Let's walk through this. So the President takes a stand on tax cuts.

[Writer]

He refuses to budge on extending tax cuts to households earning $250K or higher.

He includes extensions on unemployment benefits and says that the bill must include them.

The Senate GOP say no.

So now what should the President do?

[Hawkeye-X]

1. What the President ought to do is tell Harry Reid that it's time to invoke the Nuclear Option

and get the necessary bills passed. He can continue the nuclear option through 2012, blocking stupid bills from the House (R-controlled) until their constitutents says "Enough stalling".

Hawkeye-X

[Writer]

3. Please tell me exactly how the nuclear option works. n/t

[Hawkeye-X]

5. Wiki guide to nuclear option

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

[Writer]

8. So the senate votes to overturn filbuster rules, and a simple majority stands.

However, the long term consequences are that the filibuster will no longer be available to the next party out of power. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats prefer this option, as each has used the threat of the nuclear option to control dissent in the chamber.

Are we willing to relinquish the filibuster if the GOP were to take full control of the senate?

[Hawkeye-X]

14. The GOP will never take control, and every new session new Senate rules can be established however

they want.

And since we have the Senate until 2012, we can use the nuclear option now and then revoke it before it's over (after the elections of '12 if it looks like GOP will take over the Senate, which I highly doubt). The GOP will suffer a massive loss, thanks to several factors, one of which is Wikileaks, and once they release the bank information, they are in SERIOUS trouble and will be indicted left and right because they let the banks dictate the policy.

Hawkeye-X

[Writer]

17. Why do you assume that the GOP will "never take control?"

You also assume that the GOP will experience a massive loss due to "several factors," one of which is an as yet unreported story that you assume will be so damaging that, somehow, it will impact Republican candidates, because you assume that there will be indictments "left and right."

How can you guarantee that this string of events will happen?

[Hawkeye-X]

19. Republicans and Teabaggers are not going to mix very well.

I predict that they will be a sharp divide between the baggers and Rethuglicans once 2011 starts, and then the faction of the far-right will be isolated, and thusly giving them ammo to get rid of those Thugs in 2012, and giving the Dems the victory that they need.

Trust me on this - I've been spot on with my predictions so far. I predicted in 2000 that * years would be BAD for us. I was right.

I think the Repuklicans are dying slowly. Their recent success in the House is attributed to teabaggers, not the real Republicans.

The teabaggers will disappear after election day 2012 because their candidates will suffer massive losses. Primary or general. They will lose. Big. So will the Republicans once it's identified that they are solely responsible for the destruction of America since 1980.

Hawkeye-X

[Writer]

20. I admire your appreciation for your political acumen,

but how can you guarantee these events will happen? As it is, we are dealing with a real vote with real consequences. Obama and the GOP cannot make a decision based on the speculations of a random online poster.

So the question stands: How should Obama respond to the GOP's refusal to vote for his proposals in total?

[Hawkeye-X]

23. I suggested the nuclear option between now until 2012

so that way, the Republicans are effectively out of the fucking way, at least in the Senate side.

Now is a good time to invoke the nuclear option, get the middle class tax cuts permanently done, and raise the roof on the richies and remove all loopholes so they have to pay heavy taxes until there is a equilbrium on all sides.

Hawkeye-X

[Writer]

24. So then I return to my previous question.

Are you okay with ridding the senate of the filibuster when and if the GOP takes control of the senate?

[totodeinhere]

41. "The GOP will never take control?" You must not understand the cyclical nature of politics.

They will most certainly take control at some point. We don't know when, but it will happen. Your comment reminds me of people at DU who assured us that the GOP would not retake control of the House. And we know how that turned out.

And your idea about imposing the nuclear option, then repealing it if it looks like the GOP might retake control is nonsense. If the Democrats impose the nuclear option, you had better believe that the next time the GOP takes control of the Senate they will remember that and use their majority to impose the nuclear option themselves. And can you imagine the damage that they could do if they control the Senate with no filibuster, plus the House and the White House?

[liskddksil]

2. Let them expire - if he's so serious about the deficit

the tax cut amount isn't that much for middle-class individuals anyway.

[Writer]

4. So taxes have gone up for the middle class.

Obama will have officially broken a promise. Will that be good politics for Obama?

[CaliforniaPeggy]

6. It hardly matters.

I don't think a lot of middle class voters are aware they even got a tax cut.

