home

GOP Fights For Tax Cut For Wall Street

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 10:47:42 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit
[Democrats want to] raise taxes on just a small number of people, most of whom live on Wall Street in New York. - Republican Senator Lamar Alexander

Via atrios, Media Matters captures GOP Senator Lamar Alexander accusing Dem New York Senator Charles Schumer of blocking tax cuts for Wall Street:

If the Democratic Party was competent, they would run with this. They aren't and they won't.

Speaking for me only

< Why WikiLeaks? | Thursday Early Evening Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    GOP Fights For Tax Cut For Wall Street | 108 comments (108 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Dude (5.00 / 5) (#4)
    by TJBuff on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 10:59:33 AM EST
    They not going to run with it because it would work.

    My God, Alexander's an idiot... (none / 0) (#85)
    by rhbrandon on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 09:11:02 PM EST
    But mostly he's a hack.

    Parent
    Up to 1 Million (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 11:11:17 AM EST
    No feeling sorry for the poor.  Pity and compassion is now only for the entitled.  

    Funny thing is in California the higher income counties support higher taxes.  

    They can't even feel sorry for (none / 0) (#10)
    by Zorba on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 11:56:43 AM EST
    poor children.  The GOP is blocking a child nutrition bill that would feed school meals to thousands more needy children.  Link.
    I guess they stop worrying about you once you're born.

    Parent
    Eh... (none / 0) (#13)
    by masslib on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 12:23:03 PM EST
    That bill is the one Dems took foodstamp money to pay for.  I'm not sure how great that is for the poor children.

    Parent
    It's not (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by Zorba on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 12:33:14 PM EST
    The current Dems (with a very few exceptions) are almost as bad as the Repubs.  I have long said that I didn't leave the Democratic Party- the Democratic Party left me.  I don't even recognize them any more.

    Parent
    on the upside though (none / 0) (#15)
    by nycstray on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 12:28:11 PM EST
    Palin is telling folks the gov should stay out of giving poor children healthy food :)

    Parent
    note to anyone (none / 0) (#14)
    by CST on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 12:25:46 PM EST
    who wants to keep their sanity.

    Do not read the comments on that one.

    Yes, lets let kids go hungry because their parents are poor.

    Parent

    I don't read (none / 0) (#17)
    by Zorba on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 12:34:23 PM EST
    the comments on sites like Yahoo!News.  They tick me off too much.

    Parent
    Right now the Dem Party is Obama (5.00 / 5) (#6)
    by Dadler on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 11:20:19 AM EST
    And Obama has a greater psychological need to be accepted by Republicans than he does in genuinely leading the nation to a better place.

    He is a terribly addled guy.  Just a mess.

    Could change, but I doubt it.

    I'm completely over (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by Anne on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 01:24:14 PM EST
    those who use the political arena to play out their psychodrama - isn't that what Hollywood is for?

    We'd all be better off if Obama had chosen the big screen, the small screen or the bright lights of Broadway for the adulation and adoration he so desperately needs to prove to himself that he didn't deserve to be abandoned by his father and effectively abandoned by his mother.

    Just think where we might be if Oprah had done for Obama what she did for Dr. Phil and Dr. Oz...

    Parent

    sadly we're ALL messes (none / 0) (#41)
    by Dadler on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 01:33:06 PM EST
    most of us, however, don't have it combined with a pathological ego that drives us to seek higher and higher seats of power, the public nature of which makes one's psychodrama more pronounced and obvious and globally broadcast.

    as a guy who spent some very deprived years on welfare with my young single mother, i am more sympathetic to his psyche, and yet i still cannot fathom his gaping need to be accepted and loved by the power crowd.  too much time at that ritzy prep school in honolulu. my private school time was at the biggest evangelical high school in the nation. there was some money, but mostly there was just what Louis Black describes as decent people who happened to be "stone cold phuck nuts."   I think the cult of money is worse for the soul than the most inane cult of the god.

    Parent

    Maybe we're all psychologists? :) (none / 0) (#44)
    by christinep on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 02:00:05 PM EST


    Parent
    There isn't anyone who doesn't have (none / 0) (#46)
    by Anne on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 02:05:52 PM EST
    some dysfunction or baggage - we're all basically just stumbling through life as best we can - some better than others, obviously.

    And because I know we're all dysfunctional to one degree or another, I'm not unsympathetic to how Obama's life circumstances have affected him, but I would prefer that he seek actual therapy to deal with the effects rather than use us as cast members in his psychodrama.

    As for why he is so attracted to the power/money crowd, there are a lot of people who think money and power fix everything - and they don't.  He's no different from anyone else who's ever thought that "if only" or "as soon as" they are rich or thin or prettier or married or have a kid or a big house or another promotion, their lives will finally be perfect and they'll be happy.

