Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Motown is Joe-Town!

SCOTUS: It’s not “bribery” unless it comes from the Bribery region of France. Otherwise, it’s merely “sparkling malfeasance”.

Republicans got rid of McCarthy. Democrats chose not to save him.

I like you, you’re my kind of trouble.

Bark louder, little dog.

Insiders who complain to politico: please report to the white house office of shut the fuck up.

An unpunished coup is a training exercise.

Republicans can’t even be trusted with their own money.

The most dangerous place for a black man in America is in a white man’s imagination.

You’re just a puppy masquerading as an old coot.

Republicans don’t trust women.

The rest of the comments were smacking Boebert like she was a piñata.

When I decide to be condescending, you won’t have to dream up a fantasy about it.

Following reporting rules is only for the little people, apparently.

Cancel the cowardly WaPo and set up an equivalent monthly donation to ProPublica.

Take hopelessness and turn it into resilience.

Never entrust democracy to any process that requires republicans to act in good faith.

They were going to turn on one another at some point. It was inevitable.

Donald Trump, welcome to your everything, everywhere, all at once.

We are builders in a constant struggle with destroyers. keep building.

Thanks to your bullshit, we are now under siege.

How can republicans represent us when they don’t trust women?

You come for women, you’re gonna get your ass kicked.

Everybody saw this coming.

You are here: Home / Politics / Domestic Politics / And the Tax Cut Bill Passes

Reader Interactions

149Comments

  10. 10.

    General Stuck

    Politically, for the short term, or until Obama’s reelection, I think the Kraut is likely right. Average voters don’t really care, despite polling, that rich people make out like bandits, but they do care when their paychecks get smaller. And some long term unemployed will now maybe stay above water. But long term for the country, it is not a win, imo. But then we are likely toast anyways, tax cuts or not.

  15. 15.

    Comrade Mary

    What the — oh. I heard about the Senate spending bill meltdown, and for some reason thought it was the tax bill in the House. Well, it’s a curate’s egg of a bill: it’s good in parts.

    Meanwhile, commenters at TPM are freaking out about the Senate bill, saying that Obama gave away the farm and the Republicans reneged anyway, but I thought “gave away the farm” was the narrative about the tax bill. What part, if any, did Obama play in the development of the spending bill?

  16. 16.

    Kryptik

    Considering that the only times Dem and Rep votes match up to almost even are on minor procedural stuff, inconsequential resolution stuff, or bills that end up almost always weighted heavily toward giving the GOP what they want…yeah, I gotta say the vote only reinforces my fear that we just got fucked raw.

  18. 18.

    General Stuck

    @Comrade Mary:

    It’s just a temp funding for the gov. I think it expires in Feb, or thereabouts. So we get to do the playing chicken thingy, again, and likely many more times, when it’s not Christmas.

  19. 19.

    Comrade Mary

    Yeah, I saw that it was a temp bill. I’m still trying to figure out why this one, too, is All Obama’s Fault.

  21. 21.

    eemom

    @Emily L. Hauser/ellaesther:

    it’s bad news by any sane measure. Because, even assuming the “best case scenario,” i.e., that it really was the best deal we could have gotten under the circumstances and therefore Obama was right to negotiate it and the Congressional Democrats were right to vote for it — the fact that that the best deal we could have gotten WAS lavishing yet more billions on the super-rich just so they’d grudgingly consent to let us toss a few temporary crumbs at the starving for eleven more months — kind of means that we’re utterly, totally, deservedly, fucked as a nation. IMO.

  22. 22.

    red plaid

    The money party (both R’s and D’s) wins again. I wish it were easier to find the roll call of bills such that one could find who voted for/against the bill.

    Since a “great recession” isn’t enough for people to educate themselves on politics, I guess we need the rich to get greedy and trigger a depression before people actually figure things out. Well, maybe that is too optimistic; we obviously haven’t learned anything from the last depression.

  25. 25.

    FlipYrWhig

    It’s interesting. I’m still surprised the Republicans bargained at all, or bargained and then voted for what they bargained for. It didn’t match up with my read of the situation. Is it possible that even Republican leadership thinks the economy needs some kind of stimulus beyond what tax cuts could provide? Because they could have gotten tax cuts in, like, two weeks. There’s a lot of stuff in here that the Tea Party starve-the-beasties would never stand for, and Boehner and McConnell bought it before their new colleagues had a chance to have a say. Something’s up with that.

  27. 27.

    General Stuck

    @Comrade Mary:

    Yeah, I saw that it was a temp bill. I’m still trying to figure out why this one, too, is All Obama’s fault.

    Anyone that figures that out, should get a Nobel for genius work in Idiotology.

  28. 28.

    FlipYrWhig

    @Comrade Mary: I thought the whole thing about the omnibus spending bill was that the Congress didn’t pass a budget before the election, so they had to do it this way. Or are those two different procedural issues? Reid in clips on either Olbermann or Maddow was talking about “fighting the White House” on something having to do with spending, or maybe the whole thing with earmarks, but I lost track of what was at issue.

  31. 31.

    nhoj

    @FlipYrWhig:
    Fighting the white house was about how getting rid of earmarks removes power of the purse from the legislative to the executive branch. It was followed by McCain and Kirk doing a victory speech.

    It was kind of like trying to explain why pissing on an electric fire is a bad idea to an angry bull.

    Edited because that doesn’t make nearly as much sense as I thought it did. Not so clever +3 apparently.

  33. 33.

    Mr. Furious

    I’ll feel a lot better about this if we get DADT and START votes (passing ones, preferably) out of it.

    Let’s see…

  38. 38.

    Chris

    Once again, a group of congressional Dems challenges Obama’s capitulation – but preemptively announces the group will nonetheless capitulate and acquiesce in the end anyway. Thanks, guys!

    Oh, did we extract another doomed “vote” from the leadership this time? Yippee.

    Exactly how seriously do we think we’ll be taken when we settle for crap like this from our leaders?

  42. 42.

    jeffreyw

    @asiangrrlMN: It’s very gradual, but I think he is starting to ease off the chase. No longer so relentless-and Bea shows flashes of play behavior. Mixed in, of course, with generous dollops of “get the fuck away” face slaps.

  43. 43.

    AnotherBruce

    I hope the people over 60 years old enjoy their social security, as for the rest of us, we’re left with whatever Wall Street doesn’t steal from us.

  44. 44.

    something fabulous

    But what about this? Isn’t this part of the horse trade? Isn’t it good? I am getting so lost in the mechanations…

  46. 46.

    James E Powell

    There will be no reaction from the Tea Party because there is no such thing as a Tea Party. It was a temporary label affixed to the same right-wing bigots who have been and will remain the core of the Republican Party.

    There will be no reaction from the Democratic base because people who don’t even bother to vote also don’t bother to follow politics.

  47. 47.

    WarMunchkin

    So can we just move to serfdom already? Live in corporate dorms, have corporate sponsored education to do corporate jobs, eat whatever food we’re given and have no salary? I’m tired of the wait.

