If Senators and House Democrats believe they can force a better compromise or result, fine

[bigtree]

. . . let's see it. It's their screw-up on the tax cut expirations anyway, that brought us to this point.

[onenote]

1. +1

[Vinnie From Indy]

2. Gee, thanks for your rousing support of the idea

It almost sounds like you hope they fail.

Cheers!

[bigtree]

13. no, the House might be able to improve on the compromise

. . . perhaps reduce the length of the upper-income tax cuts or lengthen the UI benefit extension.

All of that revision of the 'agreement', though, may set up a dynamic of resistance with the Senate republicans when they go to reconcile the two bills. This isn't a done deal yet.

[phleshdef]

3. Theres hundreds of people responsible for governing, and they all expect just 1 of them to do it.

[Edweird]

6. There's only one captain at the helm - Obama. Don't try to shift blame.

[pnwmom]

10. He can't pass legislation. That's up to the legislature.

He's not equivalent to the captain at the helm, except in his position as Commander in Chief. He's Commander in Chief only of the Armed Forces, not of Congress or of the citizens of the U.S.

[Edweird]

15. That's why he went to the republicans FIRST and the Dem Caucus SECOND, right?

[AndrewP]

20. Well....Why talk to Democrats?

:crazy:


Amazing, isn't it?

[Edweird]

22. BUT - HE DOESN'T PASS LEGISLATION!!111! 3 BRANCHES!!111! LEAVE OBAMA ALONE!!11!!

[pnwmom]

26. Exactly. Because he knows he can influence Democrats

more than he can Rethugs.

[walldude]

29. Yes and he's influencing them to do the wrong thing

AGAIN. Woo Hoo.

[pnwmom]

35. The millions on unemployment disagree with you.

Easy to dismiss his efforts when you're not one of them.

[Edweird]

42. "So I pass a signature piece of legislation..........."

>I pass a signature piece
>I pass
>I

[phleshdef]

11. The 3 branches of government do not, nor have they ever operated as a military...

...or a ship or whatever other bland ass cliche you decide to cook up. No one is shifting any blame. I have my issues with some of the President's actions. But someone has to put a bill on his desk. Those people that put that bill there are every bit as much of the problems or solutions as the President is. If anyone is shifting the blame, its you. You apparently want to pay members of Congress tax payer funded paychecks and then give them the convenience of deflecting all blame on the President when something isn't going your way.

[Edweird]

43. "So I pass a signature piece of legislation..........."

>I pass a signature piece
>I pass
>I

[griffi94]

4. killing it would be a better result than what we have now.

[pnwmom]

36. Are you dependent on unemployment aid that is about to run out?

I didn't think so.

[TwilightGardener]

5. What I don't understand is, he made his stand pretty clear, since what--2007?

This should have been taken care of. Very aggravating to see it play out this way.

[butterfly77]

7. Kicked&Recommended..

[Edweird]

8. Right, that's what FDR and LBJ did - let congress 'do it's thing' and just take the credit....

[pnwmom]

12. FDR had a big majority to work with and, after Kennedy's death,

LBJ had a majority AND a minority that was willing to help honor Kennedy's legacy.

The Congress we have now is nothing like either of the Congresses then.

[Edweird]

14. Yeah, who can forget FDR's quote:

"They are unanimous in their hate for me — and I welcome their suggestions"
And FDR had Smedley Butler to help him 'reach out' in 'bipartisanship' to the corporate interests.
I guess people just don't realize how easy FDR really had it.

[mkultra]

17. well, he certainly didnt have to deal with 60 vote cloture

which is exactly what is holding this up.

[jobycom]

19. Kennedy's death didn't make the South more likely to support Civil Rights.

FDR had to threaten the Supreme Court to keep his legislation enacted. He threatened to expand the Court and appoint more justices who would agree with him, and the Court suddenly started clearing his laws. "A switch in time saves nine," was the joke.

Clinton shut down the government rather than let Gingrich's roll-back budget gut everything we'd accomplished since FDR, and he won, even though the Republicans held Congress.

[pnwmom]

25. Are you suggesting Obama can win this by threatening the Supreme Court?

Or that, with almost 10% of Americans out of work and the nation struggling through a deep recession, this is a good time to shut down the government and stop all Social Security and other checks from being issued?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

9. Or, they could (hopefully) filibuster the POS bill.

[jobycom]

23. That's their only option left without presidential support.

If the Dems in Congress had the president's assurance that he'd veto any bill that included extensions on the upper income tax cuts, they could negotiate with the Republicans and get something better. That's how having a president helps us. Some here seem to think that the president is useless and has no effect on legislation (unless of course it's good legislation, and then he singlehandedly imagined, manifested, and enacted it against the opposition of God and mankind), but an opposition president has strong influence over Congress. Unfortunately in this case the president decided to use his influence against the Democrats instead of for them.

[jobycom]

16. Of course they can't. Obama would veto it.

For a compromise bill to pass, you have to have the support of the president. Otherwise you have to have two thirds of both houses on your side.

Obama cut their feet from under them. Without him telling the GOP that he would veto whatever they pass that includes a tax cut for the rich, the Dems in Congress have no chance. If he did make that proclamation, we would at least get a chance to pressure them into a compromise. Now all the Dems can do is obstruct.

[bigtree]

18. he'll sign any extension of middle-class tax breaks that Democrats can manage

They had no 'feet' on this issue. They forfeited their chance to act before the election as the President urged them to,

[jobycom]

21. The middle class tax cuts were never in doubt.

The Republicans were never going to deny those. They'd lose the nation if they did.

And strong presidents don't urge. They lead. They make it happen. Defend the president if you want, but defending this action of the president is ridiculous, for any Democrat.

[bigtree]

24. Congress had the responsibility to schedule those votes as the President was urging them to do

There wasn't any 'doubt' about the outcome of the two free-standing votes they held on those middle class tax cuts on Saturday.

[jobycom]

40. Obama shouldn't have urged, he should have done something back then, too.

Obama never took the lead or took charge of the tax cuts before the election. He gave a speech calling on Congress to pass the middle class tax cuts first, and then to debate about the upper income cuts. It was naive and silly at the time--a good first shot in a battle, but he never engaged in the battle. Everyone knew the Republicans and significant numbers of Democrats weren't going to do that on their own free will, because the middle class cuts were all the Republicans had to bargain with. Congress didn't have the votes to pass the middle class cuts without the upper class cuts, and Obama didn't have the whatever to work Congress to get the votes. That was a failure on all their parts, Obama's included.

But that's history. The debate now is what to do now. Obama has once again failed to do anything significant, and has in addition crippled his party in Congress from doing anything. If he had been president in the 90s, Gingrich would have gotten his rollback budget and his Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage, and I guess some Vichy Democrats would support him for it. If he had been president in the 60s we'd have never gotten Civil Rights passed. Being president means working your party and working Congress to get what you want done. Obama is smart enough, and he's good enough when there's general agreement to get a consensus issue past, and he's even smart enough to be good on the details when he's working out his ideas. But he's not a leader. He can't win anything contested. He can't stand up to the opposition. He can't say no. He's an easy mark.

If he doesn't learn how to fight and how to politic, he's going to give away everything they want, including the White House in 2012. This is not a good compromise from him, and not good timing, and not a good way to handle it. He turned the cannons on his own forces and fired, and now he's confused as to why their scattering.

[bigtree]

41. I think that's just second guessing

. . . based on what? Media reports? Easy to do. I think his potential influence in breaking the republican filibuster on the tax issue is overstated by critics.

Civil rights legislation was always a work in progress. The original excluded gays and the disabled.

The rest is just dubious speculation about the past. :shrug:

[asdjrocky]

27. As long as Obama doesn't take the blame, right? nt

[walldude]

28. WOW! Ever the defender.

I love watching defenders scramble to make sense out of the fact that they are getting fucked over but need to be happy about it.... Good Luck.

[bigtree]

30. defenders

crazy me, defending our Democratic president.

Good luck to you, as well.

[walldude]

38. Thanks I'm going to need it...

If Obama is what is considered a Democrat is in the 21st century we are going to need all the luck we can get.

[ieoeja]

31. Given that a better compromise would be ...

... letting the tax holiday expire providing a return to fiscal responsiblity and an incentive to reinvest money rather than taking it as profit now that taxes are higher, I agree with you 100%. They should just stop the President's compromise since it is actually worse than letting it all go.

[GreenTea]

32. Bullshit!

How is it the democrats fault? "It's their screw-up on the tax cut expirations anyway"

Yes, explain this when the expiration date of the Bush 10 year tax cuts expiration date were voted on set & approved by a republican president, the republican senate majority and the republican congressional majority?

