"Obama declares end for tax breaks for wealthiest Americans as debt deal finally passes Senate"

[ClarkUSA]

President Obama is preparing Americans for the inevitable expiration of the Bush tax cuts:

President Barack Obama declared war on tax breaks for wealthy Americans... Speaking in the Rose Garden after the bill was passed, President Obama said: 'Everybody is going to have to chip in. It's only fair.'...He added that a 'balanced' approach was still the way forward. Cutting spending alone was not enough, so wealthy Americans - rather than working and middle classes - would have to contribute by giving up tax breaks.

'It means reforming our tax code so that the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations pay their fair share,' he said. 'And it means getting rid of taxpayer subsidies to oil and gas companies, and tax loopholes that help billionaires pay a lower tax rate than teachers and nurses... I've said it before, I will say it again: We can't balance the budget on the backs of the very people who have born the biggest brunt of this recession.'

The President's comments echoed those made by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who insisted taxes must now be raised.

'We've had too much talk the last few days of Republicans as early as this morning, Republican leaders in the Senate saying there will be no revenue. That's not going to happen. Otherwise, the trigger is going to kick in,' he said.

'The only way we can arrive at a fair arrangement for the American people with this joint committee is to have equal sharing.. There has to be equal spending cuts, there has to be some revenue that matches that.'

http://tinyurl.com/3d8m7bl

... in the long term, this deal is actually wildly in favor of the President’s position.... John Boehner is selling the current CBO baseline to his caucus to pass this bill, and the current baseline includes an expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts. The only way for the Bush Cuts to be extended is if the “super congress” committee offsets it with tax hikes or tax reform in other areas. Going after the Bush Tax Cuts in the committee would not count as reducing the deficit, because the baseline already assumes they will expire.

John Boehner knows this, but most members of his caucus and, admittedly, many members of the Democratic caucus don’t realize it.. If you view this deal from the perspective that there is a guarantee the Bush Tax Cuts will expire, then suddenly the deal swings wildly in favor of President Obama. The president offered John Boehner a 4:1, cuts:revenue deal, but what he ended up getting instead is a 1:2, cuts:revenue deal.

The Bush Tax Cuts account for roughly $3.7 trillion dollars in additional revenue over 10 years. The spending-cuts tentatively agreed to in the deal account for only $2.7 trillion dollars over 10 years. This means there is $1 trillion more dollars in revenue contained inside the deal over 10 years than there are spending cuts... contained inside the bill do not come into effect until 2013, after the Bush Tax Cuts expire, meaning the revenue and cuts come into effect at roughly the same time.

If the rabid members of John Boehner’s caucus realized this, they would probably be calling for his head... It’s no coincidence that John Boehner and Eric Cantor both told their caucus that President Obama “caved.” They have to say this, because if it appears that President Obama got anything in the deal, then suddenly it can’t pass the House of Representatives.... President Obama knew this would look bad for his administration in the short term, but he took that risk in exchange for winning further along down the road... none of this policy actually comes into effect until 2013. Not even the spending cuts. Only 1% of the spending cuts will be felt in 2012... and it leaves most of the details up to the next session of Congress beginning in January of 2013. We all owe the president a great deal of respect for being willing to take the political hit in the short term to save us in the long term.

http://bobcesca.com/blog-archives/2011/08/upon-further-examination.html

The devil is in the details of the WH Fact Sheet on this debt deal:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheet-victory-bipartisan-compromise-economy-american-people

As a wise DUer said last night, this will be a big change in the wealth inequality picture.

[William769]

1. I'll believe it when I actually see it happens and not one second sooner.

[Sherman A1]

3. +1, Agreed & Well Said!

Same here.

I am from Missouri.... "SHOW ME."

