Why do you think that Obama "shut out" the Congress on the tax deal? I'm listening

[gateley]

to this on CNN and one correspondent said she was told that a member of the House told her that according to them, there was no deal, then the next thing they know Obama is on TV announcing the deal made with the Republicans.

She also said the feeling was they'd been ignored during his first two years. I hadn't heard that and it surprised me.

So, if that's an accurate assessment, why do you think that's the case? My automatic first thought was "Rahm" but he's not there to kick around any more, so what do you think? I just find it so strange that that's their view of him. :shrug:

[msongs]

1. the house has liberals and progressives while repubs have none. pesky liberals lol nt

[Born_A_Truman]

2. You mean the congress that didn't want to address this before midterms?

That congress?

[JoePhilly]

10. Ding Ding Ding, we have a winner ... The House and Senate Dems ...

were so afraid to vote on this before the mid-terms, that they created this box.

Now they BITCH when Obama tries to move forward when they would not.

And then they act surprised. Total BS.

[TheKentuckian]

16. It was the righties that put the kibosh on a vote by siding with the TeaPubliKlans

Surrendering the terrorist demands to dump more poison in the economic well wasn't an acceptable option so there was no deal.

Of course if your logic is that the TeaPubliKlans must be pacified and the problem is opposing them then I guess I can see your point.

[JoePhilly]

17. You are wrong.

The House doesn't have a filibuster problem and they should have voted on the tax cut issue in the late summer, where it would have passed, and then run on it all through the fall. More of them would still have jobs.

Meanwhile, the Senate should have also tried to bring the House bill to a vote in the Senate. The GOP and a few Blue Dogs would have filibustered it. Reid should have kept bringing it to the floor each week all through the fall. And the Dems in the Senate should have run on the GOP's threat to raise middle class tax cuts. More of them would still be in office now as well.

The House and Senate got scared and tabled this issue, got crushed in the mid-terms, and now in the lame duck, the House passed a symbolic version of the tax cut bill (knowing the Senate is never going to pass it now), and the Senate brought up a different compromise version which would have raised the cap to 1 million, which the GOP blocked.

The time to do these things (oppose the TeaPubliklans as you say) was BEFORE THE MID-TERM when it gave them leverage, not after.

[TheKentuckian]

21. Dude, I agree they should have dealt with this well before the election.

I'm telling you why it wasn't.

You got no case that it was liberals who didn't want the vote. All the piece of shit Blue Dogs/New Democrats/DLC puke refused claiming it would hurt their chances in the mid-term. Memories aren't that short.

We didn't have the votes in the House either because of the same worthless fucks and as a consequence there is no deal to be had. You gotta count to 218 just like 60. The House had a near conservative majority the whole way, don't forget the bullshit abortion language adopted in the Wealthcare and Profit Protection Act.

Similar to the Senate but less procedural advantages to the minority is why things got through the House.

Republicans with a bogus Cubs symbol D next to their names is the problem. Who are these liberals in the House that didn't want the vote?

[jeanpalmer]

24. Irrespective of what happened

before the election, it's weird for a president to bypass his own party on a major issue like this. The assumption is he begins by working with his own party, not the opposition. He clearly bypassed them. And it wasn't as if the WH did anything before the election -- most of the deal, with the exception of unemployment benefits, hadn't been proposed. It's pretty clear he bypassed his own party because he wanted a deal they wouldn't approve.

[geek tragedy]

3. Because the impasse was with Senate Republicans.

He was negotiating with the roadblock.

Also, it was probably impossible to get House Dems and Senate/House Reps to agree on anything--just no middle ground possible.

Also, more participants means more leaks.

[polichick]

4. Jim McDermott (D - WA) said pretty much the same thing today...

...especially with regard to this particular deal - and he said it was presented as if it could not be changed.

McDermott said that elected Democrats don't appreciate being treated like this by the WH.

Why?? Beats me.

[Supersedeas]

18. shoving in the Estate Tax benes that the Repub didn't even ask for is pretty embarrassing

and pretty remarkable.

[ProSense]

5. For the same reason that

blame is being passed around for not voting for the tax cuts before the election.

The estate tax, for example, was pushed by Lincoln and Kyl.

Why are they surprised that the negotiations were between the President's desire to extend the middle-class tax cuts and the Republicans' desire to do the same for the rich?

The other concessions the President got were the basis of the deal he sent to Congress. They can and are adding to it.

[bhikkhu]

8. It reminds me of the crap they pulled under *

the repugs wanted stuff - tax cuts for the rich and so forth. The dems wanted stuff - tax credits for the working poor and families, etc. So they'd come to the table and serve up these big platters of every kind of thing for everybody. The deficit blew up and the economy was crap, but all you'd here is the same "everybody came away with something" shit. That's a rotten way to run a government, but it looks like we're headed for plenty more of it.

[Schema Thing]

6. because he needed it to get done

and congress wasn't going to do it.

[bhikkhu]

11. It didn't have to get done.

The reasoning for the tax cuts was to use them as a stimulus. Clearly, they are not stimulating anything, so you could just let them expire like the law required and figure out some kind of stimulus that did work.

Doing it the way it looks like they will, you get no stimulus, another trillion or so of debt, the first real hit to SS in the war the repugs have promised, and a crippled up government that couldn't stimulate itself out of a paper sack.

[WiffenPoof]

7. Yeah...I Brought This Up In Another Thread

It was specifically about Nancy being blindsided. I thought that they spoke with each other. Maybe I'm wrong.

-PLA

[Occam Bandage]

9. First we complain that Obama sits on his hands and lets Congress take the driver's seat.

Now we complain that Obama is throwing his weight around.

[Uzybone]

12. damned if he does and damned if he doesnt

[gateley]

13. True, but it's not US that's complaining - it's the DC Dems. That's what surprised

me.

[FrenchieCat]

22. Cause they can't do anything else.

If they could pass something, why didn't they?

The house pass the middle class tax cut, then punted to the Senate like they always do.
Senate failed to pass both measures they had to offer...

So then what happens?

Guess Obama had to step in, and there was no need to dirty the Democrats with this.
Guess perhaps it was decided that they would scream like the good cops
and he would look like the bad cop.....thereby keeping the GOP and their media's fat ass
mouths shut!

[jpgray]

14. Who made the deal with Billy Tauzin?

Who promised that pharma's exposure to any health care bill was capped? Who promised any reimportation or negotiation provisions for health care reform would be blocked? Who was forced to admit this, as the House was considering exactly those provisions, when called out by Tauzin and company? Who said "I passed health care (insurance, really) for all Americans" in a recent press conference?

I'm a little confused by the line that this negotiation over the heads of Congress, without even informing them of what has been decided, is something new. Is your memory short, or selective?

There is blame all around here. Congress dropped the ball, Obama went over their heads without any consultation again, and now opposition in Congress serves to undermine the president and sow intra-party division. Why anyone would excuse either the White House or Congress with some smug one-liner is completely beyond me.

[akbacchus_BC]

15. Veers in cautiously, wasn't the tax thing supposed to go through before

November and some Dems say it would hurt them for the elections? Just my take!

[Freddie Stubbs]

19. Because if Congress was going to pass something without his help, it would have done so already

[frazzled]

20. Because the Democrats in Congress shut him out on this too?

I don't know. I just know he was hot to trot to have them do this deal before the November elections. He gave a big speech in Ohio about it. But the Democrats didn't want to play that game before the elections: perhaps they were afraid of alienating their wealthy donors, or of having ads run against them stating they were trying to "raise taxes."

The House, because it has big numbers, manages to pass a clean "preserve cuts for the middle class only bill" at the eleventh hour-- they get to claim purity, full well knowing it will not pass the Senate. But they're done with their part. Then it's 8 days before the end of the Congressional session, and there are not enough votes in the Senate to pass the plan. And there seems to be no plan from Democrats in either House on what to do next. If there was, I haven't heard it. If Harry Reid was negotiating with McConnell on a plan, I hadn't heard it. I suppose the president just said fuggit, let's get something done.

[bigwillq]

23. Ah, maybe because they took so damn long

to pass one on their own.

[Pistarkle]

25. This is what I think...

Right now the Republicans HAVE the upper hand – more than enough “no” votes in the Senate to keep tax cuts for the wealthy in ANY compromise. If Democratic candidates campaigned on tax cuts for the wealthy during the 2010 Campaign AS THE PRESIDENT SUGGESTED, perhaps 90% rather than 40% of eligible voters would have voted in the midterms and the Democrats would have the upper hand regarding the tax cut controversy, but that’s past history.

[quiller4]

26. Perhaps because House leadership announced they would not craft compromise?