Why now ??

[kentuck]

Why propose tax increases on the wealthy, capital gains taxes, etc, and taxcuts for the "middle class", when there is no political possibility of passing any of them? Does it seem to be 6 years late? Why do Democrats propose such a liberal agenda when it is least possible to pass it? Doesn't it leave a bad taste in your mouth? Or are you one who believes it was never possible up to now?

[NightWatcher]

1. I wanted to give you all a JetSki, but those pesky repubs said No.

Oh well, I tried, right.

[kentuck]

2. We can pretend...

...I suppose?

[CrispyQ]

3. To sucker us into voting for them in 2016.

If they win it will be business as usual. If they lose they will blame the left. Again.

[TBF]

13. ^ This. nt

[Scuba]

15. Eggzaklee!

[RKP5637]

26. Yep, exactly! Better late than never, but 6 years late? n/t

[bemildred]

32. +1. Totally SOP. nt

[Jamastiene]

62. Exactly.

It is performance art. They can get just enough dumb asses to believe they are for real, while the rest of us see right through them. Once the blinders are off, there is no putting them back on.

[Jackpine Radical]

4. I've been puzzling about that myself. A lot.

The only thing that makes sense to me is if they're actually trying to ignite some sort of populist political uprising, switch the conversation onto the classic liberal agenda as part of the run-up to 2016…?

Maybe they're sorta test-driving some potential issues for 206?

I don't think Obama is particularly fond of Hillary & pretty much said that the next Dem candidate needs "that new car smell," which in his opinion Hillary doesn't have.

So who the fuck really knows what's going on?

[frazzled]

5. He asked for letting Bush tax cuts on wealthy expire in 2009, 10, 11, 12 ...

and it was repeatedly denied in Congress. Google it; he campaigned on raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans ($250K for a family and $200K for an individual) and requested it each year. But the Bush tax cuts kept getting extended after 2010. Finally, in 2012, he got them "expired," but had to compromise by setting the tax hike only on incomes over $450,000 for a family and $400,000 for an individual (far higher than the $250K and $200K he'd wanted).

A law passed just before 11 p.m. on Jan. 1, 2013, permanently raised rates on families making more than $450,000 and $400,000 for individuals. It's a higher income threshold than Obama sought, but it accomplishes his philosophical goal of asking the wealthy to pay more.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/38/repeal-the-bush-tax-cuts-for-higher-incomes/

Maybe you weren't listening the last 6 or 7 years? Because I heard him ask for it many, many times. Now he's going for more, with capital gains and more tax hikes.

[MohRokTah]

19. But recognizing the facts means that we can't whine about Obama!

Whatever will we do?

[Recursion]

51. Every. Single. Year.

This board really gets silly sometimes.

[Tatiana]

6. I kinda think there is a small populist uprising going on.

I do think the Democrats left in leadership positions feel some pressure from Elizabeth Warren regarding the vast economic gap that exists between the rich and working class/poor. It's a way of throwing us a bone, but it's also an acknowledgement that we need to start have some honest conversations and developing real strategies to save the poor and working class.

However, to answer your question, these proposals are coming forth now mainly because they have no chance of being implemented under the current Congress. The wealthy class is safe.

[RiverLover]

10. ^^^this^^^

Well said.

[upaloopa]

7. It sets up the argument for 2016.

I thought we wanted a progressive agenda in place by 2016. Think of everything we can propose and let the repubs shoot them down. Why turn the discussion over to what they want to talk about for the next couple of years?

[Scuba]

16. So what was wrong with, say, June 2009?

[MohRokTah]

20. He tried. Congress said no.

Specifically, the GOP minority with enough members to filibuster said no.

[Scuba]

21. In June, 2009 Dems had 60 seats in the Senate.

[MohRokTah]

22. Nope, 59.

Franken wasn't sworn in until July 7, 2009.

And, if you recall, Kennedy was very ill and was only concerned with health care.

There were fewer than 30 legislative days in 2009 where there was a filibuster proof majority in the Senate.

Then, by January of 2010, Scott Brown took over Kennedy's seat.

[Scuba]

23. OK, so why not July 8th then?????

Why didn't the Dems take advantage of their majority when they had it?

[MohRokTah]

24. Again, Ted Kennedy was extremely ill and wanted health care worked on.

KEnnedy's time to devote to causes was extremely limited. The man had brain cancer for God's sake and he would die on August 28!

[Scuba]

25. And the healthcare bill we got was written by the Heritage Foundation, for Christ's sakes!

Fact is, even when Dems had a super-majority we still got nothing but crumbs.