[alpha9161]

4. couldnt of said it better myself nt

[MissDeeds]

14. Same here n/t

[golfguru]

53. +100

[Mimosa]

67. Same here.

I remember when *somebody* said he wouldn't sign a health reform bill without a public option. I've long been out of hope and dreams of change.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

121. However if there is an crazy rumor that puts Obama in a bad light then you and a bunch of others

on DU are willing to swallow it hook, line and sinker even if there is not one iota of proof regarding it, and if somebody tries to point that out its usually declared spin or propaganda within moments

[Ganja Ninja]

148. Yup. I wouldn't bet the farm on it ever happening.

He takes defeat all too easy and hasn't lead any effort to confront the GOP in his first term. I don't expect he's going to change his spots after re-election.

[Unvanguard]

2. Declarations don't pass laws, and the second analysis is just totally false.

The Bush taxes will be extended--and you can bet they will be extended, in whole or in part--completely separately from the Joint Committee's recommendations, so they won't need to be compensated for.

[yodermon]

15. Remind us why the bush tax cuts will be extended again? n/t

[Unvanguard]

18. Because Obama doesn't want to raise taxes on the middle class.

And neither do Senate Democrats. So they will be extended at least partially.

Most likely, of course, the House will do what the Senate minority did last time, and refuse to pass any bill that doesn't extend the tax cuts for the rich. So we'll probably see all of them extended. But even if we don't, we'll see the middle-class portion extended.

[ClarkUSA]

24. All Bush tax cuts sunset at the end of 2012. Extending them is not possible within this framework.

From what I understand, the debt deal guarantees their expiration by the terms of the deal, if the tax cuts are re-extended, that eliminates expected revenue and counts as an expense. Which must be offset with either new revenue, or offset by "spending cuts balanced between discretionary and defense spending". Basically, not going to happen - they're history.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=731852&mesg_id=731938

[Unvanguard]

26. And they're NOT going to be extending them "within this framework."

They'll just extend them with an ordinary bill, not via the Joint Committee. There is no requirement in this package that all future tax cuts, accomplished in any way, be compensated for by revenue increases or spending cuts. That requirement applies only to the Joint Committee recommendations, which have to sum up to 1.5 trillion net debt reduction.

Edit: Also, they actually expire at the beginning of 2013, not the end.

[ClarkUSA]

28. You're dreaming. President Obama will not undermine his strategic advantage in such a way.

Note that I fixed my typo before I read your reply.

[Unvanguard]

29. So you don't think any of the Bush tax cuts will be extended?

On what basis exactly do you make that claim?

[ClarkUSA]

31. Affirmative.

<< On what basis exactly do you make that claim? >>

Read the OP over again. Slowly.

[Unvanguard]

35. So, you think it is only possible for Congress to extend the Bush tax cuts through the committee?

Or you think the debt ceiling agreement creates a general requirement that tax cuts be paid for with debt reduction?

What exactly is your argument? I've already pointed out the hole in the article you posted.

[ClarkUSA]

37. See Reply #24. My OP speaks for itself and I've already replied to you in explanation enough times.

Either you acknowledge what I'm saying or stop asking me the same questions that I've already answered.

[Unvanguard]

38. So, you have no response. Okay. n/t

[ClarkUSA]

40. Read my OP over. Slowly. Then read my replies (especially Reply #24) to you over. Slowly.

Your refusal to acknowledge my answer to your redundant questioning is your problem, not mine.

[Unvanguard]

41. Again: do you think Congress can only extend the Bush tax cuts via the Joint Committee?

Yes or no. Simple question. Can you give a simple, straightforward answer?

Or are you just going to hide behind the article in your OP, which is deeply confused because it doesn't even consider this issue?

[ClarkUSA]

42. What's your point? The Congress can also fund the closing of Gitmo, but it won't.

[Unvanguard]

46. Thanks. That's responsive.

Why don't you think Congress will extend the Bush tax cuts, when it proved perfectly willing to do so last year when there were far more Democrats in office?

[ClarkUSA]

47. Reread reply #28 wherein I replied to another version of the question you just asked.

Also, your assumption that Democrats will not take back the House is not one I am prepared to agree with at this point. I will be working hard for that goal and to keep the Senate and WH under Democratic leadership as well.

I hope you and others here will be doing the same.