And he's made so many missteps that this would not matter at all.

[Writer]

10. The Republicans will make rhetorical gains by claiming that Obama broke a promise...

to the middle class.

Is that good politics for him?

Besides if it hardly matters, then why are we asking Obama to fight for this?

[handmade34]

27. Why do we keep asking

if a thing is "good politics"??? The questions should be "is this good for the country?"

Decisions should not be made on the merits of whether it will get one elected again or not... this has become the standard and no one seems to consider the long term well being of the country anymore

[Writer]

31. We complain about the President's inability to hold a liberal line.

Is that not due to the president's bad politics?

[OhioBlue]

26. maybe they didn't realize they got the Obama tax cuts

b/c it was such a small amount in each check, but if the Bush tax cuts for those making under $250k expire - they will know and it will not only be bad politics, but I think bad for the economy. It isn't only the rates - but the child tax credit was increased $500 per kid to $1000. That's a pretty big factor on my tax return and many others that I know. I honestly think letting the Bush tax cuts for those of us making under $250k would pretty much kill his chances in 2012. For those of us on this board, we follow politics and know that Gitmo isn't closed or that Geitner is Treas Secretary. For a huge number of our fellow citizens - they can't even name a cabinet member - but they will know when their refunds are much less or their payments are much more. And the GOP would be handed a series of campaign commercials and slogans on a silver platter - think of GHWB - "read my lips - no new taxes".

[liskddksil]

9. like the any health bill I sign will include public option promise...

[Writer]

12. Come again? n/t

[TheWraith]

37. You seem to be imagining a promise that never existed. nt

[liskddksil]

40. Yes he said that

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/07/obama-demands-the-bill-i-sign-must-include-public-option.php

[gateley]

16. If he extends the cuts to the top 2% he'll have officially broken a promise, too --

would that be good politics for Obama?

[Writer]

18. It seems that, whether Obama extends the tax cuts for the wealthy, or doesn't for the middle class,

he will have broken a promise either way.

How can he escape this no-win situation?

[gateley]

21. It would be a 'win' if he extended it for the middle class, and not for the wealthy, right? nt

[Writer]

22. However, the GOP refuses to vote for that plan.

So what should the President do?

[gateley]

25. Reconciliation? Isn't that how the tax cuts were passed under Bush? nt

[OhioBlue]

28. Reconciliation isn't an option.

The House didn't pass a budget with reconciliation instructions for FY 2011 - which started I think on Oct 1, 2010.

[Writer]

32. Ah - information that I couldn't locate earlier!

Thank you.

[gateley]

33. Okay, then scratch that. I wonder what's going to happen. It's been said

that Obama is willing to extend the tax cuts on the wealthy in order to get Unemployment back in, but I wonder if he'll have the votes.

It is really a big, ugly mess.

[gateley]

34. Self delete - dupe. Oops. nt

[Writer]

29. Because reconciliation involves these steps:

A reconciliation instruction (Budget Reconciliation) is a provision in a budget resolution directing one or more committees to submit legislation changing existing law in order to bring spending, revenues, or the debt-limit into conformity with the budget resolution. The instructions specify the committees to which they apply, indicate the appropriate dollar changes to be achieved, and usually provide a deadline by which the legislation is to be reported or submitted.

The tax cuts will expire on Dec. 31st. Do we have time to comb through various committees' changes to existing law and put together a budget resolution, including their ability to achieve the "appropriate dollar changes to be achieved," in less than three weeks?

[niceypoo]

43. No broken promise

Just another RW talking point

[Sherman A1]

39. Agreed

Let them ALL expire.

I have written both of my Senators with just that message.

[msongs]

7. let em expire then introduce new tax cut for middle class only. oh well nt

[Writer]

11. Obviously, that was a no-go. n/t

[tekisui]

13. Why was that obviously a no-go?

[Writer]

15. Because today the senate voted on this bill, and on a compromise bill...

that set the bar at keeping all tax cuts for earners below a million dollars. Both bills failed.

[OhioBlue]

30. they just did it - and it didn't pass. n/t

[Writer]

35. It seems that this thread has died down for the night.

I need to go to bed.

Good night!

[OhioBlue]

36. Take his case to the American people

get a smart messaging campaign going now - every dem should have the talking points down. Hit this on every Sunday talk show, write editorials, MoveOn or others should run commercials. OFA, DNC, etc. needs to mobilize activists to write ltte - call congress, etc. Put some populists out front and let them be loud.

