There will be no tax increases with this Congress...

[kentuck]

It was a nice speech by the President and it makes us feel better but the reality is that it will not happen so long as the Repubs are in charge of any branch of government.

It makes the left feel better. Those in the center say the President has been saying this all along. The left just wasn't listening.

Of course, this was all part of the President's strategy from the beginning. He just had to wait for the right time to ask for the wealthy to pay their fair share. That is why he said it with such passion.

The truth of the matter is that there is little chance of creating enough jobs to affect the next election so the next best thing is to get the progressive base united.

Does anyone really expect higher tax rates to be passed by Boehner and the Republicans? This was a political speech meant to circle the wagons and defend the position. Nothing more...

[dkf]

1. Yep. Exactly.

[JoePhilly]

2. I thought that was what we wanted?

Don't we want Obama to push positions that can't actually pass to prove he doesn't hate the left?

That's a pretty common argument here on DU.

That it would be better for Obama to fight for things that can't pass, and have those fail, so that he seems more progressive, rather than compromise and only get some of what he wants.

[kentuck]

3. Yes, it is better than passing bills that benefit the Republicans...

Because it keeps your base inspired and gets out enough voters to compete in the next election. Even if it is a loser in the House, it is a winner in the long run. Therefore, it is better than trying to pass cuts in Social Security, for example, to balance the budget and please the Republicans...

[JoePhilly]

6. So you think that if the Stimulus never passed .... and the auto bailout

never happened, and the HCR bill never passed, and the financial reform bill never passed ...

Obama's "base" would be inspired?

I doubt that. I'm pretty sure he'd be called "ineffective" endlessly.

[kentuck]

8. Honestly...

I think everything you mentioned was not very significant. GM was bailed out in this country but they were making record profits overseas. Of course, they took the money from the government. The "stimulus' helped but was nowhere near what we needed and we all could have done without the "taxcuts". The financial reform bill? All I know is that the criminals are still free. The healthcare bill? We needed something besides a cash giveaway to the insurance companies but I guess some of us will never be happy?

[JoePhilly]

17. Yeah, yeah .... the "crumbs" argument.

And you think letting GM crash and burn would have been better.

And the stimulus "didn't help enough". Stop a full blown depression, but that's not good enough.

Can you tell me what laws were broken such that the financial "criminals" remain free? In reality, they used legislation written by the GOP Senate, and signed by Clinton in 1999 to do what they did. Sadly, the vast majority of it was legal.

And on HCR ... this one I'll spend a minute on. My 15 year old niece was diagnosed with cancer at 2. It was a cancer that is 90% fatal. My sister had to fight to get my niece treated (that is a long story, which hits on other positive aspects of the HCR) and she survived. But after that, no insurer would cover my neice for anything worse than a cold, flu, or sports injury. Everything else was potentially tied to that pre-existing cancer.

And so, for about 10 years, my niece had no real coverage. Now, she's fully covered. She can't be denied coverage, and she has no life time cap to contend with for the rest of her life.

That just "crumbs" I guess.

Oh ... and if your response is that Obama needed to end private insurance all together ... please make sure you indicate how you, as President, get that passed.

Or, I guess you can argue that Obama needed to argue for that, and then get nothing ... and that my niece, and those like her, would be better off as a result.

[kentuck]

32. So you are happy with everything....?

and nothing could have been done better? The Republicans still hate everything he passed.... So why not give 'em a good reason to hate you?

[dtexdem]

4. No, we want him to push the positions in order to aid the American people.

And I don't care whether or not he hates the left -- I just want him to listen to the left and carefully consider its advice.

[JoePhilly]

7. And when nothing passes, then what?

[kentuck]

10. Sometimes you have to stand for what you believe in...

Not for what you think you can pass with the Republicans, at the detriment of all of us, including the Democratic Party and the President.

[JoePhilly]

16. So ... all ... or nothing?

That's the real question here.

[kentuck]

18. Sometimes nothing is better than what you end up with.

Do you disagree?

[JoePhilly]

19. Let's go case by case .... and you tell me .... what we got, or nothing.

1) Stimulus
2) Auto bailout
3) Financial reform
4) Bush tax cut extension in Dec 2010
5) Obama's proposed Jobs plan

[kentuck]

21. Knock off the last two on your list...

We are still paying for the mistake of extending the Bush taxcuts. Mostly out of cowardice or lacking the will to fight for the unemployment benefits. It was simple surrender, no fight at all.

The Jobs Plan. I don't think it is wise to take money away from the SS fund for a taxcut such as this because few jobs will be created with it.

I think the stimulus did some good but was not sufficient for what was needed. I would have supported it but it should have been and could have been much better.

The auto bailout? I cannot understand why we had to bail them out if they had record profits in overseas sales? Why couldn't they bail themselves out? It saved some jobs and we got our money back but I think we were scammed by the auto companies.

Financial reform? I have not seen the results of that yet? Hopefully it will have some benefits. However, I could not understand why these criminals were allowed to slide without any punishment?