In Fact, GOP Included Expiration Dates To Hide Cost And Deny Dems The Option To Filibuster

Wash. Post: Without Sunset Clause, "The Bill Would Have Needed At Least 60 Votes" In The Senate. In an article after the tax cut bill passed, The Washington Post reported:

House Republican leaders said yesterday that they will push legislation this year to make permanent the bulk of the $ 1.35 trillion tax cut awaiting President Bush's signature. Most provisions of the bill are set to expire at the end of 2010.

House Majority Leader Richard K. Armey (R-Tex.) said removing the "sunset" date would be "an encouragement to the American people -- to hear this is real and know that it's going to last."

Rep. Bill Thomas (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, said the sunset date of Dec. 31, 2010, for most of the provisions was required by Senate rules on how tax cuts can be made to fit under a 10-year budget. Without that cutoff date, he said, the bill would have needed at least 60 votes in the 100-member Senate.

Wash. Post: Sunset Clause "Effectively Boosted The Size Of The Tax Cut," While "Hiding Its True Cost." In an article after the tax-cut bill was approved by the conference committee, The Washington Post reported:

All of these provisions will expire at the end of 2010, an accounting maneuver that kept the cost below $ 1.35 trillion and allowed a deal to be struck. Since Republicans had placed the tax bill on a fast-track process allowing limited debate, an obscure Senate rule would have required the bill to lapse at the end of fiscal 2011. But when negotiations were at an impasse, lawmakers realized that they could move up the date.

By terminating the tax cuts at the end of 2010, negotiators were able to avoid some tough decisions. Since they could now distribute the same amount of money over nine years rather than 10 years, they effectively boosted the size of the tax cut while at the same time hiding its true cost.

Moreover, Democratic Leaders Criticized The GOP Over The Expiration Dates

NY Times: "Democratic Leaders Sharply Criticized The Bill, Particularly" The Sunset Clause. In an article after the tax-cut bill was approved by the conference committee, The New York Times reported:

Democratic leaders sharply criticized the bill, particularly the elements that would hide the loss of revenue by showing that the tax cuts would expire before 2011.

Representative Charles B. Rangel of Manhattan, the top Democrat on the Ways and Means Committee, was officially a conferee on the legislation but was excluded from the final negotiations.

Tonight, he accused Republicans of "packing it with every kind of gimmick and sleight of hand I have ever seen."

"It's one big fraud on the American people," Mr. Rangel said.

Knight Ridder: Sunset "Accounting Move Drew Loud Protests From Democrats." Knight Ridder reported at the time of the bill's passage:

House and Senate negotiators came up with a package of tax cuts totaling $1.35 trillion over 10 years. Initially, the tax cut was spread over 11 years, but tax writers packed more cuts into the package by making them expire in 2010. That allowed them to meet 10-year congressional budget requirements by claiming no loss of revenue in 2011.

[bigtree]

34. no, no, not because of all of that

. . . because of their failure (for what ever reason you want to choose) to garner enough votes to overcome the republican filibuster. For whatever reason, they failed to uncouple the tax cuts while they held the majority.

[GreenTea]

37. When did the Dems ever really have a 60 vote majority filibuster proof block in the senate?

The democrats never really had enough votes in the senate when it mattered, Lieberman an Independent always voted with the republicans when it really mattered on votes like this, (and still does)....

And Obama was always stupidly catering to the 100% partisan republicans which put the republicans in a position of strength, Obama constantly making it known and making it very clear he was going for the "moderate" (no such thing) republicans like the back-stabbing, two-faced, under-handed lying duplicit republican senators from Maine, who purposely used him and Obama was what? Too hard headed, stupid, insecure to say fuck you as the republicans laughed at him, insulted him & used him?

Are you counting fucking Lieberman?

Are you counting the fucking "blue-dog" democrats?

Are you counting on the two fucking lying conniving republicans senators from Maine?

The only chance the Democratic weak knee-ed majority leader Harry Reid had was to put pressure on Lincoln & Ben Nelson and other blue-dogs and also insist that Lieberman vote 100% with the democratic caucus or he WILL absolutely lose his chairmanship on committee!

Then they would of (perhaps) had 60 votes.

Fat chance with the timid Reid!

[bigtree]

39. so you have a reason

which I mostly agree with

(I think you misunderstand the import I place on the blame Democrats should get for the failure)

I really don't know how you can put the President's responsibility in passing legislation above the actual Senators and House members.

[Andy823]

33. I agree.

If they can get "less" of an extension for the rich, that would be great, and if they can get more of their agenda passed, that too will be great, but I won't hold my breath. It "IS" their screw up so let's see what they can do to make it even better!