[Unvanguard]

51. The tax cuts expire (and will be extended) before the 2012 elections take effect.

They expire Jan. 1, 2013. So it's this Congress where the fight about extending them will happen. (And, for the record, I fully intend to support Democratic efforts to retake the House and keep the Senate and the White House.)

As for President Obama, the last time we had this fight he gave in to extending the cuts for high-income earners so as to protect them for everyone else. It is hard to see why next time will be any different. I hope it will be. In any case, the debt agreement has nothing to do with this, since the Bush tax cuts would have expired whatever deal Obama, Boehner, and Reid reached.

[ClarkUSA]

52. Pres. Obama & Harry Reid have made it clear that won't be happening. Other Dems won't do it, either.

UI extensions for the long-term unemployed are not going to be held hostage by Republicans again.

Sorry to disappoint you, but there is zero political will amongst Democrats in Congress to extend the Bush tax cuts again. Pres. Obama and Harry Reid have made it clear where they stand. House Speaker Pelosi will feel the same way as President Obama and Harry Reid.

Thus, I disagree with your completely baseless claim.

[jeff47]

84. They made the same promises before. They broke them

Why do you believe them now?

[ClarkUSA]

87. Apples and oranges. There will be no more UI extensions to worry about in 2012.

[jeff47]

136. So the hostage changes. Doesn't change that they'll extend the cuts to save the new one. nt

[ClarkUSA]

138. Yawn. 100% purely speculative claims are, by their very nature, irrelevant nonsense.

:nopity:

[jeff47]

143. So your claims are nonsense?

You're making the speculative claim that Obama won't cave in this time, despite the record of caving in. And you've provided no reason why he would do different next time, other than "he promised!!". Which is what he did last time.

[ClarkUSA]

145. My OP speaks for itself and I've already replied to you in explanation enough times.

You got nuthin' but the taste of bile in your rhetoric.

[woolldog]

33. Because Obama has shown himself to be such an effective

negotiator. LOL

[ClarkUSA]

36. Yes, he is, in insane times. Why do you think Boehner lied about the deal in order to sell it?

House Speaker John Boehner's (R-OH) office has released the PowerPoint he is using to persuade House Republicans to vote in favor of the emerging debt deal.

Ezra Klein tweets that he doesn't think the presentation is completely accurate: "Boehner's powerpoint misstates the deal to his members. 1) The baseline is not specified in the bill, and does not prevent taxes. 2) Boehner suggests that deficit reduction or BBA has to pass for Prez to get second debt increase. Not so. McConnell mechanism."

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2011/07/31/how_boehner_is_selling_the_debt_deal.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+PoliticalWire+%28Political+Wire%29

[jeff47]

59. Were you unconscious the last two weeks? (nt)

[ClarkUSA]

64. No. Were you?

[jeff47]

72. You must have been. Because everyone other than you learned that taking a hostage

is the way to get what you want out of Obama.

The Republicans will just take another hostage, and Obama will extend the tax cuts. Just like 2010 when they took a hostage and he extended the tax cuts.

[ClarkUSA]

78. You must have been. Because everyone other than you learned that Boehner lied to his caucus...

... in order to sell this deal to them.

Why would Speaker Boehner do that if Republicans had allegedly taken President Obama "hostage", according to your claim? Hmmm?

[jeff47]

80. Focus. We're talking about the Bush tax cuts and their inevitable extension during

the next hostage crisis.

[ClarkUSA]

81. Focus. Read Reply #52. I'm talking about facts and am not interested in baseless speculation.

Link to Reply #52: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=732693&mesg_id=732844

[jeff47]

86. Actually, no you're not talking about facts.

You're talking about the statements Obama and others have now made promising to not extend the tax cuts.

They are very similar to the promises they made before to not extend the tax cuts. They broke those promises. You have yet to provide any evidence as to why they won't break those promises again.

[ClarkUSA]

88. The OP is full of facts. You just won't acknowledge them, which is not my problem.

[jeff47]

135. You're still avoiding the question.

Why, specifically, will Obama not break his promise this time?

