John Harwood just set the record straight to Cenk Uygur.

Cenk was accusing Obama of not listening to Progressives. John "pointed out" that Obama wanted a vote even BEFORE the election which would've extended the tax cuts for the middle class and let those for the rich expire, but those in his own party didn't buy it (his constant campaigning on this), wouldn't bring it up for a vote in the Senate, and they're still against it.

He simply DOESN'T HAVE THE VOTES to pass an extension of tax cuts for the middle class only, so he's trying for the best he CAN get-permanent tax cuts for the middle class and a temporary tax cut for the rich.

If he can't get an extension for the poor and middle class, that is unfortunate; but in NO case should the tax cuts for the rich be extended.

For me, this is a deal breaker for my continued support for the Democratic Party.

98% IS something happening to the bottom 98%.

It is not a matter of the top 2% benefiting - but that the bottom 98% get fucked by the top 2% benefiting.

We'd be better off with nobody getting an extension at all than giving the top 2% an extension at the expense of the rest of us.

Neither is a good outcome. Why can't we just admit that?

The ONLY good outcome is to extend tax breaks for at least part of the bottom and let the rest expire. But if people are refusing to vote for that without extending them to everyone, what in the hell can you actually do?

Obama is faced with either letting rich people keep paying less or have poor people start paying more. Thats the choices they are giving him and its ugly.

There is nobody at the bottom tier - myself included - who is going to be more hurt by a few extra tax dollars going out than by extending the BILLIONS in breaks to the rich. If anything, letting them all expire will only add to the general revenue at a faster rate.

And that is a false dichotomy - it is not "either letting rich people keep paying less or have poor people start paying more". It is letting the rich continue to drain revenue from the treasury or EVERYBODY, including the rich, pay more - and the rich will pay a LOT more.

Those at the very bottom will NOT pay more - they will continue to get refunds for the whole amount they pay in. That's 20% of the population. Of the remaining 80% the difference will be negligible for the next 40% - literally a handful of dollars. If you make under 30k, it's likely you'd not see an increase of $10-50. The next income brackets may pay a little more, but they make a little more. You would not see 'middle-class' tax hikes of more than a couple thousand until you get up to incomes of 80K.

If your worries are about the poor, you don't understand the problem. If your worries are about the middle class, you are buying into the propaganda.

My worries are about those who are taking hundreds of billions from the treasury, money which can fund job growth, infrastructure development, securing the safety net. Giving them their billion does DIRECT harm to all those below them.

We are better off letting them ALL expire if we can't extend the middle-class cuts without also extending the 2%ers.

You don't think the median income earner (about $60,000 per year) can afford $25 per month to put a halt to some of the deficit spending?

Does that mean you no longer want to post on this site since the DEMOCRATIC Underground supports DEMS.?

which does little anyway.I am a Democrat who won't give( when I had it to give ,LOL) to the National or state party but I gave what I couldn't afford to my local candidates.

"For me, this is a deal breaker for my continued support for the Democratic Party."

or individual candidates.

Whatever.

Conservadems do not.

"For me, this is a deal breaker for my continued support for the Democratic Party." He wasn't talking about not supporting conservadems. He said he'd no longer support the Democratic Party. That includes Obama, whom he is taking his anger out on for "caving."

Quit trying to get all purgey on us.

into the dirt and make things happen. I know. I'm old enough to remember. Obama is a weenie. And we will all pay.

when the Party of the People can't get it together for a tax cut for the middle class without dragging the rich along for the ride.

The frame should really be that the Dems want tax cuts for everyone, while the Rs want preferential tax cuts for the rich.

Unlike everyone else.

Weird.

Much of the tax cuts Democrats are pushing for goes to those households making $70,000 - $250,000 and those people are not in the middle, unless middle is very broadly defined. Median household income is $50,000, and 69% of households make less than $70,000. Middle class should be defined as $25,000 - $75,000, but even Congressional Democrats always want to define it upwards and always want to help the middle class instead of the poor.

And they sure as hell don't contribute to campaigns.

