If Pres Obama unequivocally refused to budge on the tax break deal, what would have happened?

[RiverStone]

In this vast political game of "chicken" - President Obama flinched first. A huge disappointment as many of us have already expressed.

QUESTION: Script out an alternative scenerio in which President Obama absolutely refused to compromise or capitulate to the Republicans on the tax break for millionaires. What would have happened?

Just how far would the pukes have held firm before caving on what's best for We The People?

I would have loved to have seen it. In fact, holding firm could have been an historic cross road moment for our president.

All speculative now, but what if......

[TwilightGardener]

1. Tax cuts expire, House Reps originate another package that

makes the wealthy cuts permanent, GOPers hold out on unemployment and/or make it come out of other cuts at their own sweet leisure, and Obama just let a huge tax increase happen on his watch because he is a librul socialist who is a tax and spender and won't work with Republicans even though the American people sent a message in the midterms.

[dkf]

19. Bingo.

[DFab420]

40. +1 nt

[JoePhilly]

57. Agree ... and you should add this ... the media will ...

point out endlessly that Obama promised to NOT raise taxes on those making $250,000 ... and by letting them expire, he has broken a promise he made to 95% of all Americans.

That will be the media position.

(typo)

[DrToast]

61. Not just the media

Imagine the commercials Republicans will run.

There's hours of footage of Obama promising not to raise taxes for most people.

[frugal99]

59. Sadly, this is true....But i think the House now is doing right by demanding some changes..

they now understand that Obama will blink if a group demands something as has been seen by republicans demands for the last 2 years...so the house of dems are doing the right thing by holding out for some changes....however i think it is best that they pass whatever they have of it before dec 31st....but they need to remove the social security killer (paytax holiday) and ideally remove the estate tax then i think it will be more bearable to swallow this nail.

[Tansy_Gold]

2. We'll never know, because he didn't do it. n/t

[treestar]

3. Why is this game of chicken so important?

Why is it the main thing, the only thing that matters?

Taxes would have gone up. The M$M would have blamed Obama for that and mischaracterized him as having raised middle class taxes. Republicans would have blatantly said that and Republicans always get more airtime.

And you know what? The left would not be praising the POTUS for standing by their principles. They'd be screaming about the poor unemployed!!!!!!! The perpetually discontented have prove they are never happy. They will never be happy. Playing with the poor and unemployed's fate would be described as just that.

[RiverStone]

4. You may be right or wrong, but I would say one thing for sure...

President Obama would have won votes!

People would remember a man standing on the principals that elected him. Even if everything went down the way you suggested treestar, if his actions banked hundreds of thousands more votes for him in 2012 - it may have been worth it.

If we get our asses kicked again in the next election, all my speculation (and yours) won't mean shit.

[TwilightGardener]

7. Some people here might remember that he stood on principle. Lots of other

people (in fact, probably the vast majority) either won't remember this at all because they're not into politics and aren't paying attention now, or they'll notice they're getting paid a little less than they used to, or that they can't get unemployment. Not sure Obama is going to be their hero either way.

[RiverStone]

8. Then you are suggesting a lose/lose scenerio...

Pretty grim for our chances in 2012.

The Dem base either needs a huge bolt of energy or a HERO they can rally around. I desperately don't want to give up any more ground in 2012. If Obama finds a message that resonates, I'll work like hell to elect him again.

If not - we need to find another hero. I wonder if he is thinking about 2 years from now?

[TwilightGardener]

15. It didn't have to be a lose-lose, but both the WH and Congress let

it get to this point, because they did not move on this pre-midterms. But that's where we are, and I don't think we're going to get a better deal if the cuts expire, unemployment doesn't pass, and the House changes hands in January. There's no way to spin this as desirable or a victory, just have to salvage what we can from the situation, and hopefully lessons have been learned in the party and WH about timing and strategy.

[RiverStone]

17. I agree with you on the hopefully lessons learned part

And yes - no way to spin this in a positive way.

I just hope someone with a better ear to the ground is paying attention. Not long from now we will be hearing about exploratory committees being set up for the 2012 presidential election.

