America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 13 years ago by Kawak. 16 replies replies.
House Dems stew over Obama's handling of tax deal
fishinguitarman Offline
#1 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2006
Posts: 69,148
He's even pissed off his own party.....




– Tue Dec 14, 3:32 am ET
WASHINGTON – The struggle over tax cuts is seriously straining President Barack Obama's relationship with House Democrats, who have backed him on key issues even when it cost them politically.

Expressing hurt and bewilderment, Democratic lawmakers say Obama ignored them at crucial negotiating moments, misled them about his intentions and made needless concessions to Republicans.

The president has responded that he acted honorably and drove the best bargain he could. But even his explanations offended some longtime allies. Aides to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi passed around news accounts of a Dec. 7 news conference in which Obama claimed that some liberals would feel "sanctimonious about how pure our intentions are and how tough we are" by refusing to compromise, even if an impasse hurt the working class.

"Hardly anybody in the Democratic caucus here feels that the president tried hard enough to deliver on his campaign promises," said Rep. Alan Grayson of Florida, one of dozens of House Democrats defeated in last month's elections. Obama had House Democratic leaders "go through what turned out to be Potemkin meetings with his staff, when the real negotiations were being done elsewhere," he said.

Rep. Elijah Cummings, a Maryland Democrat who has strongly supported Obama and who won re-election last month, told MSNBC the chief House representative "wasn't even in the room, and we did feel left out" during the key tax-cut negotiations.

Hurt feelings can mend over time, of course, and it's not clear how much political damage Obama will suffer because of disenchantment among House members. His allies note that House Democrats will be in the minority in the new Congress, and it's essential for the president to negotiate with the newly ascendant Republicans to get things done.

Still, the estrangement is notable because House Democrats have been Obama's most dependable allies in his first two years in office. They passed a politically risky energy bill to cap greenhouse gasses, only to see the Senate ignore it. When the Senate refused to make further changes to this year's hard-fought health care overhaul bill, House Democrats swallowed their anger and pride, accepting big concessions to keep it alive.

Key liberal groups have attacked the tax plan, which would extend Bush-era tax cuts for two years for all Americans, poor and rich alike. It also would extend unemployment benefits and trim Social Security taxes for a year, steps most Democrats support. But the deal would tax large, multimillion-dollar inheritances at a rate lower than many had expected, and that infuriates many liberals.

Some of Obama's longtime allies have lashed out. Illinois Rep. Jesse L. Jackson Jr. — who publicly chastised his famous father for criticizing Obama in the 2008 presidential campaign — said of the tax deal, "If we recklessly cut taxes for the wealthiest 2 percent, then Obamanomics will look an awful lot like Reaganomics."

The Congressional Black Caucus said its members "are overwhelmingly opposed to the president's compromise with Republicans."

Obama says GOP lawmakers held middle-class Americans hostage by vowing to tie up Congress — and thereby allowing everyone's income tax rates to rise on Jan. 1 — unless he met their demands to extend tax cuts for the wealthy for another two years.

"I know there are some who would have preferred a protracted political fight, even if it had meant higher taxes for all Americans," the president said last week. "I'm not here to play games with the American people or the health of our economy," he added. "My job is to do whatever I can to get this economy moving."

House Democrats are especially upset about a Dec. 6 White House meeting involving their party's leaders, Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, the administration's chief tax negotiator. Participants said Pelosi and one of her lieutenants, Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, knew the White House was nearing an agreement with Republicans, and they specifically objected to the proposed inheritance tax provisions.

Van Hollen says Obama and Biden indicated that no final deal had been cut. But shortly after the meeting ended, Obama announced the compromise reached with Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

White House officials say some details were negotiated almost to the last minute. But accounts of the meeting angered many House Democrats, who voted two days later to reject the tax cut plan unless it is changed.

"We left that meeting with the White House indicating that they had not yet cut final details," Van Hollen said in an interview. Referring to the estate tax provisions, he said, "Republicans are gloating because they got a windfall of $25 billion for the wealthiest estates." That would be added to the deficit, he noted.