[ClarkUSA]

139. Reread Reply #52. Lather, rinse, repeat.

[jeff47]

142. More like "Oh crap! I've got nothing! I'll go point to the same, wrong post!" (nt)

[ClarkUSA]

146. My OP speaks for itself. What do you have besides empty bilious insults against the President?

[Enrique]

5. Obama declares a lot of things n/t

[uponit7771]

19. He declares progressive bashers are wrong a lot...in his next speach

[CakeGrrl]

6. Good stuff. POTUS has the vision for the long game

while a lot of people can't think that far ahead, or are counting on him to fail.

Too bad there are so many people around here willing to hang on the words of Boehner and Cantor.

My money's on the President, and it's staying there.

[alpha9161]

7. Sorry but his rhetoric doesn't match his actions nt

[CakeGrrl]

8. We all have our opinions. Time will tell. -nt

[William769]

11. Unfortunately time is not on our side. NT

[theaocp]

23. That's a keeper.

Perhaps you'll remember that the next time you want to respond to what you claim is speculation on the part of other members here. My bet is you'll forget.

[CakeGrrl]

45. The contents of the deal are known.

A lot of people screaming about the giveaway were doing so before those details were out.

Nate Silver backed off from his hair-on-fire commentary after he actually had a LOOK at it.

As for this commission, we are ALL speculating about who might be on it and what will transpire. It's a matter of assuming the worst or letting things play out.

[jeff47]

60. Because there is no such thing as history.

Obama isn't new. He has a track record. A sad track record of constant capitulation to Republicans.

[ClarkUSA]

65. Prove it. List all the "constant" instances he has done so, backed up by credible sources.

[jeff47]

74. K

-Bush Tax Cuts extended in 2010
-HCR (No need to bother the liberals. Just start with Bob Dole's plan from the 90's)
-Debt Ceiling
-Stimulus Bill
-Card Check
-TAMF/Mortgage Modification
-No investigation of Bush Administration
-No investigation of fraud in mortgage-backed securities.
-DADT (Ignored it until after it was declared unconstitutional in 2010)
-DOMA

Perhaps it would be easier if you could provide a list where he stood up to Republicans instead? I don't mean making pretty speeches. I mean when he got a liberal policy outcome instead of a conservative policy outcome.

[ClarkUSA]

94. Um, that's empty rhetoric. lol! Where are the credible sources which back up your claims?

[jeff47]

137. You need a source to prove card check didn't pass?

Boy that must be some great kool-aid.

[ClarkUSA]

140. I want a credible source to prove your contention it was ALL President Obama's fault.

You contend that he has a "sad track record of constant capitulation to Republicans."

By your very words, it's easy to prove you're wrong because he has passed legislation which Republicans are furious about and want to repeal or defund enforcement of, such as HCR and Wall Street reform.

[jeff47]

144. That's not even close to what I am arguing.

My point is Obama doesn't fight for what he claims is important. He rolls over when the Republicans complain and it's the Democrats in Congress that actually get the job done.

There is no claim about who's "fault" it is. It is about Obama's utter lack of spine, because fighting would imperil his dreams of a grand bargain.

[ClarkUSA]

147. Your vitriolic opinions are baseless. Unlike my OP, you offer only empty fact-free rhetoric.

[swilton]

27. ++++++

[John Agar]

9. Words are easy.

Making it so will require a kind of leadership and adherence to principle that we have not seen, as of yet.

[polichick]

10. Words do not equal actions.

[JoePhilly]

12. Bully pulpit!! Bully pulpit!! Bully pulpit!! Bully pulpit!!

Never mind.

[polichick]

106. Use of the bully pulpit has to be followed with ACTION - obviously...

Cheap talk immediately following a major cave is simply not credible.

[Cali_Democrat]

141. Obama didn't have to use the Bully Pulpit to let the Bush tax cuts expire

All he had to do was nothing and he couldn't even do that.

It's pathetic.

[Tx4obama]

13. Bravo President Obama.

Obama has his eye on the whole picture and the long term prize.