As long as politicians are motivated more by self-interest than by compassion, this will be so.

although it could be selfISH interest instead of self interest.

will still blame Obama for this... They have to because it will ruin the narrative they have for him.

they're attacking him already.

go out in public and flog the Republicans for whining about the deficit while adding to it. But, no. That won't happen and in 2 years the Republicans will be running on their tax cuts.

those Repubs. are joined by DEMS.

Keep in mind, they are the ones who are doing this the most.

he should have some clout with them. Why didn't/doesn't he?

the country.

"represent districts that were won by Senator John McCain"

Strange but true facts.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/11/08/us/politics/1108-health-care-vote.html

So the corpora-media narrative is that the Blue Dogs lost in the recent midterms because they were forced (by Obama and/or Pelosi) to vote for too-progressive legislation that left them vulnerable in the election to their conservative constituencies.

The funny thing is, this was basically the Mitt Romney health care bill. Their constituencies couldn't support that?

The right-wing spins so hard that the BS corporate lobbyist-written center-right legislation coming out of this POTUS and congress is too far to the left for anyone other than libs to support. Face-palm (have been saying that a lot lately).

Obama is only the presdient- all he can do is COUNT the votes to see if they are there.

They were not/are not/will not be there.

Obama can do math- he COUNTED the votes, then he counted them again, but the far left just kept on complaining and trying to make him do really, really hard stuff.

How about veto pen -- remember that one?

:shrug:

is where the President says what he wants and the House and Senate just do it. The Founding Fathers thought differently.

For others, it is "just words, Mr. President, we need action."

Or he would have asked for something Progressive...

That fits with my reading of the man...

The Bully Pulpit as FDR used it for truth (and as Ray-Gun and bush used it for lies) is where the tone for the debate can be set. Abrogating that power by letting the republican/blue-dog dominated congress set the agenda for the last 2 years was stupid...or exactly what he was paid to do...or exactly how his funders thought he would act...

Results were the same...Golden Opportunity to change course lost...

You are not responding to the point - that the "bully pulpit" is not a dictatorship.

See Lyndon Johnson for an example of someone who DID use his power...

Johnson had 67 Dems, and the Republicans of that day were reasonable.

It's just so easy to say a President has the "power" to do whatever you want him to do and easier to scapegoat him, as an individual, than the members of Congress who are really at fault.

Lazy thinking all around.

(ever hear the word Dixiecrat? Lyndon STILL got Civil Rights and Medicare legislation through)

I guess Obama doesn't understand Hardball politics either...

I will grant one thing, they MADE the assholes Filibuster in those days but not anymore. The corporate Senate has a "gentleman's agreement" going now...birds of a feather...

And I hate assholes who play "hardball." People like that suck. They are just selfish assholes all about their ego rather than any substance.

And Johnson had 67 Dems and cooperative, reasonable Republicans. That Obama does not have.

that some things might not be possible.

he doesn't call their bluff on filibusters, he does'nt twist arms of his own party, he doesn't take his case to the people through effective massaging...etc..

spoke out forcefully against extending the tax cuts for the rich???

arm twisting can he do? They know he's a paper tiger and are giving him a collective 'fuck you'.

What I don't understand is why so many Obama supporters are not more pissed at the blue dogs for NOT supporting Obama.

Who said we're NOT mad at the blue dogs? We just point out that it's THEIR fault-not Obama's fault-that his agenda doesn't get passed. He didn't cave-he accepted the possible.

He doesn't understand that it is better to fight and lose, than to surrender. At least then you still have your principles.

He didn't accept the possible - he accepted defeat and tries to tell us it was victory.

And no, I do consider myself an Obama supporter because he is the leader of the party - I don't consider myself an Obama fan because the party is a lot bigger than he is. He is not a fucking god - he can, and regularly does, make mistakes. If he wants to correct those mistakes he needs to look at the Democratic party history and platform, not to the republican-drag DLCers.

I don't understand how ANYBODY can be an Obamafan when he always caves to the right.

The conservadems wouldn't go along with him. And you spoke about "Obama supporters," which didn't include you in your post above.

I don't know anyone who considers Obama a god. That's an anti-Obama smear as is "Obamafan."

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Your constant insults ("Worshiping," "fandom") are against the rules here.

I'm all aquiver to know.

If you want to know, do a search of my posts and you'll find out.