[MohRokTah]

27. And Dem's super-majority included Blue Dogs.

So go back and read what actually happened.

You cannot have an ultra progressive Dem Caucus in the Senate that is filibuster proof. There just are not enough states where a true progressive can win a statewide election.

[Scuba]

30. Blue dogs, and a whole bunch of other Dems who carry water for Wall Street.

[JaneyVee]

35. To be fair, Dems never really had a super-majority...

[Scuba]

45. To be fair, they did, from the time Franken was seated until Ted Kennedy died.

It was a small window, yes, but a window of opportunity in which nada got done.

[upaloopa]

64. Anybody can play coulda shoulda woulda

all day

We live in the here and now

[NanceGreggs]

8. Obama just threw the "help the middle class" ball ...

... into the Republican's court.

And he will continue to do so. The Repubs will be forced to spend the next two years - two years leading up to the next presidential election - coming up with excuses as to why the middle class isn't deserving of any tax breaks, while the wealthiest individuals and corporations are.

How do you think that RW "reasoning" will sit with middle class voters?

There isn't a Repub contender for the presidency who will not have to defend his party's support of the 1% to the detriment of the 99% for the next two years.

No doubt the "multi-dimensional chess" contingent will be along any minute with their usual whinging. Its not a complicated strategy - it's simple common sense. The GOP have been put on the defensive - and now have no other option than to support the wealthiest Americans OR to support the middle class workers.

Rock and a hard place - with no wiggle room. Well played, Mr. President. Very well played.

[FSogol]

9. +1 n/t

[Scuba]

17. Why didn't he do this in June, 2009? Then Dems could blame the R's for trying to repeal it.

[ann---]

29. Exactly

[NanceGreggs]

33. Please check off the appropriate complaint ...

... with regard to Obama's most recent action/speech/proposal:

( ) Too much, too soon.
( ) Too little, too late.
( ) Rousing speech, but where is the bold action behind it?
( ) Bold action, but where is the rousing speech behind it?
( ) Where is the "change" I voted for?
( ) I see change, but it's NOT the change I wanted.
( ) Why didn't Obama do THIS instead of that?
( ) Why did Obama do THAT instead of this?
( ) Why has Obama spent six years in office doing nothing?
( ) Why has Obama spent six years in office doing everything - except what I wanted done?
( ) Why does Obama rely on experienced consultants for advice when he could just read my DU posts?
( ) Why does the President insist on governing for the betterment of ALL Americans, when he should just be concerned with the betterment of his own party members?
( ) When will Obama stop "caving" and start doing things that are unethical, illegal, unConstitutional, and/or beyond the powers of his office?
( ) Other (restricted to 25,000 outraged words or less)

Thank you for your time.

[sheshe2]

38. ...

[Bobbie Jo]

39. Perfect.

Now there's a real time saver.

I mean how many versions of the same post can one possibly crank out day after day.

Nice.

[Scuba]

44. I guess you're OK with Dems deregulating derivatives and allowing more dark money in elections ...

... while doing nada for the people when they had a super-majority in Congress and a Dem in the White House.


I'm not.

[NanceGreggs]

66. Please feel free to use ...

... the Typical DU Response form - it's fast and easy!

( ) "I guess you're okay with ..."
( ) "So what you really mean is ..."
( ) "The facts are what I say they are ..."
( ) "Don't tell me to STFU!"
( ) "Welcome to IGNORE!"

We see you have already chosen one of the most popular options:

(x) "Well, yeah, but what about (insert change of subject here) ..."

[Recursion]

48. He did (nt)

[Scuba]

49. Why, during the time between when Franken was seated and before Kennedy died, when the Dems ...

... had a super-majority, did we get nothing but the Heritage Foundation's health care plan?

Why did Bush, who had fewer Republicans in Congress than Obama did, get everything he wanted?

[Recursion]

50. Baucus and Lieberman, mostly

Why did Bush, who had fewer Republicans in Congress than Obama did, get everything he wanted?

He didn't.

Social Security privatization died on the starting blocks. Immigration reform died. His tax cut was passed by the same reconciliation trick that ACA was, which is why Obama could undo some of it in 2013 (and W was accused of caving by conservatives at the time). The only big initiatives W got after Iraq were Medicare Part D and NCLB, traditionally Democratic priorities (which both enraged conservative activists). That is to say, he had to triangulate to do anything.

But, I still want to get to your original question: Obama did call for this in 2009, and you didn't notice.