    Edit.. er, I didn’t mean that as a way to assign blame. It just seems that it’s going to be inevitable now. All of the “top” talent in the country goes to Wall Street and government. If the pool of the country’s talent exists to steal everyone else’s wealth, they’ll just keep coming up with stupid rationalizations like taxes means more people going Galt. And all the smart and reasonable people in government will say that free money for rich people is necessary, and that’s that.

  49. 49.

    jwb

    @WarMunchkin: I’m waiting to see what happens when our corporate overlords make it so that we plebes can no longer afford our TV and access to the money trough depends wholly on heredity. At that point, they lose the ability to efficiently disseminate their propaganda on the one hand and to buy off all the smartest players on the other.

  50. 50.

    Mike Kay (Democrat of the Century)

    I’m Shocked!

    I’m Shocked!

    Talk about Lucy and the football. The vaunted lefty blogs always fall for Nancy’s banana in the tail pipe routine.

    And as you may know the great power the Speaker is she/he alone has the power of scheduling. No bill can proceed unless the Speaker schedules a vote.

  52. 52.

    Sloegin

    Aaaand right on queue, the omnibus spending bill goes down after the rethugs promised to be nice and stuff if they could just only get their tax cuts first.

  53. 53.

    Odie Hugh Manatee

    When these congresscritters get something done this fast you know the big screw is coming. IMO while the bill is a mix of good and bad, it’s mostly bad. Oh well, we got the government we wanted so it’s time to celebrate. Tax cuts for everyone!

    What, don’t have any taxes to cut because you don’t have a job? Must suck to be you, eh? Well keep looking for a job, you just might get lucky!

    I think Nancy’s Smash! went boink.

    @Restrung:

    Got some new stuff called White Widow but I think they ought to rename it White Pepper. Mildly spicy in the back of the throat (even smells spicy), great expansion, smooth, sweet taste. My provider has been trying out new strains this year and all but one (out of nine) were great.

    It’s like trying good Cuban cigars, but better because I’m legal (though I’d rather not have the medical problems I do).

  54. 54.

    Mike Kay (Democrat of the Century)

    @General Stuck:

    Average voters don’t really care, despite polling, that rich people make out like bandits

    Make out like bandits? we’re talking about 4 measly basis points. Instead of the top rate returning to 39 percent, it remains at 35 percent.

    I mean, the greatest liberal president in history, LBJ, gave the rich a whooping 20 basis points tax cut in 1964. Now THAT’s what I call a giveaway. This is why I laugh and mock the hippies every chance I have – they yell and scream about 4 pts and then they say, “this would never happen if LBJ was president.” Heh!

  55. 55.

    AnotherBruce

    @Mike Kay (Democrat of the Century):

    Great argument there, so LBJ cut the upper tax bracket from 90 to 70%. But the fact is that the wealthy didn’t control as much wealth then as compared to today. 4 points means a great deal when the upper 1% have more wealth than the lower 95% combined.

    The difference is that back then, we had a democracy and the middle class was thriving. Now we have a plutocracy and the middle class is dying. And our plutocrats are happy with this.

  56. 56.

    JMY

    It shouldn’t have even come down to this. Democrats had the chance to do the right thing in November and they didn’t.

  57. 57.

    Mike Kay (Democrat of the Century)

    @Sloegin:

    the spending bill is being delayed because Demint is running for president in 2016 using earmarks as his issue. They can’t stop him from demanding the bill be read into the record. The other wingnut senators are freaking out because for all their talk, they shamelessly lard up bills with pork, while railing against spending.

    the senate rules allows a single senator to take the whole institution hostage. unless the wingers and Dems join together to change the rules, they better learn to live without their precious earmarks/pork.

    Ironically, this only gives the President great power. LBJ was able to use his executive capacity to dole out pork in return for votes. So he would say, “you want a bridge to nowhere, fine, I’ll give you three bridges to nowhere, all you have to vote for the voting rights act.” Senate finally got tired of this and came up with earmarks to bypass the presidency. Now a lone gunman (demint) is giving the power back to the executive branch. sweet.

  58. 58.

    Triassic Sands

    @Bnut:

    I’m assuming the intended use was not any form of homicide.

    I found a cat a few years ago that had been hit by a car. Somehow, it survived, but its skull was crushed (not flat, but flattened) and it was obviously a hopeless case — especially since it was a feral cat. Even if the cat could have been saved, I couldn’t have adopted it, because I already had three adoptees living in a very awkward arrangement.

    I took the cat to a vet. The first one had only one question, who was going to pay? — Well, that wasn’t actually her question, since she refused to stop the cosmetic procedure she was involved in to address the needs of a critically injured and obviously suffering animal (putting covers on a cat’s claws), but that was all that her staff wanted to know. I left in disgust and took the cat to a vet I thought would see him immediately. He did, and instead of asking who was going to pay, he said, “Don’t worry, there won’t be a charge.” And after examining the cat, he came to the obvious conclusion.

    I held the cat while the vet gave him the injection. It was the most peaceful death imaginable, and certainly far better than some of the results that have been reported after the administration of cocktails. It may be an “animal drug,” but it seemed very humane. If we’re going to be barbaric and execute people — hell, see Arizona, we’re starting to execute totally innocent people who had the bad luck to get sick and need an organ transplant, so the barbaric question is a no-brainer. Anyway, since we are barbaric and are going to continue to execute people, this so-called “animal drug,” looks to be as good a choice as could be hoped for if it works in humans as well as it does in cats. Assuming one’s goal is to avoid inflicting suffering — obviously not the universally agreed upon goal of pro-capital punishment zealots — this seems like the way to go.

    I’ve heard people argue that executions should be as violent and brutal as possible, because that would make Americans reconsider and outlaw capital punishment. In the US? No way. Over at RedState they’d show videos of every one and eat popcorn while yukking it up. The most popular executions would be the ones that went bad. Now that the Republicans have assumed control of the country, how long will it be before executions are televised?

  59. 59.

    Mike Kay (Democrat of the Century)

    @JMY: this is a mystery to me. Why in the world did Russ Feingold personally go to the white house and beg the president to delay the vote until after the election? Boxer and Murray did the same thing. Why were flaming libs in the senate against repealing the tax cut on the rich? I mean even Al Franken favored extending the tax cuts for the rich.

  61. 61.

    Mike Kay (Democrat of the Century)

    @AnotherBruce:

    Rationalization

    verb. ra·tion·al·ize (rsh-n-lz)

    1. In psychology and logic, rationalization (or making excuses[1]) is a defense mechanism in which perceived controversial behaviors or feelings are explained in a rational or logical manner to avoid the true explanation, to differentiate from the original deterministic explanation, of the behavior or feeling in question.[2][3] It is also an informal fallacy of reasoning.

  63. 63.

    Xenos

    This pretty much settles it for those of us with kids. They need to know the only decent path to security is to find a way into the elite, or to be an entrepreneur providing services to the elite, or to go off the grid. We are not going back to an economy that provides decent employment and security to the middle class, and it is malpractice to pretend that it might still be the case for the next generation.

  64. 64.

