Obama's BIG WIN: long-time status quo

[rapturedbyrobots]

I wrote Senator Sanders last week in support of his opposition speech (pseudo-filibuster) on the Obama Tax Cuts. Below is part of his reply. Essentially, he's highlighting what everyone in Congress knows (probably why they were so PISSED about the 'deal'). This info gets omitted by everyone who portrays this 'deal' as a some hard-fought or difficult 'compromise' that Obama was forced to make. What they can't bring themselves to tell you: Obama's 'big win' was something that's been assumed as a given for 4 decades. The Republicans always come around on unemployment benefits when unemployment is high (it would be electoral suicide not to right now). They can threaten all they want, because no one remembers the threats. When push came to shove, Obama played possum. This 'win' is a farce...pure spin...don't believe the hype.

'It goes without saying that we must extend unemployment benefits for the
millions of working families who, in the midst of this terrible
recession, are about to see them expire. But why is this considered a
'concession' when for the last four decades Democrats and Republicans
have always worked together and agreed that benefits must be continued
when the unemployment rate is higher than 7.2 percent. This is not a
'concession' on the part of the Republicans. This is a continuation of
long-held, bipartisan policy.'

[Skittles]

1. "Obama played possum"

yup

[FrenchieCat]

2. Obama never articulated that he'd had a big win

And I don't see how Republicans continuing to be the obstructionist that they are
makes Obama a winner.

The last UI voted that passed.....
do you remember how many Republicans voted for it? Do you remember when it happened?
Do you remember if Republicans were hurt at the polls due to their NO vote on UI?

I'll be waiting for your answers.

Thanks! :hi:

[rapturedbyrobots]

4. of the senators in office during previous UI votes

ALL have cast a vote in favor at least once. 23 Republicans voted FOR at least a third of the time, and 3 voted FOR the MAJORITY of the time. So, yes. There has ALWAYS been enough bipartisan support from the current members of congress to pass UI benefits. Thanks for playing though. It's been fun.

Edited to add: ONLY one Senator has never cast a vote FOR unemployment benefits...Jim DeMint. On the other hand there is Sen. Susan Collins who voted for the extensions more frequently than 5 Democrats (or senators caucusing with the Democrats).

[FrenchieCat]

8. I provide you with stats on the July 2010 UI vote below......

Your stats don't mean shit....cause you are going back into history.
The point is why would Senators who voted AGAINST UI in July,
vote for it now.....or for that matter in January, when there will
be more of them?

That's the real issue.

[PufPuf23]

5. POTUS Obama consistently claims as wins what would be losses

for post New Deal Democratic Party until Clinton.

The GOP blocks POTUS Obama is a given.

POTUS Obama could give a flying fuck about most of us regardless and kicks the can down the road.

That said, pass and sign the bastard tax bill now. Just don't flaunt the BS that it is good legislation for the majority of the American people.

[FrenchieCat]

10. The only person saying that POTUS is flaunting is OP poster.

[rapturedbyrobots]

18. speaking of intellectually dishonest

I was specifically referring to the people spinning this deal in the OP. That is pretty clear. And the spin is that concessions on SS, tax cuts for the wealthy, and the estate tax were made FOR the unemployment benefits extension and that is portrayed as a 'win' for the unemployed and the Democrats. The point is that it was entirely conceivable ACCORDING TO SOMEONE IN THE SENATE (not political commentators and the interwebs) that this 'win' could have occurred without such a crappy deal.

You can call Senator Sanders delusional or a liar if you like. I was just reporting the perspective he presented in his e-mail. One that I hadn't considered until reading his e-mail and pisses me off even more about this 'deal'. A particularly cutting perspective that I thought people interested in the 'dealing' away of their children's prosperity and their own retirement prospects might want to hear.

[FrenchieCat]

21. who called it Obama's BIG WIN?

You did. You spinned to try to say that he considered it that, when he hasn't made such a statement.