[JoePhilly]

23. OK ...

1) How are we "paying" for the Bush tax cuts extension? Are you claiming that the deficit it the big issue? As most liberals know, that's not the big issue. In fact, liberals like us are for SPENDING even if it increases the deficits. Obama did fight for UE extensions, and he got them. Or maybe he should have given up? And if you think he had some better way to fight, please explain, and provide some vote counts.

2) The jobs plan does not take money from SS, that is nonsense. It is a red herring. SS is fine, and uncut. The only immediate effect of this is to put more money in the pockets of people who are already struggling to make ends meet. That is all it does.

3) Stimulus ... you did not answer the question ... all or none? How exactly would he get it to be BIGGER? Please explain. And when you do, explain how it is BIGGER, and IMMEDIATE.

4) So you agree with the GOP that the auto bailout was a bad idea. Ok. The US auto unions would tend to disagree with you.

5) The financial reform was built around ideas from Elizabeth Warren. The over sight commission in it was designed by her. Was she wrong? Also, you seem to be confusing financial LEGISLATION with DOJ investigations. Legislation is not written to create investigations. It creates NEW LAW. You are combining two things that are not connected. You and I were discussing legislation. If you want to discuss DOJ investigations, then you need to indicate what crimes you want investigated by the DOJ.

[kentuck]

24. Like I said, in answer to your question...

"Knock off the last two."

[RaleighNCDUer]

12. The proof is in the pudding.

When the House rejects this plan, because of the tax hikes, and submit their own plan with no tax hikes and with cuts to SS and Medicare, will he veto it or will he sign it because it was the 'best we could reasonably expect'?

Too many are treating his plan as if it was a knockout punch, but it is just the first round and we've got a long way to go.

[whosinpower]

5. The president alone

Cannot force Congress to do its job. You are correct. The public must become more active and involved. It is their congress too. And right now, the public is very unhappy with what Congress is doing. 12 percent approval.....

We are seeing a game of chicken - the GOP figure that if they can manage to overthrow Obama - they will take that 12 percent approval - and tell 88 percent to go to hell. Now is the time for that 88 percent to get loud, and noisy.

Their jobs don't last forever either. Time to remind them of that.

[Horse with no Name]

9. Recc'd to 0. n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. "There'll be pie in the sky when you die." is the message.

Progressives can't be elected in enough numbers to pass bills to raise the tax rates on the rich. At least, that's what the 3rd Way Dems tell us when telling us to vote for 3rd Way Dems who won't agree to raise taxes on the wealthy.

Catch-22

[Bandit]

13. While I agree with you, do you think the Bush*/Obama tax cuts will expire Dec. 2012?

All Democrats have to do is absolutely nothing and they will go by the wayside. do you think Obama and the Democrats will once more cave to Republican Hostage taking? It will be after the election so they have nothing to lose if they cave...

[kentuck]

14. For a good while, I did not think so...

Now, I would say the odds are 50/50...

[JoePhilly]

20. If Obama wins, they will expire as scheduled.

The main reason Obama extended them last time was because to not do so would have raised taxes on those making under 250k. This was a HUGE campaign promise. And he could not break it.

Now, here on DU, you will hear arguments that "yes he could break that one". They are wrong.

And the reason they are wrong is that the media would be running endless stories in which Bush #1 says "read my lips" ... and then, they'd play Obama promising to not raise taxes on those under 250k, and then show how he DID raise them by letting the Bush tax cuts expire.

The Dem congress SHOULD have made this an issue. They SHOULD have put forward a bill to continue the Bush tax cuts for those making under 1 million dollars a year. The 250 number is too easy for the GOP to claim that its "small businesses" ... and the tax revenues in the 250 to 1 million segment are not large.

But 1 million would have been perfect ... its a number that the public understands. A person who makes 1 million a year is CLEARLY rich.

But the Dem congress punted.

And so now ... the current congress won't pass anything with a tax hike. Obama can call out the GOP using his bill. And when he wins in 2012, he can let all the tax breaks expire, and because he can't run again, the fact that he is raising taxes on those under 250k, can't hurt him ... but the rich also lose their tax break.

Of course, if we all complain enough about Obama, Rick Perry and the GOP majority House and Senate will make those cuts permanent. That's just a fact.

[kentuck]

22. Did you just come to this realization??

"Of course, if we all complain enough about Obama, Rick Perry and the GOP majority House and Senate will make those cuts permanent. That's just a fact."

You didn't see that coming? You didn't see that they would make the deficit a big issue if the taxcuts were extended? Are you advising this President? If so, submit your resignation immediately, for all our sakes.

[JoePhilly]

25. The GOP always makes the deficit an issue when they don't hold the

White House. They've done it every time a Dem holds the WH. And when a republican is in, they stop caring about it.

And I said the same thing long before the 2010 elections.

But if you disagree with my assessment on the tax cuts issue ... please explain how I was / am ... wrong

[kentuck]

26. I don't think President Obama agrees with you....

He has worked for months to come up with a deficit reduction package. You are correct, the GOP always makes it an issue when Democrats are in power. I think the President may have went down the wrong trail for a while?