    We know it doesn't work that way; there are a lot of rich, thin, beautiful, powerful people who are still as unhappy as they ever were, and can't figure out why.  They look outside for the answers, instead of inside, which is where the answers usually are.

    Who knows what really drives anyone?  I've had a tough enough time figuring - and continuing to figure - myself out, lol, so I could just as easily be out in left field on Obama, but looking at his history, seeing how he functions in the present, I firmly believe this all goes back to the abandonment.

    I hope he figures it out one day, and I hope the rest of us don't have to pay the price for him not doing it sooner.

    Parent

    20% of the people you have in your (none / 0) (#47)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 02:11:22 PM EST
    life will hate you all the time no matter what you do, that is a fact so I never go out of my way to please haters....only to be better prepared for their attacks.  AND.....20% of the people will be enchanted with you almost literally no matter what you do :)

    Parent
    Addled and aging fast... (none / 0) (#31)
    by oldpro on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 01:07:28 PM EST
    have you noticed his greying hair, facial expressions, body language?

    Not a happy camper.

    Parent

    Amazing, isn't it (none / 0) (#35)
    by christinep on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 01:17:13 PM EST
    Even Bush got gray in office. They all do. (Sometimes I've wondered if the opposite approach to hair-coloring is used to infuse the recipient with the look of sagacity.)

    Parent
    They all do? Not Ronnie! (none / 0) (#39)
    by oldpro on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 01:27:14 PM EST
    Of course, nothing really bothered him!

    Don't worry!  Be happy!

    Obama though...in only two years?  Wow.

    Parent

    Reagan kept his hair color to be sure (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by christinep on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 01:29:43 PM EST
    But, unfortunately, we all know what was happening under the hair.

    Parent
    Nah (none / 0) (#89)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 11:15:34 PM EST
    Ronnie just didn't change his hair dye between the time he took office and the time he left.

    Parent
    O started going grey (none / 0) (#42)
    by CST on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 01:38:07 PM EST
    when he was still campaigning.

    As to the hair dye question in the article... I have no idea how one would dye specks of their hair grey and not the rest of it.

    Parent

    Good colorist would have no prob (none / 0) (#45)
    by nycstray on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 02:00:39 PM EST
    similar to doing hi/low lights :)

    Parent
    Seems obvious (none / 0) (#77)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 06:59:41 PM EST
    he'd been dying his hair on the campaign trail.  It wasn't long after he became president that he "went grey".  

    Parent
    If they ran with it (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 11:26:45 AM EST
    It would piss off or at least upset Wall Street.  We can't have that.

    if the tried to run with it (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 11:30:09 AM EST
    they would probably fall and break it.

    and a hip.

    Parent

    The Democrats can't even get (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by KeysDan on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 12:02:09 PM EST
    the "millionaire" message right.  They keep saying that they only want to tax millionaires....when they should accurately state that the Bush tax cuts would expire for those whose annual incomes are over $250,000.  Or they use percentages (too many believe they are in the top two percent).

    Senator Schumer, in his "compromise" offer to Alexander, asked if a $million would be acceptable (only costing about $500 billion rather than $700 billion). Alexander, demurred, of course.  But, once again, it should be clarified that he is talking about annual incomes of a $l million; it just strengthens the Republican hands by feeding into the tax hysteria of all those relatively well off tea party types with net worths of $l million (home equity, IRA, savings, combined household annual incomes of say, $100 K)

    What's even worse (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by cawaltz on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 01:20:43 PM EST
    is what hasn't been explained is that basically what the GOP wants is for rich folk to keep more money then the average guy. It isn't like the rich wouldn't be getting a tax break if the tax breaks were up to $250,000. They'd get a tax break just like everyone else on that first $250,000.

    Parent
    That's a key point that keeps getting lost (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 11:22:39 PM EST
    Oddly, the sole TV person I've heard who keeps pounding on that fact is Shepard Smith at Fox.  Every time he mentions this whole tax issue, he reminds his viewers of that.

    When he reminded Gerri Willis (formerly of CNN, now a very right-wing Fox Business host) on the show today, who NEVER mentions that little fact when she's railing about taxes, she got very satisfyingly grumpy and had to concede very much against her will that he was right.  Love to watch the dynamics of exchanges like that.

    Parent

    Wuss that he is, I never (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by rennies on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 12:07:29 PM EST
    dreamed that Obama would cave in on the Bush tax cuts for the rich -- because surely that will disintegrate his base (unions, progressives, middle class). And that would imperil his chances for re-election, which IMHO is all he really wants. But I suppose he is counting on us all crawling back into the voting booth in 2012 and pulling the level because "he's better than the other guy."