That is what intellectual dishonesty is....when one knows, but still goes ahead with if in order to make their point.

I have great respect for Sen. Sanders, but just like Pres. Obama, he ain't 100% right about everything.

As for The future of Children's prosperity and their retirement...what about those families whose tax burden would have gone up by $3,300 in a single year (2011)....what about their Children's daycare? Will they be able to afford that? Are we not supposed to care? Should they simply be
the collateral damage for hoping that maybe once there are more Republicans in both houses in January, they'll be "Nicer" and will want to negotiate a better deal?

[tulsakatz]

3. I agree.....

Obama caved instead of tried to get a better deal for democrats! I mean, he's the President, he does have some control.

And even if republicans would not have approved extension of unemployment benefits, in the end that would have been good for democrats! As in.......they won't extend unemployment without tax breaks for the extremely rich.

I don't care what anyone says, this was not a good deal for democrats....

[FrenchieCat]

7. You don't care what anyone says, and neither did the Republicans.....

If you think the media was going to highlight the fact that it was because of republicans
that folks didn't get their UI check, you are living in another world.

Just like you blame Obama for the fact that there wasn't going to be enough votes in the Senate for a middle class tax cut only as proven out by the 2 bills which were voted on and couldn't pass on December 4th, Obama would have been blamed for folks not getting their UI just in time for Christmas, and would have been called heartless and headstrong for the sake of politics!

It was a catch 22, and he made the decision that he did; to help the 98% instead of obsessing over the top 2%, which I guess is the new Liberal Democratic value around here; to worry about what the Rich have, while saying Fuck you to folks with next to nothing....guess they are just collateral damage for the sake of politics and showing everyone what true assholes the Republicans are.

--------------------------------------------------------

Here's the record on Republicans voting on UI in just the last time that
it was actually extended this summer....

keep in mind that unemployment had expired in MAY!



Extended unemployment benefits: Senate still one vote short of passing unemployment extension
June 30th, 2010 6:17 pm ET.Update: 10:00 pm

Senate fails to pass extended unemployment benefits legislation and is now in recess until July 11 for the latest update on unemployment legislation voting in the Senate
http://www.examiner.com/unemployment-in-rochester/extended-unemployment-benefits-senate-still-one-vote-short-of-passing-unemployment-extension

July 15, 2010

The Senate is expected to vote on a bill to restore extended unemployment benefits on Tuesday, shortly after a successor to the late Sen. Robert Byrd is sworn in.

Byrd's replacement is expected to give the Senate the 60th vote needed to pass a bill that would continue extended benefits through Nov. 30. The House passed an extension on July 1, but the Senate, without Byrd, fell one vote short.

Until recently, people who exhausted their regular state unemployment benefits (up to 26 weeks) could then receive up to 73 weeks of federally funded benefits, for a total of 99 weeks in high-unemployment states including California. The federal benefits come in four successive tiers ranging from six to 20 weeks, followed by a 20-week extension with special rules known in California as Fed-Ed.

Federal funding for all extended benefits expired at the end of May. Since then, people who were already receiving one of the four tiers could finish it up but could not move on to the next tier. However, people receiving Fed-Ed had their payments cut off almost immediately. The California Employment Development Department estimates that as of June 28, more than 260,000 Californians had their federal benefits cut short. The National Employment Law Project puts the number in California at 429,500.
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/pender/detail?entry_id=67999#ixzz1894VDGwP

Republicans delay vote on unemployment extension
And you thought the standoff over unemployment benefits was over!
July 21, 2010

Right now, as we speak, Senate Republicans continue to file a bunch of motions that could delay the vote on extending unemployment benefits for as long as another day.

(Senate votes 60-40 to advance jobless benefits)

This is key: It's a reminder that Republicans intend to continue to try to block the extension, unless its costs are offset, for as long as possible.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/07/republicans_delay_vote_on_unem.html

JUST ABOUT EVERY REPUBLICANS IN THE SENATE VOTED "NO" ON THE FINAL UI BILL IN JULY!

