt

[gratuitous]

19. If it happens again . . .

Then I will have to conclude that they don't really want to carry out the stated preferences of the majority, repeatedly affirmed in poll after poll. The Democrats' weak excuse last time (which I tolerated for the sake of party unity) that they were unprepared for the force of Republican advocacy isn't going to wash a second time.

The stakes are too high, the path ahead couldn't be clearer. If the White House and the Democrats don't get in there and fight for the people, I can draw only one conclusion, despite the astronomical 78% "approval" ratings the administration enjoys from self-identified liberal Democrats (per Gallup).

[yurbud]

16. based on his last deal on this any statement would be meaningless. The last couple of days

of action have been better than anything he's said.