If our party leaders don't identify what caused the HUGE disconnect with our base (and indie voters) at mid-terms, we are fucked in 2012. I'm just not seeing that sense of urgency that I believe should be present.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

42. Obama tried to get it done before the midterms, congress balked since it could hurt em n/t

[qazplm]

9. he would have won liberal votes

he would have lost everyone else.

I dont understand the mindset that believes people would think, he raised my taxes but gosh he stands his ground, I'm voting for him.

When people see hundreds of dollars more a year because the reduced taxes he's thrown in, or know they have one more year of unemployment compensation, that's going to win more votes then he stood his ground.

[RiverStone]

14. If you are right qazplm...

Then when will this message catch on?

I would really like to see some evidence that your theory actually wins us back some of the 29 million voters that sat out the mid terms. We already lost a huge percentage of Independents voters, and less (but a statistically significant) amount of unenthusiastic Dem voters.

I'm not a political science major, but do you think his actions help us in 2012?

[qazplm]

23. I think the only things that help him

or us are:

1. the economy getting better
2. the economy getting better
3. the economy getting better

All the rest are games. If the economy is still perceived as dismal it won't matter what he did, we are in trouble. If the economy is perceived as getting better, then we will all ride his coattails.

Certainly, the wild card is who the Republicans throw up there. The crazier they go, the better for us.

At any rate, it's all about results, not about strategy or tactics. That's all most people care about. They don't even really care about whatever policy was employed to get us there. They might care if they took the time to learn and study the issues, but let's be honest, most don't.

[dkf]

22. Whose votes would he have won?

The unemployed? The families who are paying $3000 more in taxes?

[OhioBlue]

5. We would also lose our chance to repeal DADT

the media would characterize Obama and the Dems as "out of touch" and not caring about the economy or jobs. His campaign promise of not raising taxes on anyone making less than $200k would be in commercials over and over, every Repub would make that talking point daily, he would be branded with it worse than GHWB with "read my lips no new taxes". We would get killed on this.

[RiverStone]

6. But would he have excited (and united) the Dem electorate?

And brought back some of the 29,000,000 people that sat out the mid-terms?

Our base needs a radical infusion of energy.

We do want to win in 2012....

[qazplm]

10. you dont think

he won in 2008 just because of Democrats do you?

[OhioBlue]

13. no. the Dem electorate would not be united

In all honesty - is the Dem base ever united with a Democratic President? I mean we have so many factions... so many priorities.... are we ever united except when we have a R pres?

Most of the people that sat out the midterms always sit out midterms. I used to be one of them. And winning means winning the Independents too - and Pres O raising taxes on people making less than 200k kills it with them.

Our base does need a radical infusion of energy. But this isn't the point in time to do it. people are focused on their families and the holidays. we have only days until Congress recesses and then we are looking at a Republican house with Speaker Boehner. And... less Dem seats in the Senate.

We have to take what we can right now - the Dem leadership needs to regroup, find a better message and then start fighting in 2011. If they're smart, they'll find a way to find that spark for the radical infusion of energy.

[Uzybone]

65. wow. OUT OF TOUCH

America is not DU

[JamesA1102]

20. The left would be going after the President for breaking his promise

to never raise taxes on the middle class.

[blazerunner]

11. John Boener would have signed tax cuts for middle class only

That's what would have happened.



Boehner says he'd support a middle-class tax cut

By DOUGLASS K. DANIEL, Associated Press Writer Douglass K. Daniel, Associated Press Writer – Sun Sep 12, 7:05 pm ET

WASHINGTON – House Minority Leader John Boehner says he would vote for President Obama's plan to extend tax cuts only for middle-class earners, not the wealthy, if that were the only option available to House Republicans.

-snip

Boehner's comments signaled a possible break in the logjam that has prevented passage of a tax bill, although Republicans would still force Democrats to vote on their bigger tax-cut package in the final weeks before the November congressional elections.

"I want to do something for all Americans who pay taxes," Boehner said in an interview taped Saturday for "Face the Nation" on CBS. "If the only option I have is to vote for some of those tax reductions, I'll vote for it. ... If that's what we can get done, but I think that's bad policy. I don't think that's going to help our economy."

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs issued a statement Sunday saying, "We welcome John Boehner's change in position and support for the middle class tax cuts, but time will tell if his actions will be anything but continued support for the failed policies that got us into this mess."