The Republican are going to be REALLY pissed when they finally realize that in the end they got screwed and will end up being left with only a soggy used teabag :)

[FrenchieCat]

16. One liners by activists ain't gonna help us get where we need to get to.......

we need to be fighting Republicans who are supporting tax cuts for the Rich even if it means
the United States Fall....

Instead of the one liners that don't do SHIT but allows Republicans to keep preaching what they are preaching.

[msongs]

30. that's not a very nice thing to say about Obama nt

[FrenchieCat]

43. Nice one liner!

Good to see you fighting for another day of more one liners.

[whatchamacallit]

32. It's hard to be frightened of republicans

when we have one in the white house. Sorry, Obama has neutralized your rallying cry.

[FrenchieCat]

44. When the house is held by a majority that don't and won't bring up a jobs bill......

for a vote, then feeling that it's hard to be frightened of Republicans
makes you no better, ironically, than the ones you criticize.

[totodeinhere]

39. We need to be fighting both Republicans and wimpy DINOS who are too afraid

to stand up to the Republicans. And we need to fight so-called Democrats who got elected saying one thing and then turned around and did something else.

[jeff47]

61. Constant capitulation isn't gonna get you anywhere either.

But screw those one-liners!!! They aren't true Democrats!!

[uponit7771]

17. FUCK FACTS!!!! /sarcasm

[woolldog]

20. All talk. n/t

[frustrated_lefty]

21. And this time he means it!!111!!! It's HUGH!111!!!!11!!

[theaocp]

22. Well, Clark is fond of saying Prove It! so much, so

I guess the proof will be in the pudding. My money's on the hostage-takers. Pretty effective, no matter how abhorrent it may be.

[great white snark]

25. Bravo President Obama.

Now get to work on job creation.

[totodeinhere]

34. Obama is not a dictator. He cannot just "declare an end for tax breaks for wealthiest Americans."

Congress must go along with it. And you know darned well that the Tea Party controlled House will never go along with that. If they try to get it through the super committee it will probably deadlock 6-6, but even if it does pass the committee those crazy Tea Party people will vote it down even if it does trigger defense cuts.

And regarding those potential Defense Department cuts, it's a trap IMO. Just about the time that the cuts are ready to kick in there will be some kind of manufactured national security emergency and the cuts will be canceled. Bookmark this prediction and see if I am right.

[ClarkUSA]

48. Please reread the OP and the WH Fact Sheet on the debt deal therein. The devil is in the details.

I don't think you understand how the so-called supercommittee will operate.

[totodeinhere]

66. No, I understand it just fine. But there is nothing to prevent Congress

from extending the Bush Tax cuts anyway. They will probably come up with some other way to blackmail Obama into accepting it just like last time.

[ClarkUSA]

71. See Reply #52.

Link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=732693&mesg_id=732844

[boxman15]

49. I'm hoping either this Super Committee agrees to revenue increases (doubtful)

or the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy are ended. I don't want to see taxes go up on the "bottom" 98%, but they need to go up for the wealthy. There is no other choice. I'm hopeful something will get done.

[Armstead]

50. Sounds familiar -- "It's deja vu all over again"

[politicasista]

54. It is a shame that proven Liberal Senate Dems are taking heat over this

They had to vote for it out of loyalty to the president, and risk vile backlash against their own constituents. Dang if you do, dang if you don't me guess. :shrug:

[Armstead]

55. I do agree with that -- But it sucks they were forced into that position

[ClarkUSA]

56. It will blow over, just like the "heat" over HCR, once people learn what it's really about.

President Obama will be stemwinding for those Democrats on the campaign trail like you've never seen him before, explaining just what was good in this deal for the average American. By the time November 2012 rolls around, he'll have gotten his point across and approval numbers for this debt deal will be much higher than at present, just like what happened with regards to the public's opinion of HCR.

[politicasista]

57. Hope you are right

and hopefully, he and the WH are prepared for them being primaried. Even though the bill is not good, some of them voted out of loyalty to him and to stop a default.










edit to add "is".