If the Rs don't budge in 2010 - let them expire and then the Dems need to fight like hell to restore the tax cuts for those of us under 250k and unemployment extension - bring the bills up first thing in 2011 and make Harry Reid MAKE the GOP fillibuster. If Boner won't bring the Dem's bill up for a vote - hit him hard on the fact that he won't allow a vote on extending middle class tax cuts. Let it play out in a highly dramatic fashion. Get the message right - repeat it, repeat it, repeat it and show the public how you are fighting.

If they don't extend them by April 15 - then WE need to organize and have our own rallies calling out the GOP for their obstruction and tax raising.

just mho..

[pa28]

38. I see an opportunity here.

The White House recognized the tax cut issue as a winner before the election and Congress failed to pick up the ball. Too bad but the issue is still a winner.

Our position resonates with the public and defines us while dividing and weakening the other side. Done correctly this is what Newt Gingrich calls "magnets and wedges". You break support from the opposition by holding them to a ridiculous or unpopular position they've chosen and draw away the alienated voters by holding to your own popular position over time.

Sounds good in theory but you would need a way to employ it in practice. George HW Bush ordered a change in withholding tables and Obama could use a similar strategy to pressure Republicans. If withholdings stayed the same for the earners in question they would not immediately feel the impact and no additional money would be sucked out of the economy.

As 2011 drew to a close the burden would shift to Republicans to allow a bill or be responsible as middle America wrote hefty checks to the IRS.

Not really Obama's style and more like poker than chess but it's a possible option.

(In a case like this the UI extension would presented as a separate bill as it should be.)

[avaistheone1]

42. Let them expire.

[rug]

44. They're separate issues. Put them up as separate bills.

Let people see where they stand.

He's being outwitted by the Republicans with their bundled legislation.

He still controls both Houses. Reid and Pelosi will do what he wants.

[TheKentuckian]

45. I'll start by saying if you roll over bullies then they'll keep ramping up their demands

If he gives on this and can't even cobble out anything in return then he is dead in the water anyway.

No matter what the issue is they will continue to be able to just say no and get what they want and when you go there, there is little point in being re-elected or even holding the office other than as a figurehead.

These tax cuts were straight out of the "Drown the Pig" playbook and are a demonstrated net negative. Accepting them severely limits ANY government action, in any area that requires money going forward.
They are shit policy and extremely weak stimulus when the country has tremendous needs all over the place.

What you do is the right thing, you let this bullshit expire. Even the so called "Middle Class" cuts are mostly silly and are killing our ability to deal with structural issues in an effective manner (or at all). It is all a poor choice of resource use when the other problems are looked at in context.

With everything we are facing if I said I have 3-4 trillion to spend on something over the next decade and you selected these tax cuts then I'd consider you myopic and probably pretty fucking selfish.

It is my view that not borrowing the money has a better long term impact than pissing it away on what have always been very stupid policy designed to defund the US Government.

[kentuck]

46. Let's walk through it....

If the President does veto the taxcuts for the wealthy? What happens?

The unemployed will not get their weekly checks. This is bad.

The Democrats could put constant and daily pressure on the Republicans in the House to do something about it. They could have examples of people in need. They could take their case to the American people and force the Republicans to act. It could be done. But it would take persistence and passion.

Or he could submit to the extortion and give them what they want and they add unemployment assistance to the taxcuts for the wealthy and all that would be left to negotiate would be the length of the taxcuts. If the Repubs can get it for two years, they believe they will be in total control once again and they will make them "permanent", which means for another 9 years. However, every new Congress can change whatever law they want. Nothing is "permanent".

There can be no gain without pain.

[grumgrum]

47. Poor move by the WH to compromise by going for Unempl in this -- it should be separate

GOP want extensiosn for the wealthy..anything extra is "whatever" to them...they will take it eventually...but the thing is this is bad compromise for the WH. They should be sticking with themiddle class only and pressuring GOP on this and taking it to the people...giving in to the wealthy AGAIN by asking for something that can be easily be pressured in other things spearate from this is poor leadership.

INevitably obama will cave and give gop their tax cuts for the wealthy...he cant help himself....but sadly this will expectedly become an issue in 2 years during election that will hurt him....win-win for GOP.