Boehner responded to that press release with one of his own. "Instead of resorting to tired old class warfare rhetoric, pitting one working American against another, the president and the Democratic leadership should start working with us this week to ensure a fair and open debate to pass legislation to cut spending and freeze tax rates without any further delay," he said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100912/ap_on_bi_ge/us_tax_cuts

[quakerboy]

12. 2 scenarios

1) Repubs continue to hold firm. Obama goes forward and loudly lets every citizen know that the republicans have raised their taxes, voting down the middle class tax cuts. He takes it on with the same energy and ability that he showed in knocking down all the lies during the campaign. We find out exactly how smart the US citizens are or are not at the next election. Lots of people suffer without UI in the mean time.

2) Repubs blink. They pass tax cuts, because they do not want to be tied to raising taxes. Estate tax defaults to its previous settings. our deficit does not grow. We continue the debate on SSI with no diminishment of the programs income. We continue the debate on the unemployment extension, taking that fight home to their constituents as well. Perhaps we even work out something to help the 99rs.

[RiverStone]

16. Thoughtful answer --- and to have a better election in 2012?

What scenario is that?

[quakerboy]

18. Personally

I believe either one would probably have been better than what has actually happened. But to be honest, it looks to me like he was maneuvered into a lose lose situation on this one.

If he had put more effort into making the congress deal with the middle class tax cut and the UI extension back before the elections, I think they could have come out dignity intact, and a few steps ahead in the most recent election as well as in 2012. Having reached the position we were in before he made this deal, its hard to chose which direction is the bigger negative choice. Now, I think he is in a really bad position.

[JamesA1102]

26. Really? You're OK with unemployed people suffering!

And I thought republicans were heartless.

[quakerboy]

29. I personaly dont think thats how it would have gone down, with different leadership

Their leadership already stated they would vote for the middle class tax cut alone, if that was the only thing on the table. I believe that they would have given in on UI as well. Given an implacable opposition, they would have taken the loss, and tried to spin it in the media as increasing the deficit.

[JamesA1102]

33. No only Boehner said that

and that was before the election when he had much less leverage. O'Connell never said it. And you beleive that they would have given in on UI, well, I got a nice bridge you might be interested in buying.

[quakerboy]

36. When all we have is excuses

perhaps we should stop talking and start coming up with something better. Something that does not lay the foundation to destroy SS.

[JamesA1102]

44. Not excuses but reality

And the talking point about the destruction of SS has been debunked.

[quakerboy]

46. They have also debunked

the need for civil rights law, the idea that universal health care is good for people, the idea that the government does a good job of administering SS, etc.

They just havnt been debunked by anyone I trust.

[JamesA1102]

47. You don't trust Ezra Klein???

He debunked the SS claim on Countdown the other night.

[quakerboy]

51. I just went and read the transcript

He did not "debunk" anything. He simply said he wasn't overly worried about that aspect of the proposal, without any real explanation of why.

Do you have anyone who actually addresses the issue, breaks it down, and can show why it is not the poison pill, the solid foundation for the right wing attempt to destroy SS?

[JamesA1102]

55. No he gave an explaination

It is true the payroll tax is usually used to fund Social Security. But they‘re saying they‘ll move funds later on from the general fund, which is normal taxes, income taxes, other types of revenue, over to fill what gets taken out of the payroll tax.

Frankly, at the end of the day, what matters for Social Security solvency is the government solvency. What matters for the government solvency is that the amount of money coming in matches the amount of money going out. And it doesn‘t matter if that‘s in the payroll tax or not in the payroll tax. So, that doesn‘t worry me very much, no.

You just don't like what he had to say because it doesn't fit into your narrative.

[JamesA1102]

24. 1) The MSM adopt GOP talking points and blame the President

and the Dems for raising taxes and say that they are out of touch and didn't get the message of the last election.

2) The GOP don't blink and run out the clock until they take over the House and refuse to consider any unemployment extention or tax credits that go to the poor until tax cuts for the rich are passed.

[quakerboy]

31. They will do that anyway

The dems will not be getting credit for reducing taxes any more than they did in nov 2010. And instead of blaming tax cuts, they will blame deficit increases on the president. Plus they will have it back for a vote again in 2012, and they, with the aide of the MSM will be blaming Obama with a tax increase then. Is it better to get blamed for something right after an election or right before an election?