By a vote of 59 to 39 the Senate has finally decided to restore unemployment benefits to the millions of people who have been out of work in the country.
House leaders will ratify the measure tomorrow and send it to President Obama who has said that he will sign it immediately.
http://news.spreadit.org/unemployment-benefits-extension-senate-vote-bill-passed/

AND REPUBLICANS FUCKING WON IN NOVEMBER.....CAUSE THE PEOPLE DIDN'T CARE THAT REPUBLICANS
VOTED AGAINST UI DURING THE LAST GO.


So why would anyone think they would vote "For it" this time?

What's that rationale?

[rapturedbyrobots]

13. thanks for proving the point

one way or another...it always passes with 'just enough' republican votes. except for that time WHEN SOMEONE DIED. and then it passed anyway. 'just about every republican voted no' doesn't mean anything when all you need is 'just enough'. know why they won in november anyway? because it passed and no one cares about posturing. only whether the benefits are there or not.

[FrenchieCat]

16. So you are saying that based on waiting 3 months for it to pass the last time.....

and that it passed ONLY after waiting for a Democratic Senate Replacement,
that it would pass again? Who would change their vote in January, after having
voted NO in July? What New Senator who are coming in via their Tea Party Express
would vote yes in January?

Please tell me the scenario of the future not based on the past that you foresee
for us, O' crystal ball reading one.

[rapturedbyrobots]

20. of course...

you are right. no point in TRYING. better to punt on 1st down.

[rapturedbyrobots]

24. oooook

So Senator Sanders, the longest serving independent member of congress in history, looks to history (gasp!) and relays the fact that this thing has passed ONE WAY OR ANOTHER for 4 decades. You're insisting this is the one time the Repubs will manage to buck that trend. And you're asking me for a crystal ball? This is just silly.

[BzaDem]

6. So he assumes that because some past Republican party agreed to something that the current one does?

Pretty dumb assumption.

[FrenchieCat]

9. It's intellectually dishonest....because Sen. Sanders was there in May, June and July,

when an UI vote failed until Byrd's senate replacement was finally sworn in in July.

[FrenchieCat]

11. There I go shutting down the debate by posting some Facts!

damn... when will I ever learn that DU is about accusing one man of the worse
when it comes to everything and anything, damn them facts!

:shrug:

[dkf]

12. When the republicans start cutting funds for the poor you will realize how great the status quo was

We are living above our means. This IS the good times.

[rapturedbyrobots]

14. i actually don't mind the status quo (in this case)

i live ok by very meager means and would still not mind paying an extra bit in taxes if it means maintaining the long-term viability of social security and not adding tremendous debt to the deficit that my kids and grandkids will be paying off.

[FrenchieCat]

17. This ain't about YOU and what YOU can afford.

[rapturedbyrobots]

22. yes it is

why the hell wouldn't it be? i guess my opinions don't matter to you because i'm not IMMEDIATELY affected because i've not been unemployed for less than 2 years? i feel for those millions of people, and the working poor people who may suffer a slight increase in taxes. and realize that this will put a strain on a lot of people in the SHORT TERM. but it does affect me (and all of us) in the LONG TERM if the deficit explodes, if the economy doesn't recover as millions entering the job market, if social security is slowly eroded as the largest generation ever is hitting retirement, if my kids are subject to the INSANE and growing deficit and its economic & politcal forces. the neoliberals are playing the LONG CON...and they have you busy playing tic-tac-toe against people who should be your allies...like me.

[midnight]

15. I agree.

[boppers]

19. Obama played possum. ...don't believe the hype.

Said without a hint of irony.

[ProudDad]

23. K&R

but the unreccing crew's already been here...

I guess they hate Bernie Sanders too...

They seem to get real uncomfortable when anyone articulates the inconvenient truths... :shrug: