Just the middle class tax cuts failed in the Senate. Only 53 votes for...

[dkf]

Feingold, Nelson, Lieberman, Manchin and Webb voted no.

How many times did you all need us to vote on the same thing to prove we tried to remove tax cuts for the rich?

Here is the article:

"Two Senate procedural votes on Democratic measures to extend George W. Bush-era tax cuts for people who are not super wealthy failed on Saturday, preventing the measures from moving forward.

The votes sought to extend the Bush tax cuts for families making under $250,000 and $1 million, respectively.
Both votes garnered the support of 53 senators, but the Democrats needed 60 votes to end debate."

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-12-04/politics/senate.tax.vote_1_tax-cuts-george-w-bush-era-tax-end-debate?_s=PM:POLITICS

[bluestateguy]

1. And with all 5 of them we still fall short too

I wish people would place the blame where 90% of the blame belongs: Republicans.

The other 10% of the blame should go to the Blue Dogs.

[dkf]

2. Do you think people haven't figured out Republicans want tax cuts for the rich?

How many votes do we need til they get a clue?

Or do we need to inflict pain on people on purpose til they get it and is it right that we deliberately scare them?

[CakeGrrl]

7. Yes, some people here would inflict pain to stand on principle

That's the thinking: What better way to show people how evil the Republicans are than to show them what happens?

The "let the tax cuts expire" group apparently wouldn't have cared that UI benefit extensions would disappear; all the more evidence to help people "get it".

The problem is that you incur the collateral damage that the President didn't want to incur. He didn't want those benefits cut off from people just to play a tax cut pissing contest.

And a lot of people here call him a spineless, weak wimp for doing that.

[dkf]

9. Yeah he would rather take the heat than have the unemployed take it.

This was pretty courageous of him actually. I'm beginning to like it a little bit more.

[asjr]

3. This business of needing 60 votes stinks.

[dkf]

4. All this kicking Obama's butt sucks too.

[Aramchek]

22. your attitude sucks. but you knew that, right?

[Confusious]

5. Harry reid could make them get up and talk

But he's too weak to do it.

[Recursion]

14. No, no, no, no, no.

That's both easily refuted and silly.

[Confusious]

25. He can't?

I was under the impression he could. Am I wrong?

In the modern filibuster, the senators trying to block a vote do not have to hold the floor and continue to speak as long as there is a quorum, although the Senate Majority Leader may require an actual traditional filibuster if he or she so chooses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster

[Recursion]

26. That wiki article has been wrong for a long time

If debate has not ended on a motion, it cannot be brought to the floor for a vote.

He can certainly give them the floor, but they don't have to talk.

[Go2Peace]

6. Who knows if it may not have passed with pressure from the President?

We will never know. Congressional democrats don't have much pressure to fall in line from Party leadership.

[CakeGrrl]

8. Blue Dogs are called that for a reason.

They're coming from largely conservative states - they straddle the fence for re-election, so voting as a major Progressive isn't likely to get them returned Congress.

[saracat]

19. Obama calls himself a Blue Dog.

[WI_DEM]

10. If it were not for the US Senate and it's rules Obama's first two years would have been

much easier and progressives would have been much happier because we would have gotten more bills like the House passed, but the senate rules have screwed every significant piece of legislation. And rather than blame the rules and the Republicans who use them to their advantage in the Senate the "progressives" on DU love to blame Obama.

[Moostache]

12. Sell that shit to the tourists....

The Republicans and Shrub never seemed to have any quandries about ram-rodding utterly crap-tacular legislation through the Senate by any means necessary. This whole idea of the "big bad Senate rules made me not get it passed" is HORSESHIT plain and simple. Would it require arm twisting and procedural shenanigans? Yes. Would it leave you open to attacks and attack ads? Of course, but that is indistinguishable from reality either way!

If the two parties were tenants, the Republicans would come in, paint the walls, rip up the carpet and do EVERYTHING short of getting evicted while the Democrats would be scared to death of losing the security deposit and would be offering to mow the lawns for the landlord as well.

When Republicans called the French "cheese-eating surrender monkeys", they were NOT really talking about the French...

[Recursion]

17. Of course they did

The Republicans and Shrub never seemed to have any quandries about ram-rodding utterly crap-tacular legislation through the Senate by any means necessary.

Yes they did. Bush had to use reconciliation for his tax cuts (which is why they're up for re-legislation now). SS privatization got nowhere. Immigration reform got nowhere (though that was his own party stonewalling). NCLB and Medicare prescription drug coverage required significant Democratic support. He rammed his tax cuts through, barely, and he terrified the public into his war, but after 2003 he didn't have any success without buying off Democratic votes through -- wait for it -- compromise. And that was with the GOP controlling both chambers.

[Clio the Leo]

11. tell it! nt

[vaberella]

13. Thank you Dems. Wasn't Feingold considered a Progressive?! He's shat in their faces.

But let's attack Obama...when we have supposedly progressive Senators who are shitting in our faces and he's trying to get the best deal for us.

[w4rma]

16. He would have fallen in line and voted for it if it would have passed. (nt)

[vaberella]

23. Does it matter at this point? I say this because it's not like he's going to be there anymore.

I don't think it really matters any more if it's going to pass or not to just vote for it if you care.

[w4rma]

27. Sen. Feingold might run for something in the future... (nt)

[Recursion]

18. Feingold's "No" may have been procedural

Reid or some Dem he trusts has to vote with the GOP on any failed cloture motion to re-introduce more quickly; I'm not sure if that was his reasoning or if he was just being a deficit hawk like he's known to do.

[vaberella]

24. You don't need 5. And anyway last time Reid was counted as procedural.

I'm trying to see why Feingold.

[ieoeja]

15. We tried to pass it. Republicans stopped it. End of story.

Or, at least, it should be the end of this discussion. But for some reason, people would rather see us keep destroying jobs by creating an incentive for investors to keep their cash out of investment.

It only makes sense to take the cash now while taxes are lower knowing they are scheduled to increase in two years.

[mzmolly]

20. And NOT ONE Republican voted in favor. NOT ONE.

F-ing cult.

[struggle4progress]

21. That's last week's news