    Brachiator

    I am dismayed to see so many people cling to the mantra that this is the best deal that was possible. Almost as bad is the strange victory dance by some conservatives who think that the passage of this bill somehow helps Real Americans(tm). I don’t think I have ever seen a time in my adult life where so many ordinary wage earners were bamboozled into heaping more tax money into the grubby hands of the wealthy.

    The payroll tax cut actually works out to less money in the pocket than the Making Work Pay credit, and the estate tax law change appears to also contain a loophole giving a huge break to certain trusts. Meanwhile, the new 100 percent bonus depreciation break for the purchase of business equipment is effective September 9, 2010, not January 1, 2011. I wonder which corporate weasel this helps, and whether any business reporter will be able to figure it out.

    The throttling of the spending bill is a sideways attack on funding for health care reform and other key Democratic Party issues.

    The line in the sand has been drawn. The new Congress can’t wait to get their chance to throw more roadblocks in Obama’s path.

    If this is a “good deal,” I would had to see what a bad one looks like.

  65. 65.

    Calouste

    @Triassic Sands:

    Executions were popular entertainment during the middle ages, times of superstition, overpowerful elites, massive income disparity and low life expectancy.

  66. 66.

    Yutsano

    @Xenos: My personal opinion: bring back the Reds. I’m talking true pure Communists here. The upper crusts need to have the fear of losing everything put in them again. And make sure there’s some decent international coordination. It might just shame China into reining in some of their excesses as well.

  67. 67.

    FlipYrWhig

    @Mike Kay (Democrat of the Century): I don’t remember hearing that Franken did, but I do remember hearing that Chris Coons did, although that’s not how he voted.

    Senators are petrified of ads against them stating that they raised taxes. Sure, they can explain that it was only on income over $250K or whatever, but the attack ads will add up the BILLIONS OF DOLLARS and dupe voters into thinking that it must have been a tax hike on _them_ too. It’s strong stuff. It apparently affects even otherwise proud liberal voices. Obama had nothing to do with it — and if going ahead with the under-$250K only plan had contributed to Boxer and Murray losing too (which apparently they were afraid would happen) can you _imagine_ the prog-blog shitfit that would have resulted?

  68. 68.

    Mike Kay (Democrat of the Century)

    @Nellcote: but they weren’t gonna vote for Russ anyways, and polling showed this was a winning issue (ie extending only the tax cuts for the middle class), allowing Russ to use populist rhetoric to paint his opponent as a tool of the rich, who wants to blow a hole in the deficit, that will be repaid by the children of hard working people.

    It’s a no brainier move in these angry populist times.

    No, the real reason wasn’t politics. In fact, by taking this issue off the table, Russ unilaterally disarmed and damaged his own re-election bid.

  69. 69.

    FlipYrWhig

    @Calouste: Public executions were also big in the 18th century, the so-called Age of Reason. I have medievalist friends who all bristle at the idea that the Middle Ages were a time of unique brutality, cruelty, and violence.

  70. 70.

    Mike Kay (Democrat of the Century)

    @FlipYrWhig: I tell ya how to hand that — you launch a first strike, using populist language painting your opponent in the worst possible light (ie LBJ tearing Goldwater a new asshole in 64). And constantly and continually keep him or her on the defensive.

    the first rule of politics is define your opponent, before he or she can define his or her self.

    as bill clinton as often said, “this isn’t rocket science”.

  71. 71.

    FlipYrWhig

    @Mike Kay (Democrat of the Century):

    polling showed this was a winning issue (ie extending only the tax cuts for the middle class)

    Yeah, but I never really trusted in that — because while people might say they support that policy when they hear it described, the specifics would easily be drowned out by ads for a $700 BILLION TAX INCREASE or whatever.

  72. 72.

    Calouste

    @FlipYrWhig:

    I’ll happily chuck in the 18th century as well, maybe even part of the 19th. It’s not like the Age of Reason applied to anything more than a very small part of the population, and for the rest it was still a time of superstition, overpowerful elites, massive income disparity and low life expectancy.

  73. 73.

    FlipYrWhig

    @Mike Kay (Democrat of the Century): OK, but I don’t think most people hear two claims and evaluate them against each other. I think Republicans have a much simpler fable to tell, which is that they stand for a tax cut for “everyone,” while Democrats stand for a tax hike of HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS; oh, and DURING A RECESSION!

    You can run as a Democrat on how Republicans want to reward their friends the rich, while Democrats help middle-class folks, and it’s somewhat effective. But, you know, if generally reliable, ideologically simpatico people like Boxer and Murray aren’t confident in that strategy, I feel like they know something.

  74. 74.

    FlipYrWhig

    @Calouste: I know, I was just fighting a proxy war on behalf of friends who have a pet peeve about how the medieval period is imagined.

  75. 75.

    Mike Kay (Democrat of the Century)

    @Brachiator: if this is such a bad bill then why did Al Franken vote for it?

    if this is such a bad bill then why did Pelosi allow the vote to occur?

    if this is such a bad bill then why is palin opposing it?

  76. 76.

    Mike Kay (Democrat of the Century)

    @FlipYrWhig: I tell you my belief, these libs were running in tight races and they needed cash (the mother milk of politics as Tip O’ O’Neill used to say), and you don’t get cash in bundles from heavy hitters when you’re trying to raise their taxes.

    I mean, how does Boxer go into silicon valley and shake the trees for cash, while saying, “oh by the way, I just voted to jack up your taxes 11.4 percent” (4./35)? They’ll tell her to get the fuck off their orchard and invite Carly in to shake the trees. It’s the worst of both words: not only do you lose the cash, but it instead goes to your opponent.

    I understand this. this is reasonable. that’s why I’m not hostile to the situation, but then again, I’m a flaming pragmatist. i’m captive to the power of rationality, not ideology.

  78. 78.

    Mike Kay (Democrat of the Century)

    @NR: exactly. you’ve stumbled on to the truth.

    Why did liberal icons like Franken, Harkin, Boxer, Murry, Tester, Kerry, Dodd, Mikulski, etc. vote for it…..

    but only to have the ratpack of teabaggers, Palin, Limbaugh, Beck, DeMint opposing it.

  79. 79.

    John - A Motley Moose

    @Triassic Sands: I thought the same thing when I first read about this. My dog was put to sleep 2 weeks ago. It was very quick and seemed fairly peaceful, although he didn’t like the needle after having been stuck twice already during the examination. Vets have been putting animals as large as horses to sleep for a long time now. Surely there is more veterinary science on the subject than there is in any other field of research. It wouldn’t be the first time drugs developed for animals have been approved for humans. Valium was first used for horses.

    Edited to add a disclaimer. I am against capital punishment in all cases, no matter how it is done.

  80. 80.

    JMY

    @Mike Kay (Democrat of the Century):

    I’m sensitive to the fact that many Democrats were worried about how such a vote would look to voters come the mid-terms, but you had the president campaigning on the issue and the Democrats just refused to run with it. All the talk about the president not fighting, yet he’s out there explaining the plan to keep the middle-class tax cuts and letting the tax cuts for the rich expire and the Democrats did nothing.

    Fast forward a month later, now the president has to do something because time is running out. And he negotiates a deal, that isn’t perfect, yet better than what many expected. The president doesn’t even like the deal or the fact that it came to this, but again he had to do something. He gets accused of not having core values or something he would fight for, when Democrats didn’t fight for the middle-class tax cuts before the mid-terms. Hell many Dems did their best to not to associate themselves with the president.

  81. 81.

    Triassic Sands

    @Calouste:

    Well, life expectancy should be dropping once the Republicans take charge — that will complete the picture.

    Progress.

  82. 82.

    Triassic Sands

    @John – A Motley Moose:

    How do you feel about euthanasia? Obviously, since you had your dog put to sleep (was he/she suffering a lot?) you approve of it for animals.

    I live in Washington State where, despite all the other reactionary crap that voters are supporting, a “death with dignity” initiative passed in 2008. (I feel like if there were a re-vote now it would lose 3-1 — did have of Texas move to Washington recently?) I strongly supported it, and recently had reason to ask a physician if he supported it. His answer was, I thought, not entirely satisfactory. He strongly supports the law, he said, but won’t participate. Instead, he refers terminally ill patients to other doctors who will assist them. Hmm, why wouldn’t I just go to one of the other doctors in the first place? He gets my business until things get “icky” and then hands me off? No thanks.

  84. 84.

    alwhite

    @LaMaestra:

    I doubt the baggers see it that way – they just got a huge tax cut (in their tiny minds) and they owe it all to the Republicans because they forced the Dems into it (again, inside their fantasy world)

  85. 85.

    alwhite

    @Mike Kay (Democrat of the Century):

    I doubt a real hippy would give LBJ credit for anything. I’d suggest we examine the actual tax rates at the time and compare them, as well as the economy to today.

    Figuring out what he would do today is an academic exercise of zero value but given his history as a street fighter and arm-twister it would be interesting to see how he would deal with today’s parties.

  86. 86.

    Mike Kay (Democrat of the Century)

    @JMY:
    This

    the irony. the irony.

    the irony of the lefty holding Feingold as their champion, even though he betrayed them.

  87. 87.

    Mike Kay (Democrat of the Century)

    @NR: that didnt take long. just when you stumble into the truth, you lurch back into ignorance.

  88. 88.

    alwhite

    @Mike Kay (Democrat of the Century):

    I think the libs rationalized their votes on “this is the best deal we can get, it contains some stuff we couldn’t get any other way”. The wingers rationalized their votes on the flip side of that, “we can get all our tax cuts without the other stuff if we wait until January”

  89. 89.

    JC

    Well, an accelerating 30 years of elite corporate authoritarianism, with neither Democrats or Republicans or media being able to hold back the tide.

    And this authoritarianism shows up in ‘US as empire’, in prisons, and in the diminishment of individual rights, as documented ably by Glenn Greenwald and others.

    All one can do, is to keep fighting for the common man, and the working man, and a real democracy, rather than the corporatacracy.

    George Carlin is probably right – there is no stopping it. But each of us does the best we can to speak the truth, and act in the best interests of those who survive by working for a living.

    It is sad though, to see the dminishment of my beloved country. Seeing China pass us by with fast speed trains, seeing every country pass us by in internet penetration, seeing more and more countries pass us by in health outcomes. Seeing countries build out more and more their alternative and modern electrical grids, while the U.S. limps by with 50 year old infrastructure. Seeing middle class taxes fund an ever gargantuan military, and tax cuts (and tax shelters) for the rich.

    And nobody seems to notice, nobody seems to care, and nothing can be done about it.

    It is quite sad, really.

    You play politics with the disengaged population you have though, and not the population you want to have. Everything than Bernie Sanders said on that Senate floor was true. At the exact same time, I can point to no one who could have done a better job than Obama. Really. You can simply look at the vote outcome, to see where the power really lies.

    What is sad to realize, is that one of Obama’s most inspiring quotes (from Marin Luther King, of course), needs to be rewritten:

    “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice”

    to:

    “The arc of political and economic structure is long, but it bends towards elite authoritarian corporatism”.

    Such HAS been the case the last 30 years.

    Thank the Gods for technology. While technology is a double-edged sword, enough improvement for the masses has come from technology, despite the lack of movement from the political-economic superstructure of growing inequality.

  91. 91.

    kay

    @alwhite:

    But what about his central premise? Why did the liberals in tough races (or races they perceived as tough) decline to raise the issue prior to the 2010 midterms?

    I just think it is obviously factually untrue that Democratic voters and donors make less than 250k, particularly on both coasts. The ’08 national vote doesn’t bear this out, in terms of Obama. It bothers me that liberals ignore this. It’s a fact. You have to grapple with it, and somehow integrate it into the broader theory, or the broader theory loses cred with me.

    Mike raised bundling, ie: well-off Democratic donors who fund campaigns. They exist. Was that a concern of Boxer? I think it was. Do we blame her for that? What do we do with that information?

    I don’t think you can talk about some mythical “Democratic electorate” that doesn’t include donors and voters who make more than 250k, and their (perhaps) outsize influence.

  92. 92.

    Pat

    Now all we have to do is sit back and wait for the wealthy to create jobs. And wait. And wait. And wait. Now it’s two years down the line and low and behold there is no time to create jobs because we have to reelect a president!

    Hook. Line. Sinker.

  94. 94.

    jon

    The tax code doesn’t create the inequality, it just keeps it there. Over decades, it manages to make the concessions to the rich so absurd that it got to the point where upper middle class people can’t hang on to their status. However, if this 4 points for the upper classes is expected to change much, then those social economic warriors are barking up the wrong tree. The difference between that and the higher taxes on the middle and lower classes would probably have been a net loss for those classes if the goal is something more equitable.

    More equitable treatment just isn’t happening now that the Congress is run* by people who ask corporations how they want things to be. It sure would be a different country if the President’s election chances didn’t hinge so much on those guys.

    *still, only more so.

  95. 95.

    cleek

    @Comrade Mary:

    I’m still trying to figure out why this one, too, is All Obama’s Fault.

    well, he did, after all, negotiate it and press Congress to pass it. he even used the dread bully pulpit to pressure reluctant members to fall in line.

  96. 96.

    John S.

    well, he did, after all, negotiate it and press Congress to pass it

    After Congress failed to address the issue for two years. Which of course, must ALSO be Obama’s fault. He is after all the supreme chancellor of the execislative branch of government.

  97. 97.

    agrippa

    @John S.:

    yes, Obama is ‘supreme chancellor’, or so some may appear to believe.

    Congress did avoid it the issue, as it did most of the other isues.

    Human nature. It is a commonplace for human beings procrastinate and then be ‘forced’ to act. It is not their fault; he ‘made me do it’.

  98. 98.

    cleek

    @John S.:

    Which of course, must ALSO be Obama’s fault.

    i’m not sure what that strawman has to do with anything.

    Obama did negotiate this deal. he did demand that Congress pass it. and he did, in the end, convince just enough Congresspersons to pass it. he could’ve told the GOP to take their demands and go fuck themselves. he didn’t. he could’ve made the deal then been all ambivalent about it, when the press asked. he didn’t. he could’ve kept his policy team from talking about it except to say “it’s all up to Congress now”. he didn’t.

    Congress didn’t come up with this deal on their own, and they didn’t talk themselves into passing it.

    in this case, Obama really did have a hand in crafting the legislation and getting it passed. at least by what we know about this, compared to other legislative efforts we’ve seen, he really does deserve the credit (or consternation, if you prefer). he made it happen.

    unless… maybe you’d like to try convincing me that he was a complete bystander in all of this ?

  99. 99.

    amk

    @cleek: Yes, Obama did what he could under the circumstances and middle class & Unemployed are happy about it. Of course, it’s tough on libruls, whose shrill cries of kill the rich, starve the poor , hinged on unreality, were ignored. Poor things.

  100. 100.

    Alwhite

    @kay:

    I was responding to his comment about who voted for it not his previous one about when they voted.

    But you are correct, the people in office, both D & R have to pay attention to the money. And they do to the determent of the country as a whole.

  102. 102.

    Dennis SGMM

    @amk:
    I doubt that the Tier V unemployed are happy about it. There are only 1.4 million of them though so they, like the detestable liberals, can go fuck themselves – right?

  103. 103.

    agrippa

    @cleek:

    it seems pretty clear to me.

    Congress, over two years, avoided the matter; just as Congress avoided so many other matters. Procrastinate, avoid and pretend to take action.

    Then, after the election, with 63 Dems fired, Obama ‘forces’ them to extend the tax cuts.

    The Dems in Congress did not have: the will, the wit, the wisdom, the courage to do what needed to be done. That is why they lost 63 seats, instead of 25 to 35. The election should have resulted in a hung House. Time was short.

    This action is a logical continuation of that behavior.

  105. 105.

    Odie Hugh Manatee

    @jon:

    One thing I really hate is how the politicians tie the rich to the middle class. They do this by talking about how something they might (or might not) pass will negatively impact the middle class when what they are really doing is holding the middle class hostage to make a huge score for their wealthy patrons. They do the same thing with big business, tying them to small businesses so they are treated equally in situations where it’s clear that they are not. It’s clear that the intent of this political tactic is to disproportionately reward one group over the other.

    This is a tactic that has to stop yet I know it never will, our system is now too conditioned to run this way to change. Those with the money insert cash into their favorite politician rigged slot machine, pull the lever and get the results they desire. If the politician machine doesn’t pay off then they find someone to primary them in the next election hold an auction and attempt to replace the defective machine.

  106. 106.

    John S.

    @cleek:

    Strawman? Please. If you’re going sling bullshit, have a piece of your own pie.

    You know damn well that Congress totally punted on the issue for TWO YEARS. Obama went out there for 2 months prior to the election and pleaded for them to address this before the election. They not only refused, but several liberal members of Congress pleaded with leadership NOT to hold the vote.

    Speaking of strawmen… did I say Obama had no hand in this? Nope. I can deal with the reality that he crafted this shitty deal and lobbied Congress to pass it. Unlike you, I don’t pretend that happened in a vacuum.

    Who controls the agenda in the House? Who controls the agenda in the Senate? Who schedules bills to come to the floor for a vote? Which branch of government creates laws? Yet nowhere in your tired screed do you mention Pelosi or Reid or any of the other Democrats that played a significant hand in this debacle. Nope, it’s just all Obama’s fault all the time.

    Unless… maybe you’d like to try convincing me that Congress was a complete bystander in all of this and doesn’t bear any responsibility for creating laws?

  107. 107.

    cleek

    @John S.:

    You know damn well that Congress totally punted on the issue for TWO YEARS.

    and then something happened in the last couple of weeks which caused Congress to quickly act. some kind of out insistent outside force. see if you can figure out what that something was.

  108. 108.

    Odie Hugh Manatee

    @John S.:

    Jeez, almost everyone knows that the president makes the laws. They know that the only purpose of congress is to get rich and make sure that the people in all 50 states know that the president gets the blame for everything that goes wrong. It doesn’t matter that they are wrong about this, a majority believes this to be true so it has to be true.

    Besides, I have seen the proof on the TV and internet. People like you and I are in the minority and thus we have to be wrong.

    On the plus side, congress is more than willing to admit that when something that is passed into law is good then they were the ones who did it, not the president.

  109. 109.

    John S.

    It’s an interesting dynamic…

    When good things happen in Congress, it’s because of Nancy Pelosi. She gets it done, and it has nothing to do with Obama.

    When bad things happen in Congress, it’s because of Obama. He gets it done, and it has nothing to do with Nancy Pelosi.

    How many votes does Obama get in the House? Or does the bully pulpit grant him with unlimited votes? The constitution isn’t very clear on this.

    Personally, I thought 90% of the problem was Harry Reid and his fucked up Senate. But I guess we can hang its failure on Obama, too, since his VP presides over the Senate and casts the tiebreaking vote. And that bastard hasn’t been the 51st vote once in the past 2 years.

    Can we primary Biden?

    (Yes I know, lots of strawmen. But it gets harder to discern them from the actual arguments advanced by folks these days.)

  110. 110.

    Belafon (formerly anonevent)

    If the Democrats want a better bill through Congress, then maybe they should have put one together. I will bet you money that if Reid and Pelosi had come to Obama say that they have a bill they could get through with his support, they would have gotten it. Instead, they waffled for months until he had to do their job.

    On to the next one.

  111. 111.

    John S.

    strawman

    I don’t think you know what this word means, cleek.

    Funny, Obama is this magical force that compelled Congress to act… But for the last two years, they have been happy to tell him to fuck off. Something about your calculation makes no sense. And as usual, you let Congress off the hook for THEIR action/inaction, and it’s all Obama’s fault. Again.

  112. 112.

    patrick

    hey, my congressman voted right for once (Pete Hoekstra)….even a blind squirrel finds a nut sometimes, eh?

  113. 113.

    Odie Hugh Manatee

    @cleek:

    They all got large campaign donations from the wealthy and big business and had to pay up once they figured out a way to hang the mess around Obama’s neck.

    That was easy.

  114. 114.

    Dennis SGMM

    @amk:
    That’s cute. The Dems’ electoral success in this year’s mid-terms certainly does put them in a position to alienate more of their constituents. On to ’12!

  115. 115.

    cleek

    @John S.:

    I don’t think you know what this word means, cleek.

    oh, but i do. and sadly, your comments here are overstuffed with straw.

    for example:

    How many votes does Obama get in the House? Or does the bully pulpit grant him with unlimited votes?

    nobody is saying Obama gets votes in either chamber. so trying to score points by sarcastically pointing out that he doesn’t = strawman.

    defeating a bullshit argument nobody is making = strawman.

    Funny, Obama is this magical force that compelled Congress to act…

    ok then, if it wasn’t Obama’s deal and his public push to get it passed, what drove Congress to quickly pass this tax law after years of inaction ?

  116. 116.

    agrippa

    Well, if you want Congress to pass progressive legislation, a progressive majority is needed. FDR had an overwheming majority. In the 1938 election, the Democrats lost 70 seats in the House and retained a majority. That is how dominating the Dems were in the prior years. Those years were unique.

    That size majority was necessary to pass the sweeping legislation that was passed.

    The Dems had a majority of 29 in the House over the last two years. Not enough, considering how divided and undisciplined the Democrats actually are.

    The Democrats in Congress, simply, did not have it in them.
    There was very little time; in Nov 2010, it was going to swing against them. The question was the size of the loss; was it going to be 25 to 35? Or, was it going to be 63?

    If the DEms had done what needed to be done, the loss would have been far smaller.

    The Democrats in Congress did it to themselves; acting in fear of losing, they brought about what they feared.

  117. 117.

    Suck It Up!

    @Dennis SGMM:

    I didn’t see any tears for tier 5 prior to the tax deal why the sudden outrage? also, most people believed that Obama would only get 3 months. He got 13 months and the new complaint was that tier 5’s didn’t get anything. IF that was such a concern why didn’t the House make a push to add it to the deal?

    You point out 1.4 million to make others look uncaring, but so many of you brushed off the fact 2 million people could have been w/o benefits this Christmas.

  118. 118.

    Odie Hugh Manatee

    @cleek: “ok then, if it wasn’t Obama’s deal and his public push to get it passed, what drove Congress to quickly pass this tax law after years of inaction ? “

    Ahhh, I see how you arrived at your conclusion! You assume that since congress hasn’t done a thing about this in two years then the reason they passed this now is because of Obama, right? You must be right because it sure couldn’t have been the possibility of their getting blamed and hammered until the elections for 2012 by the Republicans, M$M and pundits for having “raised taxes during a time of high unemployment and low economic activity”, right? Jeez, I wonder how I ever missed this, boy are you a smart guy. Probably handsome to boot.

    Well I do have to admit that you’re a fucking genius for deducing this. I think you should run for president, maybe even primary Obama because your mad reasoning skilz would definitely win a large segment of the vote.

  119. 119.

    amk

    @cleek: Looks like logic isn’t your friend. But heh, if you give Obama credit for passing this tax bill, I’m all for it. Thanks.

  120. 120.

    Ron

    I hate this. I think that it’s probably a bad bill. OTOH, given the makeup of congress we’re going to have come January, I will take this over what we would get from the Teabagger majority House. For people who complain that we gave the farm away, maybe we did. Until the Senate gets unbroken, there was really no choice. It would be one thing if the Senate rules weren’t insane or the GOP wasn’t insane, but until at least one of those changes, that’s the way it works. At least there was some good inserted into this bill.

  121. 121.

    Dennis SGMM

    @Suck It Up!:
    I would have preferred that the administration focused its efforts on job creation and job retention from the very beginning. Having aged out of being a candidate for employment before Obama took office, I find that having unemployment stuck at close to ten percent unconscionable. It didn’t seem to help the Democrats in the mid-terms either. If this situation obtains in ’12 then the GOP stands a good chance of retaking the Senate and of electing nearly anyone president.

    I don’t like James Carville one bit but, his imprecation that “It’s the economy, stupid!” has been ignored by both the administration and Congressional Democrats to their peril.

    EDIT: And if you didn’t see any tears being shed for the Tier V people before this bill was passed then you didn’t read many of my posts.

  122. 122.

    numbskull

    @General Stuck: B-b-but this can’t be true! The General told me that the eleventyeth dimensional chess player(s) were eventually just going to let it all sunset.

    Hey, I hate being right here, so the only consolation is that I get to tell you that I told you so (I, of course, am _never_ wrong…)

    And no fair trying to move the goal posts. Don’t make me pull out the Way Back Machine.

    And I agree with your assessment: The dimwits cannot possibly fathom why this is a bad deal for them and for the country in anything past the shortest of short term outcomes. Hell, the LTEs in our local rag are all about “How is it possibly bad for everyone to get a tax break at Christmas time?! Thank Gawd and Jesus that the Republicans forced the DemoRats to do it!!”

    Sigh.

  123. 123.

    cleek

    @Odie Hugh Manatee:
    the issue is the actual forreals tax plan that is workign through Congress right now. it’s based on Obama’s deal, right? i assume we can agree on that.

    now, if Obama didn’t make that deal, would we have seen the specific tax plan that’s about to pass ? no. would the Dems have come up with it on their own ? no. i doubt we’d see any tax plan at all, given that the Dems have had 23 months to deal with the issue and didn’t. but, when Obama’s deal came out, they immediately acted on it. and that’s why Obama gets credit/blame for the tax plan that is about to pass.

    Well I do have to admit that you’re a fucking genius for deducing this.

    i’d prefer to keep this civil. but if you want to turn this into a personal issue, we can do that too. let me know.

  124. 124.

    numbskull

    @cleek:

    ok then, if it wasn’t Obama’s deal and his public push to get it passed, what drove Congress to quickly pass this tax law after years of inaction ?

    Especially when WH aides were leaking that Obama was telling House Dems that is presidency was “over” (!) if he didn’t get the bill that HE brokered.

    John S, I get your other point, that Congress could have come up with a better bill. But what if Congress’ plan was just to let the damn thing SUNSET like it was supposed to do? Gee whiz, if only their mighty leader hadn’t let out stupid, stupid things like “my presidency is OVER if I don’t get this bill pushed through.” What is Pelosi supposed to do once President 11-Dimension pulls shit like that?

  125. 125.

    blahblahblah

    Are you a member of the Democratic Party because you want to join some organization, or because you support a specific set of policies you expect from them – such as progressive taxation? Because if it’s the latter, the Democrats are no longer promoting policies that benefit their constituents.

    I’m sure as f*ck done with supporting Democrats. Because they’re policies mirror the so-called opposition. No matter how you frame the issue, the fact is the Democratic Party just voted for tax cuts for the rich. They just voted to continue spending more than the nation earns, and are now just as fiscally irresponsible as Republicans.

    You can’t get around that fact, John.

  126. 126.

    Odie Hugh Manatee

    @cleek:

    I would say that Obama can see that if the rates go up then both himself and the Democrats would get the blame and would pay for it in the next election. That this would happen is beyond doubt and you would have to be an absolute idiot to deny this. Republicans are not going to get the blame for anything, it just ain’t happening. The pretty much own the media lock, stock and barrel. If taxes go up in 2011 then the left (‘led’ by Obama) get the blame and the Repubs get to do the pointing.

    No, the House and Senate Democrats fucked this up royally and they should be the ones who have to pay for it but noooo, the fucking nO-bots gotta make sure their saviors are shielded from the big mean president who pushes them around like pansies. The Dems have had no problem telling Obama to stuff it when they want to and this case is no different. Obama couldn’t get what he wanted in the health care bill and now all of the sudden he has the mojo to get them to do his bidding on taxes when he clearly stated that he did not want the tax cuts extended to those who make more than $250K a year?

    Make up your mind; either he is so weak he can’t get anything done or he is so strong that the Dems in the House and Senate does what he wants without question. Fuck, you people are so dense it makes my brain ache.

  128. 128.

    LikeableInMyOwnWay

    The cake was baked when the compromise was first announced. Passage was never in doubt and the intervening time was strictly for members to act out their “outrage” for their own political purposes. The vote count should tell you that the thing was whipped down to the last vote and that Dems had votes in reserve to meet or exceed the Republican count right up to the final seconds of voting. Leaders on both sides made sure that everyone had either the cover they wanted or the credit they could claim, depending on what their particular base would approve of.

    The really big cake was baked when the cuts were passed years ago in the first place. Reconciliation was used to get the bill past the procedural hurdles and set up the expiration of the cuts now, with the full knowledge that Dems would find it just about impossible to let them expire.

    Dems were had, and plenty of Dems were more than glad to stamp their feet and yell at the White House to insure that as much blame as possible was deflected to the least blameworthy person in the government and away from themselves.

    And of course, the morons in the blogs and on tv all did their finest Ed Schultz imitations to help the ruse along.

    Great job, everybody played their part and a lot of words were yelled and typed, almost all bullshit and totally all for nothing.

    Proving once again that the moneyed interests run the business side of the country, and that progressives can not organize themselves into a governing party. So weak are they that they had to sacrifice the nice Bernie Sanders, the only SociaIist ever elected to congress, to play the role of Jimmy Stewart in the set piece and give the tv new producers something to fill their air time with during the “debate.” They couldn’t even get a real Democrat to pull off the phony filibuster.

  129. 129.

    LikeableInMyOwnWay

    @numbskull:

    Yeah, super rant, but according to MSNBC yestereday afternoon, reporters on the Hill can’t find a single member who actually got such a phone call from Obama. The closest they could get was that some member’s staff heard that some other member got such a call, but nobody has a name.

    Total bullshit, unless there is first person corroboration of the story.

  130. 130.

    LikeableInMyOwnWay

    @Odie Hugh Manatee:

    You guys are arguing over nothing. First of all, Obama hardly made a “public push.” He held an explanatory press conference and defended the move.

    The White House already knew that the deal would get wide and general public approval, and so did the leaders on the Hill, before it was even announced. They also knew that in the end the bill would be seen, and would serve, as a makeshift stimulus measure engineered to kick the tax debate down the road … which is where it should be kicked, given the grotesque fiscal situation facing the country today. All of the current dynamics favor the Republican position on the cuts, and everyone in the room knew it going in.

  132. 132.

    LikeableInMyOwnWay

    @Odie Hugh Manatee:

    So you are claiming that public appearances by Obama are somehow responsible for the bill’s support?

    Noted. Yeah, that explains it, for sure. You appear to have no fucking idea on earth what you are talking about.

  133. 133.

    Mike Lamb

    @numbskull: So what do you think would’ve happened to Obama if the majority of elected Dems voted against a plan that he publicly negotiated? Do you think that would strengthen his bid for re-election?

  134. 134.

    cleek

    @Odie Hugh Manatee:

    Obama couldn’t get what he wanted in the health care bill and now all of the sudden he has the mojo to get them to do his bidding on taxes when he clearly stated that he did not want the tax cuts extended to those who make more than $250K a year?

    yes. that is exactly what happened.

    they were two different situations, and different situations sometimes lead to different outcomes.

    Make up your mind; either he is so weak he can’t get anything done or he is so strong that the Dems in the House and Senate does what he wants without question.

    another strawman (since i never asserted either of those highly implausible things). and it’s also a false dilemma (since, even their non-hyperbolic forms aren’t the only two positions a person can have about Obama’s relationship to Congress).

    again, different situations can yield different outcomes. there are many more variables than just a President’s political ‘strength’. other variables include: the amount of effort he puts into getting what he wants, the mood of Congress, current events, the issue itself, the amount of cooperation from the opposition, the public’s ever-changing opinion, the media’s narrative, support from business/industry/whatever. sometimes Congress takes the lead on things. sometimes the President does. sometimes industry does (our copyright laws, for example). etc..

    all of those things (and many more) influence outcomes. in this case, things worked out for him; he got what he wanted. other times they haven’t.

    likewise, sometimes i support his efforts, sometimes i don’t. sometimes i think he doesn’t put enough effort into things, sometimes i don’t. sometimes he does what i like, sometimes he doesn’t.

    i’m sorry that doesn’t fit into the Obot, nObot (false) dichotomy, but reality is more complex than that.

  136. 136.

    Lawnguylander

    @Odie Hugh Manatee:

    I’m OK with certain congressional Democrats spinning this as a story of mean old Obama pulling the football away from them when they were this close to getting an extension of tax cuts just for only the poor and middle class taxpayers, an extension of unemployment benefits that wouldn’t be for just 3 months and wouldn’t come at the expense of some other program like food stamps and in fact they were on the phone with their girlfriends in Canada telling them all about how they were just about to pwn the Republicans when the news of the deal came down. I assume they’re doing all this phony foot stamping because they think an important element of their constituencies is happy to fall for it. The country as a whole is solidly behind it though so Obama gets the benefit of being the one to take the “blame” for it. Everybody wins except those whose entire approach to politics is to try to make sure the other guy loses at all costs and fuck anyone who would get hurt even worse in the process.

  137. 137.

    Brachiator

    @cleek:

    ok then, if it wasn’t Obama’s deal and his public push to get it passed, what drove Congress to quickly pass this tax law after years of inaction ?

    It wasn’t just “years of inaction.” I’ve explained it before, and I’ll do a short version again. Well, maybe not so short.

    Everybody punted on a number of tax issues that were all set to expire this year. There was no option to let shit just roll over. None.

    The alternative minimum tax has been patched every year for the past several years. If Congress didn’t patch it again, 21 million taxpayers would have owed extra money in 2010. This is even before anything related to 2011 kicked in.

    A number of 2010 tax breaks either had to be extended or allowed to expire and let people’s taxes rise as a result.

    And this is before you got to the Bush tax cuts.

    The IRS commissioner warned of administrative chaos and delayed income tax filing for 2010 if they pushed these items to the next Congress and made any of them retroactive.

    Some other items, not just marginal tax rates, were set to expire at the end of this year. The child tax credit would be halved, from $1,000 to $500.

    Some credits that were part of Obama’s stimulus package would expire in 2011.

    Some areas related to the estate tax had to be addressed. Even though there was no estate tax for 2010, Congress had (deliberately?) left some technical issues unaddressed. And since people don’t stop dying, these issues had to be addressed even if the Bush tax cuts were allowed to expire.

    So let me repeat: a number of tax issues didn’t come due until this year. They had to be addressed. This year.

    The crazy thing is that some Congressional Democrats just stuck their head in the sand and figured that somehow everything would work out. Or something. The Republicans seized the opportunity to push for items that had been on the table for months.

    The Democrats didn’t do a damn thing. But they didn’t want to go home over Christmas and explain to their constituents that their taxes were going up. Now, they can run for cover and blame Obama and the Republicans for a deal that few really like. Hypocrites.

    I give Obama credit for at least putting the final deal together. Big credit. But I wish to God he and his advisors would have come up with a better counter-proposal once he saw how absolutely disorganized, confused and freaking clueless the Congressional Democrats were.

  138. 138.

    cleek

    @LikeableInMyOwnWay:

    First of all, Obama hardly made a “public push.” He held an explanatory press conference and defended the move.

    i don’t know about you, but i’ve heard non-stop clips of him (and his surrogates) talking about how Congress needed to pass this, pretty steadily, everywhere, for the past two weeks. their message was out there in a way that their message rarely is.

    i’ve also heard a lot from people who objected to the deal. (which was refreshing)

    maybe that’s all the media’s doing. maybe not.

  139. 139.

    LikeableInMyOwnWay

    The Pew Center found that 60% of the public supports the deal, and 22% oppose it—with those levels of support consistent across the ideological spectrum.

    Apparently, according to the ignorascenti here, a few minutes worth of public statements by Barack Obama had the power to sway public opinion, even in the face of round the clock “outrage” from every Dem and non-GOP corner of the mediablog universe on this issue. Even a majority of Democrats were in favor of the deal as of yesterday’s news, to go along with the 80% or so approval on the Republican side.

    Quite amazing, really. Maybe he will speak in favor of the Cardinals getting a real NFL quarterback in time for next season.

    Does anyone know where the manatee ranks on the animal intelligence scale? My impression was that it is somewhere down there near the mola-mola.

  140. 140.

    LikeableInMyOwnWay

    @cleek:

    Um, non stop clips are the creation of tv news producers, cleek. Not the White House. And you really think that they swayed public opinion, or votes on the Hill?

    A week’s worth of non stop clips can be manufactured out of eight seconds of audio or video. Have you been to a tv station? They have machines and all.

  141. 141.

    LikeableInMyOwnWay

    @cleek:

    I guess that also explains how a year’s worth of “non stop clips” got the ACA passed by a wide margin, too. And that’s also why DADT is sure to be voted down after only a short and easy breeze through the congress. It was the clips! The clips are the shazips!

    ( rolls eyes )

    Those non stop clips are da bomb, aren’t they? Why didn’t former presidents think of it? They are like fucking magic.

  142. 142.

    FlipYrWhig

    @numbskull:

    But what if Congress’ plan was just to let the damn thing SUNSET like it was supposed to do?

    What leads you to think this was “Congress’s plan”? How many members of Congress said that was what they wanted?

    The whole problem, it seems to me, is that there were (1) politicians who wanted the tax cuts for income under $250K but not for income over $250K, (2) those who wanted tax cuts for everyone, including over $250K, and (3) those who wanted no tax cuts for anyone (a rather small group). A majority backed position (1) in the House but the balance of power between (1) and (2) in the Senate resulted in a stalemate where neither could overcome the filibuster. Given that the Senate once again couldn’t find common ground among even the Democratic caucus, much less handle Republican obstruction, Obama inserted himself into the process and found a way to cadge Republican support for _something_.

    I don’t remember much discussion outside the blogosphere about the idea of letting all the tax cuts lapse. I don’t think it ever played a significant role inside the Beltway. Did I miss something?

  143. 143.

    LikeableInMyOwnWay

    @Brachiator:

    I think you are missing the point. Obama knew about congress two weeks after he started his term as a member. He acted like he hated the place, and the place has never acted like it was in love with him either.

    He’s a smart guy. I think he knew immediately that congress was a graveyard for anybody interested in actively doing anything. It rewards the Jon Kyls of the world for sticking around for a long time. Jon Kyl, who has never had an original thought in his entire life.

  144. 144.

    cleek

    @LikeableInMyOwnWay:
    of course.

    from a PBS news hour discussion:

    Some members in his caucus are still a little disappointed with it.
    …
    But there are enough. And the White House is pumping out — every minute another Democrat announces their support for it, they’re making sure every reporter in town knows.

    sounds like an effort, to me.

    it’s also reported that he’s been telling House members that his presidency “is over” if the deal fails.

    sounds like pressure, to me.

    regardless: Obama came up with the deal; Congress is going to pass Obama’s deal. therefore, Obama earns credit (or blame) on this. that’s been my point the whole time.

    i don’t actually give a fuck about how he managed to convince Congress to pass the deal he put together. but he (or his surrogates and supporters) did do it.

  145. 145.

    FlipYrWhig

    @cleek: Well, the question is the meaning of “blame,” I guess. If Obama did something because Congress didn’t or couldn’t, should its ill effects–whatever they may be–be laid at his feet, or theirs?

  146. 146.

    Brachiator

    @LikeableInMyOwnWay:

    He’s a smart guy. I think he knew immediately that congress was a graveyard for anybody interested in actively doing anything. It rewards the Jon Kyls of the world for sticking around for a long time. Jon Kyl, who has never had an original thought in his entire life.

    That’s funny. The Tea Party People, the RandPauls and Boehner nation are promising an activist Congress. Activist in all the wrong ways.

    And the bottom line is that the president can only do so much if the Democrats in Congress insist on sitting on their hands and doing nothing.

    @FlipYrWhig:

    I don’t remember much discussion outside the blogosphere about the idea of letting all the tax cuts lapse. I don’t think it ever played a significant role inside the Beltway. Did I miss something?

    Nope. Letting the tax cuts lapse were never an option.

  147. 147.

    numbskull

    @LikeableInMyOwnWay: I don’t think this negates the basic argument.

    There was legislation on this topic. It had a sunset clause. If Congress dithered and dithered, the sun would have set on it.

    There are many, many instances of President Obama taking a hands-off approach to legislation, stating that legislating is the job of Congress. In this instance, he did not do that. He negotiated a bill and used the bully pulpit to move it along. No problem, it’s what presidents do. For things they want.

  148. 148.

    cleek

    @FlipYrWhig:
    i’d say both. but Obama gets a bit more on this than he would get on things where he hasn’t been such an active player.

    of course it will never be discussed that way. it’ll be all one or the other, depending on who the speaker is trying to blame or credit that day. such is life.

    and for the record: i’m not crazy about this deal. i think it sucks, really. but i also believe that it was probably the best Obama could get at the time. so, if that’s what it takes to unconstipate the Senate, then that’s what it takes. politics is antithetical to ideals.

  149. 149.

    Brachiator

    @cleek:

    of course it will never be discussed that way. it’ll be all one or the other, depending on who the speaker is trying to blame or credit that day. such is life.

    It’s funny. A New York Times column makes the following observation:

    The president’s liberal base is angry at him for what they view as a willingness to compromise too much in the service of getting the tax bill done.

    And yet everybody in Congress knew that various tax laws were expiring (or should have known). And yet, no Congressional Democrats drafted any bills, suggested any tax policy or said anything. The blame game gets old really fast. But I do not understand the inertia on the part of the Democrats in Congress.

    And as you suggest, it will be interesting to see if any lessons were learned come January.

Comments are closed.