[ClarkUSA]

58. Who are you referring to, exactly?

Obviously, I don't agree with you about the bill being "not good" considering the insane circumstances under which the negotiations were made.

There's good reason why Boehner LIED to his caucus about the deal in order to sell it:
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2011/07/31/how_boehner_is_selling_the_debt_deal.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+PoliticalWire+%28Political+Wire%29

Unless you've seen, heard or read something I haven't, there's been no indication of any Democratic incumbents being "primaried" because of their votes for this debt deal.

In fact, as I predicted last night, their "aye" votes followed a distinctive pattern:
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2011/08/02/lawmakers_from_swing_districts_more_likely_to_support_deal.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+PoliticalWire+%28Political+Wire%29

[politicasista]

69. People like

Senator Kerry, Senator Franken, etc.

People here and on Twitter, Facebook respectively have been trashing Senator Kerry over this vote and not being out on the forefront (as opposed to someone like the late Senator Kennedy and the MA mayors) in "getting it done." His PR people were good and hard at work in clearing that up, but they people would rather criticize/hate, than be informed. (Some of them support the president too). He also had a nasty Op-Ed written about him in the B. Glob about him and Brown (:puke:) for them lacking passion the way that TK did and Kerry was only doing this to "please the WH" and focusing on FP and the SOS job. It's bad enough that Chris Hayes (the new MSNBC progressive journalists who's wife is a WH lawyer) links him with Romney as a flip-floppers. (It's in the DUK group)

As for Senator Franken, there was thread about primaring him and nasty remarks about Congresswoman Giffords by "Progressives" (on was on Ed's show).

To make the long story short, Obama isn't the only one that is taken heat over this, and we are ignoring that.

[ClarkUSA]

70. You really think Kerry, Franken and Giffords will be "primaried" based on social network chatter?

If that were true, most of the Democratic Congress would have been "primaried" over their HCR votes.

Color me dubious.

[politicasista]

73. No,

but their people (staffers) read Facebook and tweet themselves. Just think that many of Obama's staunchest supporters are ignoring that they did this for a lot of reasons and one was out of loyalty to Obama. Hope the WH realizes there was a price for all this mess, though the GOP and Teabaggers should have most of the blame.

[ClarkUSA]

76. So what?

There's still no evidence that backs up your concern.

[politicasista]

79. Ok

They have people that get angry at them for voting for this out of loyalty to Obama, and to end the default, even though they are proven liberal Sens (they have had their liberal stances questioned). The WH is ignoring that, some (not all) of his supporters here and elsewhere are.

Gabby is a moderate, but she does not deserve this vitriol after what she is still going through, neither did Kerry, Franken, Boxer or anyone else that voted for it.

Never mind, this is a losing battle. Don't want to be attacked by anyone anymore. Peace.

[ClarkUSA]

83. Many Democrats faced similar or more outrage over the votes for HCR. Were you concerned then?

[politicasista]

85. Yep. I was.

It was ugly then like it is now.

[ClarkUSA]

89. How many Democratic incumbents lost their seats over their "aye" votes for HCR in 2010?

And how many were "primaried" by Democratic opponents angry over their "aye" votes for HCR in 2010?

[politicasista]

97. Quite a few did, one of them was a blue dog in my state,

that lost to a crazy teabagger that held a gun in his mouth for seven hours. None were primaried (IDT). The others retired, so there is only two Dems (Cohen and Cooper - TN) left.

[ClarkUSA]

100. Do you have evidence for your claim? I didn't hear about it.

But you admit none were "primaried" over their "aye" votes which was your original concern about Kerry, Franken and Giffords. I may be wrong, but there seemed to be a lot more outrage over HCR than this debt deal, so the chances of there being primaries now based on their debt deal votes seems highly unlikely.

[politicasista]

102. Actually two of them voted no, but one lost to a Teabagger

none were primaried. It's all good, been attacked by everyone from both sides for taking swipes at good people and being clueless of late, it seems. Don't know much about the debt thing, so facts help. The environment does not seem to be risk-free anymore. It's been civil, but this is all a losing vent. Peace.