    Not me. Nothing would induce me ever again to vote for this con man.

    What's ironic is that these capitulations will (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by BobTinKY on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 12:48:06 PM EST
    produce a primary challenger.  Whereas for over a year I have been pleading in my commnets for such a challenge thinking it might force Obama leftward, I now think the guy could actually lose renomination.  There, I said it 12/2/10.

    If he continues with valuing GOP & self styled indies over Dems I don;t see how he can expect Dem support should a bona fide challenger announce.  So if you beleive Obama is capitulating to improve his odds of re-election, I think it is going to seriously backfire.

    Parent

    This always (none / 0) (#30)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 01:05:04 PM EST
    gets back to who though? The highest profile ones Hillary and Dean have said no. They are the only ones that could load up their coffers quickly IMO.

    Parent
    That's now (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by sj on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 02:56:43 PM EST
    Then is then.  Of course right now both of them will say no.

    They might even keep to that.  But a lot can happen in two years.  As we've already seen.

    And while I like both of those ideas, there may be another good idea waiting in the wings somewhere.

    Parent

    Would love to see Dean, HRC not so much (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by BobTinKY on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 03:06:41 PM EST
    not a fan and hard to see much change in policies or in the personnel populating the Cabinet and WH staff with HRC.

    Parent
    Dean doesn't have enough of a following. (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by masslib on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 03:30:09 PM EST
    I'd love to see Hill.  She's got that whole competence thing going.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 04:25:07 PM EST
    you forget how well the Clintons read the political winds. They also know when to listen to advisors and when not too unlike Obama who seems to hang on every piece of garbage his advisors dangle in front of him.

    Parent
    Don't lose sight of the fact (none / 0) (#92)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 11:29:25 PM EST
    though, that Dean is a heuuge deficit hawk, from what I've been hearing him say in VT media almost every day.

    And btw, he was known in VT when he was governor as one of the more fiscally conservative govs. the state has ever had, which is saying something, given our (now a thing of the past) rock-ribbed Republican history.

    He's been yapping a good deal lately about the "imperative" of reining in the costs of "entitlements."  I adore the man in many respects, but I wouldn't want to vouch for what he'd want to do about that.

    Parent

    I didn't know that (none / 0) (#100)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 08:24:00 AM EST
    he was talking about entitlements but I did know that hey was tight fisted with the money in VT and also that he was a DLC darling back in the 90's which also really makes some of his biggest fans who constantly scream about the DLC look like total idiots.

    Parent
    Ed Rendell. He won't do it, of course, (none / 0) (#32)
    by oldpro on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 01:10:41 PM EST
    but he IS free for the next two years and he's pretty disgusted with Obama.

    Go Ed!

    Parent

    Not a chance in the world (none / 0) (#33)
    by andgarden on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 01:12:28 PM EST
    He's way too much of a party man to even consider that.

    Parent
    As I said..."he won't do it." (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by oldpro on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 01:19:58 PM EST
    But you never know what pols will do when the motivation and timing is right.  Maybe Ed thinks the Party has left him the way I think it left me.  

    The unions are pretty damn steameed at Obama over the federal pay freeze and Ed is a union guy, too.  The reasons to abandon Obama are piling up.  All it takes is one damned mad Democrat of real substance with heft in the arena.  So far, Ed is the only one I can think of.  There may be others...

    Anyone?

    Parent

    I will never forgive him for telling (none / 0) (#48)
    by suzieg on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 02:12:22 PM EST
    Gore to give up on the recount. Count me out!

    Parent
    Hmmm...news to me... (none / 0) (#51)
    by oldpro on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 02:23:08 PM EST
    and not good news...

    Parent
    and how about this lady for VP? (none / 0) (#73)
    by NYShooter on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 06:34:54 PM EST
    link

    Note to MT:
        You wanted to get an education on all this business; this is a good place to start.

    Parent

    Perhaps. (none / 0) (#80)
    by oldpro on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 07:46:49 PM EST
    I do like Congresswoman Kaptur.

    Parent
    Isn't she wonderful? (none / 0) (#101)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 09:11:04 AM EST
    Kaptur has been up to speed from day one on all this.  She understood from the outset exactly what was going down and she also had many suggestions about what could be done different....real solutions, but she was ignored and still is.

    Parent
    The single most disgraceful (none / 0) (#91)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 11:25:27 PM EST
    moment of the whole 2000 debacle, IMO.  I watched him do it.  He was DNC chairman at the time, too, so it had HUGE weight in the Village.

    Rendell has his opinions, but like Biden, he's at heart a "go along, get along" guy.  He'd be just as bad as Obama, IMO.

    Parent

    I know what you mean (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by cal1942 on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 05:37:37 PM EST
    But, ironically, it would be a service to the party.

    Obama has done considerable damage to the Democratic Party.  A decent challenger might let the public know that Obama doesn't define the Democratic Party.

    You're right of course.  Rendell would never do it.

    Parent

    Not even a promise of renewed hope (none / 0) (#19)
    by observed on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 12:36:18 PM EST
    and change?

    Parent
    Well, the House is going to vote (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by andgarden on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 12:39:08 PM EST
    We'll see.

    Yeah well... (none / 0) (#25)
    by masslib on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 12:56:02 PM EST
    a political vote.  Hoyer says, "This matter moving forward should not undermine negotiations on a compromise."

    LINK

    Parent

    This is all basically preordained. (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by andgarden on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 12:59:08 PM EST
     But IMO this is the last chance to change the conversation.

    Parent
    Funny (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 02:22:43 PM EST
    It looks like the Obama and the dems are going to do what many people on this chain said they wouldn't:

    "As expected, Republicans gave the usual line about this being a tax increase on small businesses, etc. I think what the 33 Democratic defections shows a combination of wanting rich people to have tax cuts (Connolly, Moran) and not wanting there to be a vote on the final bill so as not to be tarred as a tax-raiser, despite the fact that the vote cuts taxes for everyone in America. Democrats ingeniously found a work-around that ensures a single vote on just the tax cuts on the first $250,000 of income, without the possibility of a motion to recommit or other amendments.

    So there will be a vote, and based on passage of the rule, it's going to pass along partisan lines. The House will have done its job, again. If we had a unicameral legislature, the House probably wouldn't have come back for the lame duck, having passed the entire agenda previously."

    http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/12/02/in-test-vote-33-dems-and-all-republicans-against-giant-tax-cu t/

    Now back to the bashing.

    it will pass the house (none / 0) (#52)
    by CST on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 02:32:55 PM EST
    that was never the question...

    Unfortunately, that does not mean it will actually become law.

    Parent

    to put it another way (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by CST on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 02:36:14 PM EST
    the public option passed the house too.  So did the DADT repeal.

    Parent
    "It's rigged" (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by nycstray on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 03:09:48 PM EST


    Parent
    Yes, and Pelosi bashers (5.00 / 3) (#96)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 11:45:03 PM EST
    on the left would do well to remember that.

    Parent
    Why didn't the House pass this (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by KeysDan on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 03:36:09 PM EST
    before the November election?  It might have helped, and would not have hurt.  Now, it is too little, too late.  It will go nowhere in the senate, just waiting on the deal.  A cave, it will be, but it needs to be dressed up at bit--such as ...its only for two or three years, we got a lot out of the Republicans...Kyl is loosening up, we think, on Start treaty, we got a little more unemployment benefits.  But, of course, no DADT, no Dream Act as part of the cave/negotiation/compromise.

    Parent
    They didn't pass it then (none / 0) (#98)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 11:46:48 PM EST
    because Pelosi didn't have the votes then.  The shaky Dem. members were hearing big-time threats from their major contributors.

    Simple as that.  The consequences of having that vote pre-November and having it fail because of Dem. votes against it would have been catastrophic to the whole idea.

    Parent

    Appreciate the explanation (none / 0) (#99)
    by KeysDan on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 08:07:32 AM EST
    but still not a satisfactory reason for doing what needed to be done at the time.  Now, when the House knows that their vote is not serious in terms of the resultant legislation they find the courage--or at least will not jeopardize contributions.   A catastrophe seems be on the way, what with a probably extension of all Bush tax cuts for two or three years---even increasing the threshold to $l million is unlikely to make it.

    Parent
    House Democrats (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by CST on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 03:25:48 PM EST
    do their job.  Again.

    Tax bill passes house.  It won't pass the senate.

    double (none / 0) (#1)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 10:49:23 AM EST
    facepalm

    or (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 10:53:46 AM EST
    maybe this one

    Parent
    Hee hee! (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Zorba on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 10:54:27 AM EST
    Well, at least facepalm has got to hurt less than what I do- keyboardforehead.  I have little squares all over my forehead now.   ;-)

    Parent
    I'm beginning to get suspicious (none / 0) (#9)
    by waldenpond on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 11:41:14 AM EST
    That there is only one party and it is on the side of the billionaires and trying to eff me over.... but then I turn on MSNBC and see a story on Disneyland and ooh ooh ooh Boehner is adding a bathroom so all is right with my world again because I know they are on my side.