[JoePhilly]

30. Nice dodge.

Again ... please explain why my position on the Bush tax cuts is / was, wrong.

Clearly if Obama thought the deficit was ISSUE #1 then he'd let the Bush tax cuts expire in 2010 and not care about raising taxes on those under 250k.

He did not do that, and so clearly, the deficit is not is TOP issue.

[kentuck]

31. I'm only saying ....

that anyone that did not have the balls to let the Bush taxcuts expire and then fight like hell for the unemployment benefits, rather than surrendering without a fight, is not someone you would want in the foxhole with you...Also, it would have been a good issue to keep the House since it was before the election. That is why you were wrong.

[JoePhilly]

34. The Dem CONGRESS dropped the ball that you demand Obama carry.

The Dems House and Senate PUNTED on this issue ... if you recall (which you clearly do not) ... neither the Dem House or Senate wanted to take this on in 2010. They proposed NOTHING. They brought NOTHING to the floor for a vote.

That is a simple FACT.

Obama can not, could not FORCE them to bring that to the floor. And so when they punted, what is it that YOU think he should have done.

Honestly, you seem to not understand how proposed legislation becomes law.

I agree that this was not only a "good issue" to keep the House, it was a GREAT ISSUE to keep the House. But Obama was not speaker of the House, nor was he leader of the Senate Majority. THEY needed to make this an issue, and they were too scared to do so.

THAT is the reality. Obama, controls the executive branch, he does not / did not, control the legislative branch. The House and Senate Dems were UNWILLING to make this an issue.

And they got their asses kicked as a result.

You can try to blame Obama, but he can not make the congress do whatever he wants. The Dem congress ran away, and they left Obama to deal with their cowardice.

[kentuck]

35. But he was the leader of our Party...

He should have led. But that is water under the bridge. We shall see where we go from here.

[JoePhilly]

36. Very weak response.

Unless you can explain how to get the votes you, as President, would act.

You can arm chair all you want. What you can not do, is find the votes.

Claiming that he needed to "lead" are LAME. Because what you want is for him to FORCE.

In every issue you and I discussed today, you have been unable and / or unwilling to explain how you as President would get the votes needed.

Sure ... it is easy to claim that Obama should have found those votes ... but YOU can't explain where they are ... not on a single issue we've discussed.

All or nothing.

[kentuck]

37. I have been consistent...

I'm not just "arm chairing" today.

Obviously, no answers or arguments will please you. You are with the President on every issue, it appears? That is your prerogative.

[Bandit]

29. Obama and the Democrats could have very easily allowed the tax cuts to expire

and right before they did submit a Bill lowering tax rates for those making under two hundred thousand dollars and let Republicans block that bill.. It would have taken all the wind out of their sails but of course that did not happen and Democrats allowed Republicans to hold Unemployment Insurance Hostage. Republicans will find another VITAL Democratic program to hold hostage when that time comes as well.. Democrats and Obama were just out played and apparently Repulbicans can do that any time they wish... Obama has surrender down pat..

[MilesColtrane]

15. I suspect Obama's tax package also serves the purpose of...

forcing the GOP/Teabaggers into backing away from their deficit-reduction-at-all-costs rhetoric.

It's pretty plain to see that raising taxes will reduce the deficit. Even the casual voter can see that, and can draw his own conclusions about a party that trumpets reducing the debt as paramount, while refusing to raise taxes to do it.

[Auntie Bush]

27. Those special 12 senators will decide if there is a rise in taxes...not Boehner.

[kentuck]

28. And the President has said he will veto it if there are no tax increases....

But he didn't say exactly how much in tax increases?

[Auntie Bush]

33. I hope he lives up to that promise.

I forgot he said that. He needs to say it more often...every time he gives a speech...maybe build it into his stump speech.

[DrunkenBoat]

39. yes. On another thread, someone said David Cay Johnson said it was about 1%.

A pittance.

[applegrove]

38. And Obama hopes to win back the house by fighting an election on fair taxes.

[DrunkenBoat]

40. I don't trust stuff that happens for elections. If he cared about it he'd have done it before

election time.

If it's just for the election, whatever happens in the end is going to be a big fucking disappointment.


That's why -- after 2 1/2 years -- we suddenly see an outburst of "fighting for jobs" and, now, a call to raise taxes on the rich. He does that precisely because everyone -- especially the rich -- knows it will not and cannot happen. We're now formally in (re-)election season, so it's time again to haul out the progressive music. Some Democrats are honest and cynical enough to acknowledge that Obama is doing all these things purely for political gain and -- because his re-election is their top priority -- to celebrate it even while acknowledging it will never become reality (see here and here as examples).

From that perspective, I suppose having him give speeches where he advocates for jobs and taxes on the rich is preferable to his endorsing austerity and Reaganomics as he had been doing for months But whatever else is true, none of this presages an actual change in how the government functions or, especially, on whose behalf it labors. That's precisely why he feels free to advocate such things without alienating his funding base. It's still the government of Tim Geithner and his bosses/owners; election season (combined with rising elite fear of social unrest) just requires a bit more pretense to obscure that fact.