[ClarkUSA]

109. BTW, Gallup says President Obama hasn't lost any liberal or Dem support despite this debt deal fight

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=733013&mesg_id=733013

This further bolsters my belief that the vast majority of the Democratic base won't be upset about this debt deal vote by the time Nov. 2012 rolls around.

[politicasista]

113. Ok.

Leaving this thread now, no voice here anymore. Peace.

[ClarkUSA]

115. Oy vay.

See ya.

:eyes:

[politicasista]

117. Ain't going nowhere

I support the president too.

[ClarkUSA]

119. Oh, that's good. Me too.

Glad you're back. :hi:

[politicasista]

124. Thank you

:hi:

[jeff47]

62. Somebody can't do math.

This isn't a good deal for the average American. Stimulus or a Jobs bill would be.

A good deal for the average American would have been an actual stimulus bill, instead of the wimpy thing Obama pushed in his first year. That only had about 1/6th of the necessary stimulus.

Now that Obama's capitulated to the Republicans that debt is the most critical thing ever, he can't turn around and do a jobs bill. Economy will continue to be in the tank for 2011, and because the cuts start right now, it will be in the tank for 2012.

No president (or his party if term-limited) has ever won re-election with an economy this bad, and by championing austerity, Obama can't do anything about the economy.

[ClarkUSA]

63. Someone can't back up their empty rhetoric. And tell me how a "Stimulus or a Jobs bill" will pass...

... this insane Teabagger House. President Obama is not a dictator, as someone on this thread aptly said.

[jeff47]

77. Because teabaggers are a minority in the house.

A better president would have spent the last 2 years talking about the need for more stimulus because of the terrible economy. When he got the tiny stimulus bill he would have responded "It's a great start. Now we need to work on the rest". When the economy was still in the tank in 2010, he could go campaign on the fact that the Republicans are making the economy worse, and not lost the house.

However, that would have required the White House to be competent starting in 2009. So let's start after 2010. Tea party does well in the House, so he no longer has a free hand. So Obama starts talking about the need to get more jobs to balance the budget. More people working = smaller deficit. Every 4th word is "jobs". The Tea Partiers do not get the chance to make it all about debt. Heat is placed on Republicans in purple districts to support a jobs bill, and since they're much more vulnerable to the left than the right. Assemble a coalition of the vulnerable Republicans and the Democrats and pass the bill.


Starting with "what you can pass" is moronic. Nothing very good has ever been accomplished that way. You start with what is right, and then you whip the votes. Then you whip them some more. Then you move slightly towards the other party to give their vulnerable members cover. Then you whip more votes. Then you win.

It's hard. It's time-consuming. It requires taking your case "to the people" all the time. And it has worked for presidents from FDR to Reagan.

[ClarkUSA]

82. Not in influence. You still haven't told me how you'd get a bill passed through the Teabagger House.

[EFerrari]

68. LMAO

[cigsandcoffee]

75. He sure becomes tough and direct when it no longer matters. n/t

[ClarkUSA]

90. He's always been tough & direct but some want a thug. What's "it"? Why does "it no longer matter"?

[COLGATE4]

91. Fool me once,...

[ClarkUSA]

92. UI extensions won't be in the mix this time while this debt deal is a done deal.

When the Bush tax cuts expire, I'll bet no one gives him credit for it except for his supporters.

[woolldog]

95. The Bush tax cuts expired once already during his term.

He renewed them.

I don't see any reason to believe he won't cave again.

[ClarkUSA]

98. See Reply #52.

[woolldog]

99. They'll find something else to hold hostage.

Thought that would be obvious. They did it with UI, they just did it with the debt ceiling, and clearly they will do it again. Hey, I don't blame them, it works.