White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer told the Associated Press, "We have been talking to the Democratic leadership since prior to the announcement and will continue to work closely with them to ensure that this important package is passed into law so the middle class doesn't face a tax increase."

Van Hollen says more negotiations will occur when the tax measure reaches the House, assuming the Senate approves Obama's version this week. House Democrats "are determined to strip the most egregious provisions from the bill, especially the estate tax giveaway," he vowed.

jackconrad Offline
#2 Posted:
Joined: 06-09-2003
Posts: 67,461
I blame it on Bad Hemp..
ZRX1200 Offline
#3 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,476
Yeah, the "Estate tax giveaway"......

Double taxing money they have no business touching.
rfenst Offline
#4 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,100
fishinguitarman wrote:
Expressing hurt and bewilderment, Democratic lawmakers say Obama ignored them at crucial negotiating moments, misled them about his intentions and made needless concessions to Republicans.



So then why didn't the Democratic lawmakers negotiate a compormise on their own? Because thay can't?

Personally, I have negotiated on behaf of thousands of people. i have rarely seen a true negotiation and settlement where both sides haven't left $$ on the table. When both sides have second thoughts and doubts, it was probably a good settlement for all parties.

It iis tie to move far away from both left and right polirzed arguments, hatred and the consequential infringement of freedom of expression. I do not see it good that one party control the legislature and the Presidency. Nothing good will get done.
delarob Offline
#5 Posted:
Joined: 06-28-2001
Posts: 5,318
mmmm I like stew.
Kawak Offline
#6 Posted:
Joined: 11-26-2007
Posts: 4,025
Most politicians are lawyers or act like them and just like all lawyers compromise still equals a good pay check...

Billable hours OUTRAGE!!!
jpotts Offline
#7 Posted:
Joined: 06-14-2006
Posts: 28,811
I don't believe any of this "Democrats are mad at Idi Amin Jr." stuff for a minute. The economy sucks, none of the stuff they've tried has worked. So, they're playing defense and letting tax cuts go through (with is a misnomer - nothing is actually being cut) to prevent a possible economic backslide, and remove any chances for the incoming Republicans to take credit for having trickle-down principles work their magic (yet again).

The timeline is too short. The odds are that people are not going to start investing liquid capitol over a two-year timeframe, seeing that it usually takes 5 years to see that investment start to pay off. Plus, all it does is keep the current tax rate, which hasn't stimulated much of anything. Then, on top of that, it institutes more deficit spending via extension of unemployment benefits, which is part of the problem with the economy in the first place.

But, if things suddenly change in the next year or two, the Democrats can say that their "reform" of health care, and their idiotic "trickle-up" nonsense worked, given that all they did was keep tax rates the same.

The Republican leaders were a bunch of idiots to make a compromise prior to taking over the House next year. They could have hammered Idi Amin Jr. and the Senate with bill after bill pushing tax cuts and spending cuts, and come out smelling like a rose at the end. I guess maybe that's why they're just politicians, and not really productive people...

jpotts Offline
#8 Posted:
Joined: 06-14-2006
Posts: 28,811
I'd also like to add that if the "tax cuts" go through, and the economy is still stagnant after a year or two, then the Democrats can then start saying that the now have proof that "tax cuts don't stimulate the economy." So, for the Dems, it is a conucopia of future talking points.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#9 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,301
jpotts wrote:
I'd also like to add that if the "tax cuts" go through, and the economy is still stagnant after a year or two, then the Democrats can then start saying that the now have proof that "tax cuts don't stimulate the economy." So, for the Dems, it is a conucopia of future talking points.



No...their ideas didn't work.

THEY had to capitulate.

What's left of the Democratic party that holds the Kenyan King's "flag" will be thrown out of office and the party will be so far marginalized that it will make the Green party seem legitimate!

He had to give in. He knows the house of cards is coming down all around him and that he's a one-termer.
DrafterX Offline
#10 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,508
Confused he has a tumor..??
fishinguitarman Offline
#11 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2006
Posts: 69,148
DrafterX wrote:
Confused he has a tumor..??






He has no humor
jpotts Offline
#12 Posted:
Joined: 06-14-2006
Posts: 28,811
DrMaddVibe wrote:
No...their ideas didn't work.

THEY had to capitulate.

What's left of the Democratic party that holds the Kenyan King's "flag" will be thrown out of office and the party will be so far marginalized that it will make the Green party seem legitimate!

He had to give in. He knows the house of cards is coming down all around him and that he's a one-termer.


Whether their ideas work or not is irrelevant. Their sole belief is that they can sell the average Joe a turd sandwich, if their presentation and "optics" are are good. Their ideas are an utter disaster, but these idiots keep getting reelected year after year.

Hell, they got complete power in 2008 despite the lessons of 1992, and 1976 when they sank the economies back then. Hell, half of their ranks admit being socialists, and STILL some of them get reelected.

They don't "have" to capitulate on anything. Most of them are going home in a few weeks, and half of the the time Idi Amin Jr. acts like he's in the whole President gig to get free rides on Air Force One. They have a very powerful platform: vote for us, and you can live your life on someone else's dime. And idiots like RICKAMAVEN, rfenst, and DrywallDog will reelect these people over and over again because they honestly think that the Democrats are "looking out for them."

The Mafia essentially uses the same tactics. Get someone off someone else's hook and on to your own, and then it's fish for dinner.

So, sorry if I don't follow you down that road of Democrat marginalization. They've lit themselves on fire before, and the still get enough desperate and stupid suckers to vote for them, and put them into power. And this whole "mad about the Bush tax cuts" thing is yet another tactic to undercut the practice of tax cuts as a means to stimulate the economy. Because if most people get used to the idea that they are better at managing their needs and property than the federal government, the petty little tyrants of the DNC will lose their power and influence.

After all, the Democrat party isn't about doing good for people. They're all about putting the American populace into the shackles of collectivism.
Lumpa Offline
#13 Posted:
Joined: 03-04-2009
Posts: 377
jpotts wrote:
I'd also like to add that if the "tax cuts" go through, and the economy is still stagnant after a year or two, then the Democrats can then start saying that the now have proof that "tax cuts don't stimulate the economy." So, for the Dems, it is a conucopia of future talking points.


This is a very salient point.
The dems still control a great number of choke points of the economy.

Do I think they are weasel enough to intentionally tank things enough to effectively scuttle the economy
for the political gain of being able to say "we told ya so" in 2012? Some, certainly, but most, no.

But do I trust any of them to get it right enough to significantly improve the economy within 18 months?
Hell no.

The debate of "do tax/spending cuts/increases increase revenues and improve economy" will continue past 2012. In fact, my money is on that debate continuing forever.

A very few of the dems are pulling brer rabbit routine w/ their "disgust" at Obama's "capitulation", hoping the Repubs don't get tipped off to the true nature of their power of the moment.

The rest really are too stupid to see that the spending deal (unemploymnet extension) Obama worked out (with close to zero bargaining power) and the timing of the next tax rate expiration, was pretty masterful.

Unfortunately, the extension of benifits will be enough of a damper on the economy to ensure the economy is only showing signs of recovery in two years.

And whether their ideas work or not is not really the point in a lot of this.
Our futures are in the hands of the marginally ignorant few.
There will always be way out radicals on either side, a base of almost moderate on either side, those in the middle, and those who usually just don't care or are abjectly stupid.
The last of these groups is the fastest growing.
Win the last two of those groups, and you're in.
HockeyDad Offline
#14 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,065
We probably should let the Bush tax cuts expire and then raise taxes on top of that. That way there would be no way for the Democrats to say that tax cuts don't work if the economy stays stagnant for another year or two.

We need to protect the idiology and deny them a potential tactical victory.
Lumpa Offline
#15 Posted:
Joined: 03-04-2009
Posts: 377
^^
It is, afterall, a simple black and white issue.
Kawak Offline
#16 Posted:
Joined: 11-26-2007
Posts: 4,025
Lumpa wrote:
^^
It is, afterall, a simple black and white issue.


Racists!!!
Users browsing this topic
Guest