[Scuba]

53. Excuses, instead of progressive legislation, yet some here think that's just fine.

[Recursion]

55. You asked

He has a rather more effective legislative history than GWB. 2009-2010 were the most productive Congress since WWII.

[Scuba]

58. Sure, if you count a right-wing healthcare plan.

Face it, we got screwn, again.

Many Dems in Congress are as corrupt as the Republicans.

[panader0]

18. yes

[Raine1967]

37. yup. eom.

[Ykcutnek]

11. It's called strategy.

And it's a damn good one.

Politics is about way more than checking off items on a to-do list.

[rurallib]

12. agree - I think he is drawing some lines for the 2016 election

The clowns in the clown car will have to run around stating they want to save the rich from tax cuts and our kids from the scourge of education.
Add those to the hard and harder lines they will have to take on immigration and minimum wage. It should make the Republican primary look like a race to 1900 while hopefully the democratic candidate will pick up the issues from Obama.

[Blanks]

14. I hope he uses the 'bully pulpit'...

Which is all that's left, to explain that this is the only way we are going to reduce the debt.

Republicans have been calling all of this 'middle east war' debt 'Obama debt'. For the president to bring up the issue, even though he doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of passing anything is a way of bringing the issue to the forefront.

The Bush tax cuts were not eliminated early on in his administration for fears of the negative economic impact (which he talked about at the time), but the wars are over, the economy is stable, and it's time to talk seriously about the debt. Raise taxes, cut defense spending, get back on track. It's time to talk about what has worked in the past, and that is the taxes that he is proposing.

[ann---]

28. It's all

for show. He knows it won't pass but he wants the attempt to be part of his "legacy." Lame.

[Scuba]

31. Kabuki theater.

[Recursion]

52. Was it Kabuki theater when Obama called for it in 2009? 2010? 2011? 2012?

You get the idea...

[Scuba]

54. Yes.

Why didn't Dems stonewall the Bush tax cuts?

[Recursion]

56. We did. That's why it required reconciliation to pass

And that's why it could be undone in 2013.

[Scuba]

59. Why were they even passed? Why didn't Dems block them like the R's block anything that'll help us?

[Recursion]

60. Same reason the GOP couldn't block ACA. Reconciliation (nt)

[Scuba]

61. Wrong. We didn't even try. And the ACA passed with zero Repub votes.

[NanceGreggs]

40. Yeah, good thinking.

Because Obama has thus far achieved absolutely nothing that will stand as his "legacy" in future.

Unless, of course, you count all of his many accomplishments - which some people still pretend never happened.

[Recursion]

57. Lilly Ledbetter and DADT repeal aren't "populist", I guess (nt)

[Raine1967]

34. I thought he proposed this in 2009.

I don't recall it getting passed.

So why not now?

[Recursion]

47. Yeah, crazy, isn't it? To DU, 2009-2010 never happened

[Raine1967]

36. Why not now? The Dems couldn't deliver this in 2009, when Obama asked for it.

He did ask for all of this, the rest of the party could not deliver.

So why not now when there is nothing to lose?

[840high]

41. empty words. All for show.

[kentuck]

42. Right-wingers might say it is already happening?

The increase in capital gains taxes and increased taxes on the top 1% are built into the continuation of the ACA. I heard this on talk radio the other day. Does anyone know if there is any truth to it??

If not, I would say it is real tasty fodder for the sheep in the next election cycle? What are the odds of any of it ever getting passed?

[whatchamacallit]

43. Window dressing to ease the pain of the TPP

Talk is all.

[KoKo]

65. Not to be a cynic...but, that thought occurred...sadly.

TPP and TPIP along with the ACA and saving Wall Street would be the crown achievements of his Presidency leaving the wars/interventions bringing "Freedom & Democracy to the World" to another President to deal with.

Most Americans seem to be fine with endless war and supporting dislocation, death and destruction to millions in the Middle East who were in the wrong place at the wrong time when "9/11" happened and weren't aware that the roll out of the neocon written "Project for the New American Century" would kick in shortly afterward.

[Recursion]

46. Why do you ignore that he did this 6 years ago?

Seriously. DU's ADHD is astounding sometimes.

[Bobbie Jo]

63. This thread is hilarious. nt

[abakan]

67. Just another "Pie in the Sky"

Feel good cynical fake out that has as much chance of making a difference as he has of being reelected. He is expecting you to swallow one more time.

[markpkessinger]

68. +1

Indeed!

[madokie]

69. I'm all for it at anytime they can try