If the House Dems reject the tax plan this year, what will stop it from passing next year?

[Cali_Democrat]

Assuming the Dems reject the plan and Pelosi doesn't bring it to the House floor, is there anything preventing this plan from passing next year when the new Congress is seated?

Wouldn't this just be like kicking the can down the road and delaying the inevitable? :shrug:

[jtown1123]

1. Can't Obama veto? Not that I think he would, but I thought he could, hypothetically.

[Cali_Democrat]

2. He's the one behind the deal

Why would he veto his own tax deal with Republicans?

[Bandit]

18. Once Republicans take control of the House it would no longer be Obama's deal

they would probably drop the unemployment extension and the Estate tax part. Then Democrats in the Senate could filibuster it or just not bring it up.. If it does not pass this year the odds are it just may not pass at all and America might begin getting it's financial house in order. Americans are just going to have to realize their free lunch my be coming to an end..We might start regaining some of the trust we have lost throughout the world if we start becoming responsible once more.

[Cali_Democrat]

24. Good point. n/t

[frazzled]

13. You're missing the point: a vetoed bill would have to be replaced with SOMETHING

Lower tax rates for the middle class must be preserved if the fragile economy is not going to get worse. Unemployment benefits can not disappear. Earned income credit (which the Republicans would love to kill) needs to continue if the lowest income Americans are not to suffer more.

He can veto the bill--he always had that option. But the bill we will get under a new Republican House and a larger Republic majority in the Senate is going to be a hell of a lot worse than the one negotiated.

[Deep13]

3. Need 60 votes for passage in the Senate. nt

[Cali_Democrat]

7. Assuming all the Republicans back the deal....

Obama and the Republicans would only need a handful of Dems to switch and there are quite a few spineless Dems in the Senate.

[Deep13]

14. But are there over 20 of them?

They would need all the Rs and more than 20 Ds. to break a filibuster.

[Ganja Ninja]

4. It would be letting the GOP do their own dirty work.

Let them take the blame for the big give away to the rich.

[Johonny]

20. I agree

right now it appears Republicans won't vote for it then deny they wanted it next election. Dems are being forced to pass Republican bills. Granted if the Republicans are forced to pass this they will probably take out even more tax relief for the poor and middle class. Which in that case Obama can veto it.

[rocktivity]

22. DING DING DING! Ganja Ninja, you're our grand prize winner!

It would be letting the GOP do their own dirty work.
They'd be in power--in the House at least. Let them bear the responsibility. The Dems DO still have control of the Senate, you know. They can simply do to them what the Rethugs have been doing to us!

:bounce:
rocktivity

[Autumn]

5. It's my understanding it

will expire if they do nothing with it. Nothing bad about that. We tighten our belts and don't add to their precious deficit. I'm going to be paying taxes till I die. I get stuff for it so I got no problem with paying a fair share.

[gratuitous]

6. I supposed a principled Democrat in the Senate could stop it with an anonymous hold

It seems to be the favorite tactic of the Republicans. Naturally, if a Democrat does what Republicans routinely do, that person will be excoriated to the high heavens as an enemy of democracy and a traitor to the United States, working to subvert the Will of the People.

So we'll see if any of the 53 Senate Democrats have the kind of resolve, or if 41 of them can hang together to block a cloture motion.

[patrice]

8. It won't just be delaying the inevitable, because, in the process it will cost us the DREAM act and

repeal of DADT, so the "inevitablle" that happens later won't be the same thing that COULD happen now which could result in also delivering the DREAM and an end to DADT now.

[patrice]

9. Not to mention whatever happens to UI later as compared to now. nt

[Angry Dragon]

11. I read earlier that the Dream Act was tabled already

[Davis_X_Machina]

15. Passed the House, awaiting action in the Senate... n/t

[patrice]

27. They're delaying it in committee. I'll go look for the link. I wonder how DADT is doing. nt

[patrice]

29. Dream dealyed link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4651144

[patrice]

32. Repeal of DADT without passing Dream is the end of what calls itself "the Left", because

they have also de-coupled themselves from UI.

FAIL.

[Johonny]

21. Shouldn't republicans pass these first

Hey they want tax cuts for the rich, give us the things we want. I think Dems would be a lot more negotiable if a few no brainer bills like 9/11 first responders and nuclear treaties passed quickly all a sudden. As it is now I have no reason to believe the Dream act or anything else will pass because I don't trust republicans to be more responsive AFTER they get what they want.

[patrice]

28. Bingo. And I blame the House, at least partly, for weakening Obama's bargaining position with their

CYA vote on Middle Class Tax Cuts last week.

[patrice]

35. Actually the Republicans want the Dream act. It's perfect for them, but they want it on their own

terms, so they'll do it after the first of the year and put Democrats in the position of trying to attach some other deal to it, which, of course, won't work.

[Angry Dragon]

10. The republican s would own it then

good or bad it would be theirs'

[Individualist]

12. Exactly.

[Cali_Democrat]

19. Even if Obama signs the bill and praises the tax deal?

I would think Obama would own it also and that basically means the Dem party owns it as well.

[woo me with science]

25. Not if they let it go through anyway.

If it goes through anyway, this little protest will be seen as a cynical ploy to allow Congressional Dems to deny responsibility during the next election.

[ladjf]

16. Well, maybe the Pubs can pass it or maybe they can't. But, at least,

we didn't do it for them.

My deepest regrets to those who are in desperate need for funds. However,
your current sacrifices might avoid similar hardships to many more Americans as yet to be impoverished. And, if you can hang on, real,longterm help may be on the way.

The forces behind the Republican politicians are hell bent on stealing everything and leaving us behind to die. I can't imagine how they could be envisioning their lives after that.

[savannah43]

17. No. The Bush tax cuts will have expired and new tax cut

legislation would have to be introduced and taken through the entire process. The current "compromise" is based on the Bush tax cuts only.

[mmonk]

23. It's best not to surrender before a fight.

[BzaDem]

26. Nothing. If the House still wanted to be relevant here, they should have thought about that before

losing 60 seats.

The tax cuts are passing with or without their help. Their help could ensure that unemployment gets extended too (along with Obama's stimulus extensions, etc), but it isn't much more relevant than that.

[JoePhilly]

31. Agree ... this fight need to take place before the election, not after.

[patrice]

33. Before the elections, or at least as late as last week = They should have held their

bargaining position relative to the President, but went for CYA last week on MC Tax Cuts instead.

:grr:

[patrice]

34. The result is that the President's Tax Cut deal will pass anyway and WE will lose the Dream Act to

the Republicans, who want to call it theirs anyway, so they'll pass it after the first of the year.

[Pisces]

30. There will be no concessions on unemployment benefits, etc next year

Continue to play chicken and the worst hit among us gets hurt the worst. The political posturing is stupid. DADT, START, the DREAM ACT, and the umemployed are all hostage to ideological purity and
the people who have no idea what the deal says or does.

The only narrative is the break for the rich. A deal means no one gets everything they want. Why are we being so stubborn, whith blinders on??

[patrice]

36. I'm BLAMING the Senate for that part of it. They were afraid to look "SOCIALIST". nt