    [Raising Hand] (none / 0) (#18)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 12:35:38 PM EST
    Has Obama actually caved yet?

    Before we call him every name in the book, let's see where we end up.

    But c'mon Obama. You're my guy.  I still think you're the smartest guy in the room.  Wake up.  

    This is the time to make a stand. It is good politics. It is good (but not great) fiscal policy.  It is what Obama promised.

    I defend him on a lot of things, but if he gives this away without a very public battle, I'll have no defense.

    He doesn't have to win. It may be irresponsible for him to play chicken with this issue. We'll see. He just has to show us that he'll fight.

    Fight? Obama? (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by nycstray on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 12:38:40 PM EST
    lol!~

    it's very possible he's pre-caved on this . . .

    Parent

    Um, yeah. He's already signalled that he'll cave (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by shoephone on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 12:48:30 PM EST
    on his original policy stance, which was to let the tax cuts for the rich expire, because we can't f'ing afford to take another $70 billion a year out of the coffers. But then he and his wily advisors changed the talking point to not giving the rich a "permanent" tax break -- in other words, it's okay to let them reap their billions in tax breaks on a temporary basis, say another 2-4 years. And then he changed the talking point again to snuff out that silly $250,000 base income cap. Now he's gonna make it $1 million, just to lasso a few GOP votes into the corral. Oh wait, that's right. The GOP isn't budging one inch for Obama. They're holding firm on no tax changes for their wealthy friends.

    Boink.

    Parent

    He's actually fighting against (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by masslib on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 12:59:38 PM EST
    the Chuck Schumer compromise(something I do not support but for completely opposite reasons as Obama).

    LINK

    Parent

    C'mon people! (none / 0) (#22)
    by jbindc on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 12:47:41 PM EST
    He's only been in office for 2 years - give him time to do good!

    Sheesh - people around here expect miracles....

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#43)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 01:54:28 PM EST
    Don't get it confused.

    I think if he quit today and didn't do another thing, it will have been the most progressive first term of our lifetime.

    I want him to take a stand on this issue, but let's not confuse that with the insane "Obama has done nothing" horse pucky you hear around here far too much.

    But yeah, on this issue, I (an Obama supporter) think that he needs to step up.

    Parent

    Yeah, so even though everyone and (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by Anne on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 02:16:11 PM EST
    their grandmother knew the Bush tax cuts were going to expire at the end of 2010, and even though we had a sizeable majority in the House and a decent one in the Senate, Obama - and the Congress - waited almost two whole years to deal with this in a lame-duck Congress that will have a GOP-majority House and a razor-thin Democratc Senate come January, 2011.

    There was nothing - zip, zero, nada - stopping Obama from stepping up, from twisting arms, from leading, from backing the Republicans into a corner where everyone could see them for who and what they are.

    I do estate and trust work as a paralegal in a law firm, and there isn't one attorney in our department, or in the tax department, who ever believed we would be sitting here less than a month from the expiration of the Bush tax cuts still wondering what was going to happen.

    Complete and utter failure of leadership from someone who was probably hoping that "something" would get done and he wouldn't have to do anything to make it happen - because if he did, then people would know where he really stood on the subject.  

    Parent

    Except (none / 0) (#53)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 02:33:55 PM EST
    the fact that Congress is comprised of individual people, who live in individual districts and have hundreds of individual concerns that would make it impossible for Obama to force them to vote the way he would like them to vote.

    Other than that, your theory makes complete sense.

    Parent

    Then man WON big in 2008 (5.00 / 5) (#60)
    by BobTinKY on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 03:15:36 PM EST
    and promised throughout his campaign to keep tax cuts only for those earning <= 250k.  Dems took Congress with large majorities.  People liked the idea in large majorities, they still do.

    And yet he couldn't/wouldn't use his mandate to push one of the most memorable of his campaign promises?  And now we're suppose to be satisfied when he tells us he can't?

    Cite me an instance of when Obama tried to pressure a congressperson to vote his way?  Reagan pressured RI republicans to vote for his nonsense, Bush had his rethugs whipped into line, Clinton pushed Dems, LBJ was legendary for buttonholing legislators.

    Parent

    So, he's just a figurehead, powerless (5.00 / 6) (#61)
    by Anne on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 03:16:01 PM EST
    to do anything - is that what you're pushing now?  

    Obama gets what he wants, when he wants it: he shut down any and all discussion of single-payer when that siege was beginning, he threatened members of the party who were wavering on passing a war supplemental bill, he got Pelosi and Reid to agree to give the Deficit Commission's recommendations an up-or-down vote, and to agree not to amend it or filibuster it, he's worked back-room deals on health care, finance reform, and got no push-back from Dems.

    To name a few.

    I don't know what you paid for that complete set of Excuse of the Day Barack Obama calendars, ABG, but whatever it was, it was too much.


    Parent

    So what? (4.00 / 3) (#66)
    by jbindc on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 03:39:50 PM EST
    Isn't that the case with every single Congress under every single president?

    Some presidents got more accomplished with smaller majorities (whether or not you agree with their accomplishments).

    Parent

    Old enough to have lived through LBJ (5.00 / 6) (#58)
    by BobTinKY on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 03:07:45 PM EST
    so OBama's accomplishments are not the most progressiv ein my lifetime.

    Parent
    JFK, LBJ, RMN, (5.00 / 5) (#71)
    by caseyOR on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 04:40:57 PM EST
    There, three presidents, one of them a Republican, who served during my lifetime, and saw more progressive legislation passed than Obama.

    And, yes, Nixon was, domestically, more progressive than Obama. When it comes to foreign affairs, well, let's just say that Obama is giving Johnson, Nixon and Bush II all a run for the money there.

    Geez, even Bill Clinton managed to get through better domestic legislation, along with the dreck.

    Parent

    Nixon today would be (5.00 / 4) (#94)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 11:36:51 PM EST
    characterized as "the hard left" by both GOPers and "moderate" dems alike.  Non-moderate Dems. would call him a liberal.

    It's simply mind-boggling to tot up all the extremely liberal stuff Nixon got passed during his time in office, stuff that at the time we all (very much including me) scorned and trashed as half-measures.  Hah.  We had no idea then where things would be going in this country politically.

    Sorry, Dickie.  You were an ugly, paranoid, actually profoundly evil man in many respects, but I didn't give you credit for the policy stuff you did at the time.

    Parent

    Does that include the domestic enemies list (none / 0) (#76)
    by christinep on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 06:58:56 PM EST
    that the Nixon WH devised? Or his personnel policies with Frederic Malek? Or all that Watergate imbroglio? (Otherwise, Mrs. Lincoln....)

    Parent
    I wasn't talking about scandals or (5.00 / 6) (#81)
    by caseyOR on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 08:19:25 PM EST
    obvious abuses of power. I was talking about policies. There is a difference. I stand by my assertion that on domestic issues Nixon was to the left of Obama.

    Now, if you want to delve into abuses of power, well, of course Nixon is right up there. Obama's hands are hardly clean, though. For one, there is that little matter of his assertion that he, as president, has the authority to order American citizens assassinated if he, all on his own, no need for a trial, decides that American is a danger to the country. Talk about your enemies list.

    All the snark you can muster does not change the fact that Obama is not a progressive. He is right of center and heading further in that direction every day. Bless his heart.


    Parent

    Suggestion: Do a deeper evaluation (none / 0) (#82)
    by christinep on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 08:40:33 PM EST
    when looking at who is more progressive than who. Things can get a bit distorted when comparing people 40 years apart. (And, using "progressive" near Democrats usually produces a gag reflex.)
    In this comparison, consider especially Nixon's comment--public & privately reported--about civil rights and minorities.

    Parent
    Once again, i am talking policies. (5.00 / 5) (#86)
    by caseyOR on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 09:43:38 PM EST
    So, whatever despicable comments Nixon made in private are irrelevant. Policies are what I am concerned about. For example, if Obama privately expressed how icky he things teh gays are, yet he actually went to the mat on DADT and DOMA, so what? Actions speak louder than words.

    And, seriously, now you want us to take care with the comparisons? OMG, Obama has been lauded as the next Lincoln, FDR, JFK. The only thing I haven't heard someone claim is that he's the second coming. Additionally, this little thread of comments came in response to ABG's claim that these first two years of Obama's are the most progressive in ABG's life. That sounds like comparisons to me, unless maybe ABG was born within the last ten years.

    Finally, I don't need instruction from you on the proper terminology to use around Democrats. My entire life has been spent around Democrats. The Democratic Party, for gawd's sake, uses the word progressive. Myself? I think it's a cowardly term when employed by Dems, meant to keep the scourge of "liberal" from their door. Nonetheless, it is the word used by ABG.

    Parent

    Interesting (none / 0) (#105)
    by christinep on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 11:30:30 AM EST
    I would agree that we have to look at what Nixon actually produced. In Civil Rights: The infamous "southern strategy."  So...cut the ###.

    Parent
    I think the deeper evaluation (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by Anne on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 09:57:50 PM EST
    needs to be focused on the policies that are needed NOW, in the framework of where we are NOW, and not on whether what previous presidents did was or wasn't more progressive or less progressive than what this president is or isn't doing.

    I realize there are things we can learn from history, but getting bogged down in these ridiculous arguments is accomplishing exactly nothing of value that is getting us any closer to where it is we want to go and what is is we want - and need - to accomplish.

    I am as frustrated with this who-wins-the-progressive-president contest as I am with the wallowing in the minutiae of polls and horse races about the chances of re-electing someone who has been an abysmal president and shows no signs of improving on his performance.

    We have, like frogs slowing cooking in increasingly hotter water, become conditioned to accept mediocrity as the highest standard we can expect.  We keep shrinking the standards by which we measure success, and now think progress of an inch is as good as a mile - and it isn't.  And it shouldn't be.

    We have a president who sounds more like a Republican every day, and a Congress that refuses to see itself as an independent body - and neither can separate themselves from the corporate vampire squid that are sucking the life out of this country while they drown the government in oceans of cash so they can keep doing it.  They don't think we have the right to know anything about what they're doing, but they want to be able to track our every move, listen to our phone calls and collect every last bit of data about us - to keep us safe?

    We have a media that have become Propaganda Central, more concerned with keeping the administration happy than in speaking any kind of truth, whether to power or to us.  For them, the Wikileaks story isn't about what the documents and cables reveal, it's about silencing the truth.

    So, please, can we just admit that trying to decide who was, or is, or isn't more progressive is a colossal waste of time, and that what we need to be putting our focus and energy on is policy?  And figuring how to get the policy we want?

    Parent

    I am very unhappy (none / 0) (#88)
    by Politalkix on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 10:21:47 PM EST
    about the way the tax cut extension for people making above $250k is developing. I am happy or neutral about other things that the Obama administration has done so far.
    I agree with the rest of your post. The Congress should see itself as an independent body. If 41 Democratic Senators stand united to support progressive policies, they can still wield a lot of power!

    Parent
    In my view (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by sj on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 09:47:02 AM EST
    Nixon was a despicable man, so you have plenty of ammunition to use for your red herrings.  It doesn't change the fact that, as President, he enacted more progressive domestic policies than Obama would ever care to.  

    Actually, I'm really starting to hate that word.  It's making me gag, too.  So I'd say that he enacted more liberal domestic policies than Obama would ever care to.

    Parent

    I've never liked the word "progressive" (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by christinep on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 11:34:39 AM EST
    ...as used in recent years. Because it was a dodge. I come from a proud liberal background.

    One thing: What policies of note did Nixon see through of a liberal (or progressive) nature. Y'see, I don't buy that contention at all (absent "Nixon goes to China" -- which was good for his business friends as well.)

    Parent

    EPA (none / 0) (#107)
    by sj on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 11:50:50 AM EST


    Parent
    You're correct! (none / 0) (#108)
    by christinep on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 02:22:12 PM EST


    Parent
    Clarification (none / 0) (#83)
    by christinep on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 08:42:12 PM EST
    ...using "progressive" when describing Nixon would cause gag reflex.

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#84)
    by Politalkix on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 09:05:29 PM EST
    Southern strategy was very progressive! Snark.

    Parent
    Not a policy (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 11:41:26 PM EST
    a political tactic.  Nobody here is suggesting Nixon wasn't a pig.  Heck, I was raised in a household where Nixon was the boogeyman under the bed who was going to get you if you didn't behave.  I bow to no one in my loathing for the guy.

    But read up sometime on all the stuff he presided over in terms of actual domestic policy, and it's really breathtaking-- in comparison to everybody since Nixon, Dem as well as GOP.

    Parent

    Domestic LBJ, yes; foreign policy LBJ, no (none / 0) (#67)
    by christinep on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 03:52:55 PM EST
    That little thing about the War. (Try as I might, it is hard to find the perfection model ==after FDR, of course.)

    Parent
    Um, you mean Obama's war?? (none / 0) (#68)
    by observed on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 04:15:46 PM EST
    sheesh

    Parent
    Vietnam (none / 0) (#74)
    by christinep on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 06:50:28 PM EST
    And, after Vietnam, Reagan's various unnecessary forays; Bush I's Gulf War; Bush II's Iraq invasion; Bush II's Afghanistan military action; and--yes--that Afghanistan situation is now also Obama's endeavor. (Pls note: Probably because I'm biased with a Slovenian background on my father's side, I did not mention the Bosnia incursion during Clinton's term...which did seem defined and confined to responding to an "ethnic cleansing" situation and resolving shortly with few casualties.

    Is a "double sheesh" in order....