[ClarkUSA]

101. Under the framework of the supercommittee, that's not possible.

The Bush tax cuts' expiration is built into the baseline, which is what Boehner "neglected" to tell his caucus in his Powerpoint presentation. :D

[woolldog]

104. The supercomitte reports in November

The Bush tax cuts expire in Dec. One has nothing to do with the other. The fact that the Bush tax cuts expiration is built into the baseline, doesn't mean the bush tax cuts can't be repealed.

[ClarkUSA]

105. You're wrong. I just explained how one has to do with the other.

And their expiration being built into the baseline does mean the Bush tax cuts are presumed dead by both sides of the negotiating table. That's why Boehner lied about this little fact to his caucus; he didn't want to be summarily shitcanned.

[woolldog]

110. You're mistaken.

The baseline determines the size of the spending cuts. It doesn't bind the congress to extend the bush tax cuts or force them to let the tax cuts lapse. Not at all.

[ClarkUSA]

111. You moved the goalpost in mid-discussion again. And you ignored Reply #52, didn't you?

[woolldog]

112. I read it.

I agree that there is zero political will amongst the Dems for renewing the Bush tax cuts, but there was zero political will amongst the Dems for a debt ceiling deal with no revenue....and look where that got us.

[ClarkUSA]

114. That's incorrect. There was an excess of political will on the part of Democrats to avoid a default.

[woolldog]

120. Don't act like the only options were cave or go into default.

They weren't. Poor strategy and negotiation by Obama are to blame, as well as his lack of spine generally.

[ClarkUSA]

122. Don't act like President Obama didn't stand firm. He protected SS/Medicare benefits from all cuts.

Your rhetoric is of poor quality and reflects your utter lack of factual content generally.

[woolldog]

123. He's the one who put them on the table

to begin with.

[ClarkUSA]

125. Wrong. He NEVER put SS/Medicare benefits on the table, but those who made shit up pretended he did.

[Dad Infinitum]

133. "In debt talks, Obama offers Social Security cuts"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/in-debt-talks-obama-offers-social-security-cuts/2011/07/06/gIQA2sFO1H_story.html">Washington Post

[ClarkUSA]

134. NOT to benefits. The only thing affected by the trigger would be cuts to SS/Medicare PROVIDERS.

Read the WH fact sheet. Link is in the OP.

[Skittles]

93. LOLOL

HE COULD HAVE ALREADY DONE THIS

[ClarkUSA]

96. HOW?

[Skittles]

103. yup that's probably what Obama asked

he sure as FUCK did not do it

[ClarkUSA]

107. You didn't answer my question. You said, "HE COULD HAVE ALREADY DONE THIS". I asked, "HOW"?

[jenmito]

108. K&R. Yup. He WILL keep his promise. n/t

[rug]

116. Two days late and a trillion dollars short.

[Autumn]

118. It's a case of premature declaration

just like declaring the Iraq war ended.

[ClarkUSA]

127. That false meme again?

For the umpteenth time, the Iraq war has ended:
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=president+obama+iraq+war+end&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

[rug]

129. August 02, 2011: US Wants Immunity Deal if Troops Remain in Iraq

http://www.voanews.com/english/news/usa/US-Wants-Immunity-Deal-if-Troops-Remain-in-Iraq-126569153.html

I suppose what's going on in Iraq is tort reform.

[ClarkUSA]

130. Quote where it says that President Obama is still at war against Iraq.

Hmm?

[rug]

131. He's negotiating for troops to stay in Iraq so they can plant dates.

[ClarkUSA]

132. No, the Pentagon is waiting for the Iraqis to decide WTF they want. They're dithering as usual.

Meanwhile, troop withdrawal is continuing without delay. As was said by the CO, if Iraqis don't decide soon, the troop withdrawal will be at a point of no return. BFD.

[lonestarlib]

126. Talk is cheap.

Stop using the WH fact sheet to "prove" anything. Try reading the actual bill that was passed.

[ClarkUSA]

128. You read the actual bill, eh? How many pages is it, by the way? You must be an uber speed reader.

:sarcasm:

[budkin]

149. I'll bump this thread when he extends the tax cuts again

Because you don't raise taxes in a recession.