In addition, I predict that if this passes intact, it will not be too long before the GOP ratchets up the "SS is broke" talking point, only now they will point to Obama's tax cut there and blame him for destroying it. And I would far rather be falsely blamed for a tax increase than blamed for shorting SS.



as to 2) they already said they would accept the middle class tax cut without a tax cut for the rich, if they had no other option. But even if they had not stated it, I still strongly believe that they would have accepted both our version of tax cuts and a UI extension if we had taken them to the mat on it.

[JamesA1102]

32. 2) Not they, only Boehner

And he doesn't control the Senate.

As far as the rest, you're speaking of this in political terms only. There are real human beings who would suffer if the unemployment was cut off or if they got a tax increase in January.

[quakerboy]

38. They still will

The 99'rs have not been helped. And the extension is only 13 months. Which, if your supposition that the Pub's will not buckle to the populace is correct, means that at that time, they will be screwed anyway. Only it will be to drive the economy down in an election year, instead of after an election.

In the mean time, this proposal lays the foundation to continue blowing up the debt, which will continue to hurt our credit and endanger our national security as well as our economy. It hands more money to the rich who will invest it in buying more politicians who will further erode our social safety nets, harming far more people over the long term. And what I have seen so far makes me believe it is laying the foundation to take down SS. And that will harm the most of all.

None of this had to be. None of it. We are trading grandmas diamond ring for a loaf of bread to feed our starving kids. Except there is an open pawnshop and a walmart right across the parking lot from the shady guy in a trench coat that will only trade us straight up one ring for one loaf. Pawning and walmart may suck, but they are better than one loaf of bread and back to the kids starving tomorrow.

[JamesA1102]

45. You should run for Congress

You talk a lot and in the end say nothing.

[quakerboy]

49. Here's why that won't work

I suppose that was supposed to be insulting and get me all distracted from the lack of any substantive argument against my points.

Here's why that wont work. I am stung by something else. Namely, a change in worldview. Up until this week, I had trusted that SS will be there when I get to retirement age. It might have a few minor tweaks, but probably not even that. the untouchable 3rd rail. I actively discounted all the alarmists who said the catfood comission was just there to provide cover to cut it. I was never afraid that bush would actually manage to privatize it.

I don't trust that anymore. And that stings in a way that petty insults never will.

[JamesA1102]

56. No it is supposed to acknowledge that

that you're talking in circles. You're not even supporting your "2 scenarios" any more. You're just throwing out rhetoric that has nothing to do with the original point because some people had the temerity to disagree with you.

[quakerboy]

63. Yup. thats me in a nutshell

I just can't take the temerity of people who happen to disagree with me...

Good luck.

[JamesA1102]

67. At least you admit the truth nt

[dkf]

28. How does he pin the the middle class tax cuts on the Republicans when

Feingold, Manchin, Lieberman, Nelson and Webb voted against it?

[quakerboy]

30. Again, if it was understood beforehand that he

would veto any bill that included tax giveaways to the wealthy, would the standalone middle class tax cut bill have failed?

I do not believe that it would have.

[dkf]

39. Yes middle class tax cuts failed in the senate. It only got 53 votes.

[quakerboy]

50. For arguments sake

Say you are standing on the street and a guy with a baseball bat walks up and demands your wallet. Do you give him your wallet?


Say he is 6/4, brawny, swastika tatoos on both temples, wearing leather, with an angry and determined look on his face. Will you give him your wallet?


Now say he is instead 5'1, appears to be having trouble standing upright, looks slightly confused and not to sure of himself. And he happens to drop the bat, and doesn't even bother to pick it up as he stares off in the distance, nonconfrontationally. You still going to give him your wallet?


Of course it failed in the senate. There was no reason for the pubs to give over, because it was clearly understood that if they didnt pass it, they would, in a week or two, get exactly what they wanted instead.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

43. 3)

The Republicans wait to the next Congress and pass a tax cuts bill without unemployment insurance benefits.

[quakerboy]

53. See Above

Already addressed this. It wouldn't have happened. In a situation with no alternatives, they would have passed what was available. Tan Man did not want to be dealing with UI as the first thing on his plate when he stepped into leadership.

[Pryderi]

21. He would've lost. Even Dem Senators were against the bill. Losing would've made him look weaker

than compromising

[nevergiveup]

25. Pure and simple

It would have been political suicide.

[Ozymanithrax]

27. Nothing would pass in the Senate and they would go home...

until the beginning of the 112th Congress.

Your taxes would go up.

No Unemployment exptension.

After January 03, the Republicans will pass a tax cut bill faster than they can say Rumpelstiltskin, and then whine that the Democrats are holding Americans jobs and money hostage.

Come April, they will threaten to not raise the debt ceiling, which will cause the dollar to collapse in value causing spiraling inflation.

In September, they will refuse to pass a budget that funds anything and will shut down the government, or what is left of it.

[Life Long Dem]

34. Your playing with the unemployed.

I don't think it's the time for that. The Republicans can care less about the unemployed. And Republicans voted against the COLA for Social Security today. They can care less about the elderly as well.

[niceypoo]

35. Supply side economics caused that unemployment

Furthering supply side will cause even more unemployment.

[Hippo_Tron]

37. The Republicans would have refused to spend any of that money on stimulus of any kind

And that means you would be taking hundreds of billions of dollars out of the economy during a recession. We'd probably balance the budget but there would be a lot more unemployed and suffering people than there even are now.

Really that's part of the equation with this compromise too. If the tax cuts for the rich hadn't been extended the new GOP House would have refused to reinvest any of that money back into the economy. It would be good for the debt but we can always tax the rich to pay down the debt later. Right now getting out of this recession is the most important thing.

[Still a Democrat]

58. That's a great point

The economy is fragile and needs another significant infusuon - this is the only form the GOP would agree to, and most of the benefits go to middle and lower incomes.

[lamp_shade]

41. He wasn't willing to take that risk with American lives. That's why I voted for him.

[w4rma]

48. Obama will have to pick some fights if he wants to win re-election. (nt)

[quakerboy]

52. He has picked his fight

And he has created the loyal opposition. Since the right weren't willing to take on that roll, he has made it the left.

[frugal99]

60. Yes, this is the problem with Obama -- he will do anything to avoid a Fight...

If he just fought and then in the end came to negotiations and hammered out a quality deal then i would respect that.
To me he always capitulates to any demands by republicans. this is sad.
He will need to learn the importance of fighting or he will not have my vote in '12.

[Milo_Bloom]

54. Tax cuts expire and the deficit is significantly reduced.

[robinlynne]

62. +1

[jeanpalmer]

64. He should haved applied the tax cuts for the rich

to double the tax cuts for the poor and middle class. i.e. all tax cuts go to the middle class at 2x. That way, he could have avoided giving the payroll tax holiday and undermining SS. He would have had to make a public case for his effort, instead of just making backroom deals with the Repugs.

He should have started this effort months ago instead of waiting til the 11th hour when he lost bargaining power and was guaranteed to get rolled.

I'm convinced that if he had made the argument to the country of extended unemployment benefits for all and 2x tax cuts for the middle class, he could have prevailed easily. Instead, he spent two months dishing out hopey changy rhetoric on the campaign trail, and surrendered the tax and UI issues.

[quaker bill]

66. Republicans would have let taxes rise

and then blame it on President Obama. It might not seem to make sense, but that would only make it the same as every other charge they have leveled at him.

[BlueCheese]

68. Well, in 1995...

we could have thought, "Gee, Clinton had better agree to the GOP budget, because otherwise the government will shut down, and people will get angry and blame him for vetoing Congress's proposal." Had that happened, it would have set the stage for one capitulation after another until Clinton left office, probably after the 1996 election.

Instead, Clinton held firm and vetoed the GOP's budget bills, until the GOP finally caved. The public generally blamed the GOP for the mess, Clinton emerged much stronger, and won re-election.

[ncteechur]

69. Wouldn't have happened this way.

Because they don't give a rip about the unemployed--they are BLAMING the unemployed for being unemployed. And they would have blamed Obama for raising taxes on the middle class and breaking his PRIMARY campaign promise and they would have hung that around his neck like an albatross. WE did the same thing to GHW Bush in 1992 when he had to raise taxes.

And more families would struggle. You can't feed your family with principle.