Memo from Obama to Congress:

"If you pass a bill that includes tax cuts for the rich I will VETO it! Then you can explain THAT to your constituency in 2012."

"So don't try to blame me (assholes). I've already laid down the ground rules."

I say anybody who supports Obama taking positions that they opposed under Bush must be a fan. And it is not a smear of Obama to say that some of his supporters are irrational.

It's not a smear of Obama-it's a smear of me and his other supporters. And now you're calling me "irrational"? That's another smear on me.

If you choose to put yourself in the category of people who support policies under Obama that they opposed under Bush - well, that's YOUR lookout, and there's nothing more to say.

it does nothing to help the people. That is crazy. Better to compromise and get something done that helps people.

need their hands held. They need it to be explained carefully to them that tax cuts increase the deficit, failed to create jobs, etc.. they don't get it explained to them by the left, so they except what they hear from the right, which is that small businesses handle their taxes in such a way that the expiration of the tax cuts will hurt them disproportionally, or in other words, it would be a "jobs killer". The dems hardly refute this, and their silence is seen as agreement. When someone accuses you of something, and you just stand there and don't forcefully deny it, to observers that silence speaks volumes. How often have you hear the President or any other elected dem say that his tax CUTS were the biggest in American history? They should all be wearing NASCAR style jackets in all public appearances with patches that say things like "google this: Biggest tax cuts in american history!" and: "google this: private sector job growth-bush's eight years vs. Obama's two years"

1 - calling their bluff on filibusters? Of what does that consist that is within the powers of the Presidency?
2 - What is "twisting their arms?" Surely you don't mean that literally.
3 - What is taking the case to the people through effective massaging? How many massage parlors have to be opened and where?

Your post is empty platitudes.

that senate leaders force a real filibuster. He could twist their arms and push hard as Johnson was known to do, with his party. Did I say massaging? I meant messaging, and while we're being academic, maybe you should look up "platitudes".

Ask people around you in the course of your normal day, these two questions:



1 whose administration brought you the biggest tax cuts in American history?

a. Reagan
b. Bush
c. Obama


2. Whose administration created the most private sector jobs?
a. Bush's in eight years
b. Obama's in two years

the fact that most people will get these wrong shows an inexcusable failure in messaging.

No.1 No he can insist all he wants, the Senate doesn't have to do it. And how do you know he hasn't already. Define again "twisting" their arms----are you on the inside to know how they are trying to do that metaphorically? Messaging? During every single rally in September and December Obama pushed and pushed and pushed to drop the extension of Bush tax cuts for the rich----but to you that's not effective. The only reason it's in the media is because Obama pushed it and the Republicans are trying to counter.

You need to understand civics. This is not a monarchy. Nor do you know each and every detail going on in the government to assume what you do. While other things are known, you choose to marginalize them as non-existent.

Sadly...when it comes to those two questions---we have a media at work that inherently helps along Republicans sooner than Dems.

the Jimmy Stewart filibuster no longer exists.

You really don't know how a president can "Twist Arms"?

Here are a few of the more traditional ways Presidents "twist arms":

Call reluctant members of YOUR Party in for a little chat in the Oval Office (or on AF1).
When you have their attention, you tell them things like,

"If you don't go along with me on this, The White House Doors will be forever closed to YOU and your constituents. We will make sure that the people in your state understand that YOU are the problem."

And/Or

"You know those projects in your State/District that are receiving Federal Funding?
They CAN be discontinued...and we will make sure that the people in your stste understand that YOU are the problem."

And/Or

"You know all that funding you get from DSCC/DCCC to help you get elected?
That CAN be "redirected" to people who help the Democratic Party Agenda."

And/Or

"We WILL come to YOUR district/State and campaign AGAINST you."

There are many other ways the White House can "Twist Arms",
and the Obama White House knows HOW to do this.
He has already used methods like these AGAINST members of the Progressive Caucus when they were reluctant to vote FOR additional WAR money.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/06/17-5

Do you remember when Dennis Kucinich was holding out FOR a Oublic Option?
Obama took him for a "little ride" on AF1.
When AF1 landed, a well-chastened Dennis had the reporters meet him at the steps to AF1,
and immediately announced that he had changed his position on HCR and NOW supported Obama's Plan "whole-heartedly".
Does anyone really have to tell you what happened on Dennis" little private plane ride?

Obama KNOWS how to twist arms, and has done so...but only to get Progressives to go along with the "Centrist" (1/2 Republican) agenda.

It doesn't help the Obama White House for you to paint him as some kind of impotent, isolated Potus who can't even pressure members of his own Party. He is already struggling with a perception of weakness.
You aren't helping him.

Are you a fan of organized crime?

...but if YOU support Mandates to BUY Insurance with NO Public Option,
and NO re-importation of Prescription Drugs, you are a supporter of Organized Crime.


"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."
--- Paul Wellstone

Not fighting for the middle-class tax cut that doesn't carry the rich along with it - IOW, acceding to Republican demands,

Or not speaking out loudly, as leader of his party, that for the sake of the nation, and the party, that the Democratic senators need to get behind his platform - IOW, acceding to the blue dogs' demands?

Is there any scenario where he does not come out looking weak?

..... that's his and Big Ed's MO.

..... than to govern .... or complain about your congressman apparently.

I told myself I wasn't going to watch MSNBC from 3-5pm but I was watching Tamron Hall's show and didn't change the channel since I wasn't paying attention.

I'm with you- and will shout loudly:

"WHAT PART OF WE DID NOT/DO NOT/WILL NEVER HAVE THE VOTES" does the far left not understand?

Those in his own party would not buy it, Obama carefully counted those votes, and what is done is done.

He is merely the president, not a miracle worker. It is not huis job to do this.

What did the left want him to do, swim down to the bottom of the ocean and plug up the hole himself?

He's a wimp, face it... :shrug:

philosophy is.

Just stunning...

That's what the bush tax cuts mean.

I say let them ALL expire. $48 isn't going to help a low income family. I'm middle class and could use $880, but that kind of money doesn't help all that much. And the top-top earners don't need a tax break well over a quarter of a million dollars.

"I'm middle class and could use $880, but that kind of money doesn't help all that much."

:hi:

PS: The REAL poor (like me with my $20,000 gross per year on Social Security and a tiny defined benefit pension) don't pay any income tax at all... However, if we buy much of anything non-food, we get flayed alive with regressive sales and use taxes...

LET THE FUCKERS EXPIRE!!!

where that will be reported.

While most Americans would "prefer" that the tax cuts for the rich expire, they are not willing to trade their own cut to make it happen.

It is sadly, that simple.

You can spend all the time you want talking about debt and deficits ... what they mean to the "future" ... won't matter. $880 today is $880 today.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x524015

Seems like something that DEMS could win over in the public arena, unless they have an excuse. I'll bet they do.

May as well list them all now, so that we can all commit them to memory.

I'll go ahead and get us started:

"We dont have the votes, and it is too hard to fight for the votes. It's too hard to re-frame the debate, cornering Republicans into being against middle class tax cuts. It's too hard to even TRY IT just to see if it could work. Better to compromise now than to than to look weak by fighting for the votes and then losing."

Lots of "Blue DOgs" and "centrists" in our party obviously AGREE with the GOP as far as much of the tax cuts debate goes- that is the real reason why they are going to fight the left on this harder than they will fight the GOP. Wait- dont use that one- that explanation is for internal use only!

so they will allow you to give huge tax cuts to others.

It is a cynical strategy, but it works.

You might want to do that.....

Also of Cenk Uygur.

I'm a BIG BELIEVER in CHECKING OUT...those who "DO NEWS" wherever they are promoting their "stuff."

CHECK THEM OUT...!

Here's a thread from 9/09 that I started about him:

John Harwood (MSNBC): "...Let's face it-in a country of 300 million people, there are a lot of

stupid people, too, because if you believe that it's somehow unhealthy for kids for the President to say 'work hard and stay in school,' you're STUPID! And as a matter of fact, I'm worried for some of those kids of those parents who are upset. I'm not sure they're smart enough to RAISE those kids."

He was talking about the controversy over Obama speaking to students Tuesday. :rofl:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=8626854

With the debt we currently have we simply can't afford one.

Sheer buffoonery is all I expect.