    Parent

    You keep moving the goal posts... (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by sj on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 04:17:31 PM EST
    ... closer and closer.  It started as the most liberal legislation since FDR.  Then you switched to LBJ.  Now you're saying in "our lifetime".  We've all lived pretty different spans so that's kind of a meaningless measurement.  Anyway, I'm guessing my lifetime is longer than yours.

    But bless your heart, you just don't give up.  I find that as admirable as it is irksome.  I'll be standing by to see your comments when Obama disappoints you.

    And if he doesn't disappoint?  I will be as glad as you will. I won't be looking for a cross-eyed way to make him look bad on this.  

    And just to clarify:  I'm not one of those who say Obama has done nothing.  I'm one of those who says Obama has done damage.

    Parent

    Please excuse this little question (none / 0) (#75)
    by christinep on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 06:55:57 PM EST
    Which President in "your lifetime" did not disappoint you?  And why, precisely?

    I don't want to be too snarky; but, I do want to point out that it is extremely difficult for one in whom we hold high hopes not to disappoint at some point or another. You question about the definition of "lifetime"; I ask abou the definition of disppointment (and a framework therefore.) E.g., People want and expect different things...put more emphasis on some and less on others...and are pleased or angry at the various results in proportion to their own expectations.  It's a reasonable request, isn't it?

    Parent

    They (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 07:13:26 PM EST
    all disappoint in one way or another because they are not perfect but Obama is right down there with Carter right now--an inept feckless President.

    Parent
    I may have written elsewhere (none / 0) (#79)
    by christinep on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 07:45:11 PM EST
    about my attitude in 1980--wherein I turned from Carter and supported Kennedy. That was not a minor thing in my family--because my husband had been on the early paid campaign staff (resulting from one of those fortuitous meetings in early 1975), my sister was an active member of the "peanut brigade" and worked for the state campaign chair, and we had proudly attended the Carter inaugural.  Well...we were young, we had very high expectations, and it sure "went south" in more ways than one. While there wasn't much I could do in terms of a campaign at the time because the Hatch Act was still in effect and precluded direct campaigning, my emotions about Carter were much like a number of those so disappointed in Obama.  Not much I can say...it is an emotional thing. Very real for the person(s) feeling it.  One word, tho: Reagan. Then, the word "disappointment" paled on a personal and public sense to what we dealt with every day for 8 years. Reagan--and the 20ish years of deep conservatism that he ushered in--was very real. We all have our own ideas of who would be that "one word" name today. Not a scary monster; just a real, very real person.
    I think comparing people and Presidents matter.


    Parent
    Your question comes out of nowhere (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by sj on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 09:20:23 AM EST
    All Presidents in my lifetime have disappointed me.   Actually, all Presidents that I know anything about have disappointed me at some level or another.  

    Except George Washington.  

    So throwing that question at me is a total red herring.  It is ABG who I fear is doomed for disappointment.

    Parent

    But since you took this side path (none / 0) (#103)
    by sj on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 09:34:11 AM EST
    I should clarify, that the projected disappointment is specific to the issue under discussion.

    Parent
    Must be a pretty short (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 11:30:27 PM EST
    lifetime.

    Parent
    GOP (none / 0) (#26)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 12:56:12 PM EST
    standing on principles

    Republican Rep. Paul Ryan, an influential member of President Barack Obama's deficit-reduction panel, says he won't vote for the panel's recommendations-but praised the proposed package of cuts and tax reforms as a good start.

    more principles (none / 0) (#27)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 12:57:18 PM EST
    Tea Party Caucus Takes $1 Billion In Earmarks

    Parent
    Wow, goodbye credibility (none / 0) (#55)
    by republicratitarian on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 02:49:04 PM EST


    Parent
    on the other hand (none / 0) (#62)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 03:20:13 PM EST
    hard to lose something you never had

    Parent
    Silly Lamar... (none / 0) (#34)
    by kdog on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 01:15:46 PM EST
    the grifters he adores don't live on Wall St., thats just where the crooked casino is...they live Uptown, Westchester, Long Island, New Jersey, Connecticut...as isolated as they can get from their unwashed marks while still having a manageable commute to the tables.

    The GOP Good Old Boy contingent falling over themselves to fellate some high fallutin' Yankee elitist grifters is cracking me up...I thought this crew despised NYC?  Now they care?  Well at least they still despise unemployed Yankees...I was starting to worry:)

    Go masters of roberts rules of order! (none / 0) (#97)
    by kgoudy on Thu Dec 02, 2010 at 11:46:28 PM EST
    Go Nancy! go on flaying the pompous, and exposing truth! GO GO GO

    GOP Fights For Tax Cut For Wall Street | 108 comments (108 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment