This is quite an amazing time, indeed. Members of DU willing to kill a bill that extends

[ncteechur]

unemployment benefits and offers tax relief to the middle class because they can't stand that the rich get something too. And the republicans are willing to kill a bill that extends unemployment benefits and offers middle class tax cuts because the rich would not get something too. Either way the unemployed get screwed, middle class taxpayers get screwed. And President Obama is hated by the left and the right.

The right hates him because they have no principles and they could care less about regular people. The left hates him because they seem all too willing to put principles ahead of people. Folks cannot feed their families with principles. And every FUCKING one of the legislators in DC, right and left, have jobs, yet are willing to gamble the little bit of tax relief and unemployment money that a lot of people may get. And that is a big gamble with some other folks' very survival.

Unbelievable.

And some here believe that the republicans will bring benefits or tax cuts for the middle class back up to a vote in the new congress? Are you kidding? Why would they do that? Because they are afraid of not being elected? Yeah, that was a dismal failure for them in November by blocking every single piece of legislation that the House passed. Yeah, they are afraid alright. That the Senate can just do away with the filibuster and then pass everything we ever wanted? So what happens if the republicans get control of the senate. Eventually, it will happen. Think of a republican house and a republican senate without a filibuster, and a republican president? What kinds of outrageous legislation would we see? What current legislation would be repealed? Sounds familiar doesn't it (and that was with the filibuster)? Think of the new wars that we could start. North Korea, Iran, etc. Do you not understand that the filibuster is meant to protect the minority from the absolute will of the majority?

Some here need to go back and read their high school Civics book. Seems like few here have done so in a long time.

[stevenleser]

1. There you go throwing facts and reality at people. I am sure you will be punished for it

in 3...2..1..

:popcorn:

[Doremus]

38. If you want facts and reality why don't you offer some?

Obama and the repukes are giving us our own seed corn to eat while blowing rainbows out their ass. Pretending that offering Social Security on a silver platter to those who fantasize daily about killing it is somehow going to help average Americans is neither factual nor reality.

[stevenleser]

100. I'm happy with the job the OP did, but thanks for trying to tell me what I should do n/t

[elizm]

2. Well said! nt

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Duer 157099]

4. So in your world, giving in to terrorists is the correct strategy?

It doesn't just encourage more aggressive terrorism?

[Bluerthanblue]

22. sometimes it is. Just as Pres.Obama said. He pointed out the unreasonable

position that the republicans put the country in, but instead of us jumping on that meme, and wave the republican holy grail in the public's face, we've chosen to grandstand and bloviate.

In the end, what happens to those who stand to lose what little they have?

[Whisp]

54. the publics face is owned by media, and they are not on our side.

why can't people understand this?

there is no message system for the Dems like there is for the Pugs. You can complain all you want that Obama and the Dems aren't 'messaging' well enough, but it's the corporations (that you hate, remember?) that will not air those messages.

whats to be done? skywriting? carrier pidgeon? the media is owned by the people that want to keep the tax cuts for the wealthy and keep on warring on and selling their bombs.

please. lets at least come to an agreement that the media is biased towards the Pugs and rarely give equal time to Dems.

[dkf]

68. You don't think we had enough media this election when we accused the Republicans of being for the

Rich?

There was lots of media...it's the people who don't care.

[ZombieHorde]

50. Not negotiating with terrorists has yet to work. nt

[Hippo_Tron]

90. Sometimes you have to in order to save lives

Yes it's generally a good policy not to negotiate with terrorists because it might embolden them to keep trying it. But if they hold the cards and there are no other good options then you might have to.

[littlewolf]

5. and gives a club to the GOP in 2012 .... your taxes went up ... you lost UI .... etc etc

so that MORE senators and house members go away ...
cutting ones nose off to spite ones face ...

[Donnachaidh]

6. as opposed to the *your taxes WIIL go up* club he is giving them now?

Gee -- decisions, decision.... :sarcasm:

:rofl:

[Jackpine Radical]

7. There are so many things wrong with this bill it's like

being called anti-poor for stopping someone from eating a poisoned bread crust.

[CakeGrrl]

8. k/r for a reality-based perspective outside the bubble.

What I can't believe is that this "logic" that playing showdown with the Republicans will actually get them to budge, when they are poised and ready to do their damage in January.

:wtf:

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Union Scribe]

42. Oh look the word of the day.

"Did someone say bubble?"

[CakeGrrl]

70. I most certainly did!

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

17. For Forty Percent Of The Uninsured Unemployment Insurance Represents Ninety Percnent Of Their Income

And can you please cite an economist, left, right, or center who says the compromise will raise unemployment.

Thank you.

[brentspeak]

31. It will provide a miniscule boost for a short time

Like maybe a http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/12/economists-say-tax-cut-deal-wont-dramatically-stimulate-the-economy.php">a year's worth reduction of the unemployment rate by a measly 3-to-4 tenths of a percentage point. And most of that tiny stimulus will be due to something that will come at great cost: a "temporary" payroll tax holiday that will eventually lead to Social Security's dismantling.

But then the job-sucking tax cuts for the rich will still be in place.

So what changed?

[brentspeak]

10. s/del dupe

[Milo_Bloom]

11. *SIGH*

[jobycom]

12. Takes more than a civics book to get things done.

The Republicans will still extend the tax cuts because they don't want to be the ones who blocked them. Those aren't in jeopardy. The unemployment benefits will be extended in some other compromise--the Republicans claim they don't want that, but they understand the necessity, and will simply use it as a bargaining chip.

The problem with extending the tax cuts on the highest income bracket isn't one of jealousy or pouting, or whatever you are implying. It is a question of further devaluing the American dollar, which is based on the value of the government. Any benefits from the bill would be lost by the tax cuts that devalue the dollars people get from the benefits.

The Republicans love this bill, because if the economy improves, they'll say it was the tax cuts, and if it fails, they will blame Obama's spending. It's no-lose for them. It's no-win for Obama, because it's too much what the Republicans dictated, meaning if it succeeds (and it won't) the Republicans will get the credit, and if it fails Obama will get the blame.

The biggest flaw in the compromise from Obama's standpoint, though, is that it cuts the feet from under the Dems in Congress. If Obama stuck to his pledge to oppose the tax cuts on high incomes, then Congress would have some power to negotiate. But he took that power from the Dems, and made them a rubber stamp to him.

So the opposition from the Democrats in Congress is much less about fighting Obama or stopping the tax cuts. It's about telling Obama they won't be his rubber stamp, and that they are still relevant. It's a message to the Republicans as much as to Obama. If they lose this battle, then they will be ignored by the Republicans, and by Obama, and all the horrors of a Republican administration will come through.

The rich throughout history in every economic system (including communist) have forced the poor to give them more, in exchange for some crumbs. That's what this is, too. They will give the poor some scraps, and take their future in exchange. That's how feudalism works. The first step of change is saying we won't take it anymore. That's what Sanders is saying.

[ncteechur]

71. Um, Jim Bunting already blocked UI one time. They don't care about UI or being unpopular.

They are as unpopular as ever and they won in November. Why do you say President Obama undercut House dems when they could have taken this issue up much sooner but didn't. They waited until the eleventh hour hoping to avoid losing the House. Well that didn't work out so well. The problem is that you need 60 votes in the senate to get anything done and we don't have them. Period. We did not have them for single payer, we don't have them for this. We NEVER did. You can blame Obama or Ben Nelson or Joe Lieberman or anyone else. It really doesn't matter. It is all about counting votes. You can have all 435 seats in the House and unless you have 60 in the senate or at least an opposition that is willing to compromise, you cannot get anything done. The president can't sign nor veto what doesn't get to his desk.

It is not capitulation. It is getting what you can get when you can get it. Ugly sometimes but that is what it is. Do you think anyone on the hill could have gotten a better deal? No one could. Mitch McConnell doesn't have to be smart or good looking. He only has to count to 41.

[struggle4progress]

13. Meh. It's just the usual wedge-driving by keyboard commandos

[Bluerthanblue]

15. hard words, but true-

I imagine you are going to get clobbered for them.

But thanks for speaking up.

[high density]

16. Yes, damn members of DU for not liking Bush tax policy. NM

[Bluerthanblue]

18. I don't believe the OP said anything about "liking" -

Pres.Obama himself said he didn't LIKE or want to extend tax cuts for the wealthy.

Is this all you have to offer?

[high density]

25. Obama says he doesn't like it...

Yet he's going to sign it. So, to me, what he says about it isn't worth much of anything. He is still ultimately endorsing the GOP's utterly failed ideas of tax cuts equal jobs and raising taxes on the most wealthy would somehow make the economy worse off than it is. He certainly owns it now.

[Bluerthanblue]

27. you seem to think this is a dictatorship. It isn't. I don't understand

what kind of a magic wand some people think Pres. Obama has that he is simply choosing not to use.

:shrug:

[high density]

30. What?

I am quite frustrated that my party held the Senate, House, and White House for the past two years and now in the twilight hours of this we are once again rolling over to the GOP. We've known these tax cuts have been expiring for a while now and the Democrats just let the issue slide until the absolute last minute. It is absolutely absurd.

[Bluerthanblue]

37. I think the Pres. is pretty frustrated by this too- but what is he to do?

The house and senate didn't do anything of substance until Pres. Obama had worked out a deal. Why did THEY wait around?
Where was the frustration and outrage from many of the loud voices I'm hearing today before this?

It IS absurd that it has come down to this, but this is where we are.

What do we do now? There isn't a good answer- is the answer to just let the republicans have their way entirely?

Come Jan. things get even harder with the seating of new republicans.

[girl gone mad]

19. It's a bad deal..

and it's massively fiscally irresponsible.

http://baselinescenario.com/2010/12/09/8372/

But our “fiscal space” is limited – we cannot afford to blithely increase our national debt. It can be done – and should be done given the parlous state of our economy and our disastrously high unemployment levels. But it must be done carefully, so we get as much stimulative effect on jobs as possible for our debt-increase dollars.

Cutting taxes for the very rich is an ineffective way to stimulate the economy in the short term (for a detailed discussion, see this post by my colleague James Kwak). On this there is widespread agreement, including from the pages of The Wall Street Journal, where Robert Frank, a careful student of the rich and famous (and editor of The Journal’s Wealth Report and author of “Richistan”), said: “When I ask wealthy business owners and entrepreneurs why they’re not hiring, they rarely mention taxes. They say consumer demand. And jobs.”

Three much more effective ways to support consumer demand and jobs would be:

Really extend unemployment benefits. There is nothing in the proposal on the table that will help people who have already been unemployed for 99 weeks – see this explanation from Nevada.

Go Bernie.

[sudopod]

20. eating your seed corn is a bad idea. nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

23. Where Did This Fetishization Of The Deficit Come From?

It's replaced the fear of communism as the boogeyman that lurks just beyond the proverbial door. The deficit is the result of a sick economy with it concomitant decrease in tax receipts , not its cause...

Why didn't people complain about the deficit when Obama's nearly one trillion dollar stimulus package was announced...

[sudopod]

29. Who knows? It's silly isn't it?

BTW:

by seed corn I mean cutting taxes for the rich and reducing Social Security pay-ins for short-term gains.

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

60. Critics around here will take anyones argument and try to use it. Lot's of Ron Paul

shit around here lately. The "budget hawks" are also humorous.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

62. This Recession Has Cost The Economy Two Trillion Dollars In Aggregate Demand

The tax receipts on that missing revenue would have sure helped to lessen the deficit.

[ncteechur]

97. so is eating your own or screwing some of our most vulnerable to screw the other side.

[Whisp]

21. please don't count me in that selfish group

they care about what this means to so many people, or do they care they just get their shots in to puff up and feel self righteous?

Democracy to Utopia in One Easy Step (and under 2 months). one of them here should write that book, because I can't follow.

[ljm2002]

24. "because they can't stand that the rich get something too"...

...utter hogwash.

Speaking for myself, I oppose this bill because it is bad policy and it will cost us more in the long run. The biggest impact on the deficit is the increase due to extending those tax cuts for the rich. It also ties Social Security directly to the deficit for the first time ever. It extends unemployment insurance for 1 year but it extends the tax cuts for 2 years. It paves the way for Republicans to keep the payroll tax holiday after it expires in one year, further weakening Social Security.

Unrec for unfair argument, assigning motives and framing that is right out of the right wing playbook.

[democrat2thecore]

40. Absolutely. And why not fight and put the Republicans on record

for opposing middle class tax cuts and cutting unemployment benefits 2 weeks before Christmas just because they wanted their rich friends to get more and more and more? Where's the fight?

[ncteechur]

59. They are already on the record. They have been on the record and the STILL won in November.

Jim Bunting completely stopped unemployment benefits as a stand alone extension and didn't give a DAMN about it. And a compromise is what shook it loose.

[sabrina 1]

95. They won because Democrats didn't fight. So, a lot of people

especially Independents, did not vote for Democrats last time, because all we hear from them, as in this OP, is excuses. They had the majority and could get nothing done. The Excuse??? The MINORITY was too powerful.

So, by that logic, if in this country the Minority is MORE powerful than the Majority, starting in January, we will be hearing the Republicans saying THEY can't get anything done. Why? Because the MINORITY is too powerful.

I expect to see a complete reverse of what has been going on now. I mean, if you are always going to make that excuse, the minority rules, then things should get better starting in Jan. since we are finally in a position of power. WE ARE IN THE MINORITY! YAY! We rule!

Such unmitigated nonsense! We didn't get things done because the WH did not fight and they did not fight because they preferred to negotiate with the people who hate them the most for some reason.

Nancy Pelosi went to the WH twice before the election. Democrats told this WH that they did not like having to vote for some of the things they voted for, but did it anyhow and were about to pay for it in the election.

What does that tell you? That we DID have the votes, but the WH twisted arms when they WANTED TO. Now, Democrats see how foolish that was, that they should have stood up to this WH all along as they lost the Independent vote and the younger Democrats who stayed home, disillusioned by the caving to Republicans. That is a fact, that's how politics work. People vote FOR something when they believe in it, when they lose faith, canididates lose.

NOW, finally, Democrats in Congress are revolting against this WH. Even they have had enough. But it's probably too late. The deals have already been made which is why they were not dealt BEFORE the election when people could vote based on how their candidates voted on them. Iow, once again the WH protected Republicans from the wrath of the people and held up issues like DADT, Bush Tax Cuts and SS cuts until Republicans were safe. Those are all winning issues for Democrats. So, why again were they held until after the elections? Can anyone explain that?

[ncteechur]

61. Then why extend unemployment or give the middle a tax cut period. All dems are in favor of that.

But that is completely budget neutral??

The compromise of raising the cap from 250K to 1 million? was that budget neutral?

Adding to the deficit is not the problem at the moment--those are the GOP talking points that the left has now adopted.

This is the second stimulus--maybe not in the form we wanted but many of us, including Paul Krugman, wanted it.

[ljm2002]

99. Why extend unemployment?

Start with the fact that we have historically ALWAYS extended unemployment benefits when the unemployment rates were as high as they are today. This should never have been hooked together with tax policy in the first place.

As for the middle class tax cut, I would be willing to forego it, but others may not be. In any case, the so-called "middle class tax cut" really applies to EVERYONE. 100% of those who pay income tax, would get the cut, including the rich and the super rich. They just have to pay higher marginal rates on the rest of their income. And there's the rub: if we extend the existing tax cuts to those who make over $250,000 in one year, that costs $700 billion over two years. That is a big chunk of change, and it goes to people who DON'T NEED IT and who WON'T SPEND IT. So the cost to the deficit is huge and the stimulative effect on the economy is NIL.

No the compromise of raising the cap from 250K to 1 million is not budget neutral and I don't like it. But it's better than no cap at all. And I notice you don't even mention the worst aspect of this agreement, the payroll tax holiday, which for the FIRST TIME EVER ties Social Security funding to the general fund, thus laying the groundwork for future attacks on the Social Security program.

This is no second stimulus, it is a disaster.

[FrenchieCat]

26. Yep. Retribution and making someone pay is key.....

everything else doesn't matter to too many.

Sad.....

That's the Bush mentality...which is how we ended up in the wars that we are fighting.
Someone wanted to get "even".

I'm starting to believe that this is what this country is about,
and everything else that is claimed as being important by
Liberals and conservatives both is a big ass bunch of bullshit.

[Bluerthanblue]

33. It is sad.

It's hard to read DU and not lose all hope these days.

If it bleeds it leads is something I expect from msm.

It's getting pretty toxic.

[unapatriciated]

55. It has nothing to do with getting even, it's about stopping the erosion of....

the safety net for our poor and working class, our infrastructure and the devastating effects this bill will have on future funding of SS.

We can and should work for a better bill.

http://www.c-span.org/Watch/Media/2010/12/10/HP/A/41746/Congressional+Black+Caucus+Press+Conference+on+Tax+Cuts+Unemployment+Insurance.aspx

[Pirate Smile]

74. A better bill isn't coming. A worse one will. They will probably tack on something so the House

Dems can try to save face but this is the bill or it will be worse.

It has been amazing the number of people who seem willing to throw away the UI and Unearned Tax Credits, Middle-Class tax cuts, etc. for ... nothing. People here now seem to be arguing FOR austerity instead of giving anything to the top 2%. I don't want the top 2% to get anything but I know that if this fails that they are NOT the ones who will be hurt.

[elocs]

28. I wonder how many of the unemployed whose benefits will run out would favor killing the bill?

I wonder how many here who favor the bill be killed have jobs?

It's easy to call for others to be left out in the cold when you are sitting warm and cozy.

[high density]

32. Ask the Republicans why they support the rich over the poor.

I think your hypothetical is focused at the wrong audience.

[Bluerthanblue]

39. this was Pres.Obama's talking point at the press conference, but

it seems like no one was listening.

[elocs]

53. The way it stands it's 6 of one, half a dozen of the other.

Do Republicans ever even claim to care about people? Democrats claim that and even if somebody favors killing the bill I wouldn't get too self righteous about it if they have jobs.

My focus is on the audience right here at DU, where I am posting.

[CakeGrrl]

35. Exactly. I doubt that any of those who say "let them expire" have rent or food depending

on this outcome.

[EFerrari]

41. Most unemployed people don't have UI. n/t

[CakeGrrl]

45. So hey, let 'em ALL swing while we play political football?

Or get something through that will actually make it through both houses of Congress?

[EFerrari]

48. It's not "political football" to stop the sucking dry of our economy

by tax cuts for the rich we can't afford. Ending them may be the only hope millions of us have for job creation. Not to mention, the bill starts Social Security on the road to privatization.

You couldn't be more wrong. It's better that NOTHING passes than this latest Obama giveaway.

[CakeGrrl]

69. Spoken like someone who can pay their bills.

So, pass nothing and wait for sunshine and rainbows to come from Speaker Boehner and the House Republican majority come January.

Yeah.

[EFerrari]

87. Again, you couldn't be more wrong. I can't pay my bills

and I would like to have a job sometime before I hit 65.

Yeah.

[elocs]

51. I know. I'm unemployed and I don't, but I wonder about those affected by this bill

and how they feel about having it killed.

[EFerrari]

86. It's a no-win situation. If they get their UI

then the trade off (as it stands now) is little job creation in a bad economy.

[ellie]

34. No kidding

It is amazing.

[apocalypsehow]

36. Kick, Rec. It's amazing how the smugness just drips through the keyboards of those who, as you say,

don't seem to realize that "Folks cannot feed their families with principles". That deserves to be repeated over & over & over again.

Excellent OP. :thumbsup:

[stray cat]

43. I favor letting the tax cuts expire and preventing cuts that cost jobs

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CakeGrrl]

75. "The GDP"?

I find it baffling how myopic some of the "Obama is a failure" group can be. And how naive to think that the Republicans will just 'do the right thing' if the President basically just sits there and lets things just run out.

And how naive to forget that the Republicans have the MSM on their side for the PR boost.

[niceypoo]

46. The bill harms the unemployed

Two more years of Bush supply side tax cuts means they will be unemployed for two additional years. The tax cutting caused this whole mess to begin with.

Recovery will not start until the Bush tax cuts die.

[elizm]

58. Don't know if you are an economist or not....

But the huge stimulus compromise Obama was able to get will CREATE jobs, according to experts.

[OhioBlue]

77. I agree with the compromise but I see his point...

the lowered capital gains rates extended for 2 years means people - especially venture capitalists extract as much as they can from business for the next 2 years before the rates go up (if they do). That means less reinvestment in the business which means less job creation.

But... you have a point too... not raising taxes on the middle/working class means more spending than if the rates had been raised which does have a stimulus affect as well as the accelerated depreciation.

IMHO - best case scenario for jobs here would have been to keep the middle class tax cuts, pass the accelerated depreciation and raise the capital gains rates and make them permanent.

[Pistarkle]

47. Right On!

I hate the thought of having to compromise on the tax cuts, but no compromise is only in your corner when YOU have the upper hand. 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.

Because of the midterm results, Republicans will be in charge of the House and the 60 vote filibuster-proof Senate on the side of Democrats will be out the door come January 1st. At least now a compromise will benefit the middle class, the poor, and the unemployed and small businesses with the extension of unemployment benefits, tax cuts for the middle class, payroll tax cuts, and incentives for small businesses to create jobs. It’s not the best of both worlds, but it’s better than nothing at all. After January 1st when the Republicans are in charge of the House, you can be guaranteed that those benefits will be ‘gone with the wind’.

WE criticized the President and Democrats when we didn’t get the public option but WE didn’t fight for it. We let the Tea Party and health insurance industry do ALL of the squawking and we didn’t start raising Cain until after the fact. WE must deliver the upper hand. WE must speak out in ONE voice. WE must shame the Republicans into ending those tax cuts THROUGHOUT the next two years. WE must hold local rallies. WE must fight for our rights in local AND national newspapers, internet, radio and media outlets. WE must email, fax and call Republican Congressional offices EVERY DAY. We must let Tea Party-backed Republicans know that if they continue to fight for the wealthy and ignore the middle class, the poor and the unemployed, WE WILL vote them out in 2012 and WE must mean it!

[Warren Stupidity]

49. Capitulationist thread number 274

yawn

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Warren Stupidity]

67. 'either'

you left out 'either':

"Well we see you have nothing intelligent to offer either, Warren."

Now we are in complete agreement.

[ncteechur]

73. Since your post consisted of yawn- my response was perfect just the way it was.

[unapatriciated]

52. Maybe some of us stand with Bernie and the CBC

or do they need a Civics Lesson?

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/SenateSession4656

http://www.c-span.org/Watch/Media/2010/12/10/HP/A/41746/Congressional+Black+Caucus+Press+Conference+on+Tax+Cuts+Unemployment+Insurance.aspx

[ncteechur]

63. Did Bernie (and I love Bernie) vote for the first stimulus?

How about the House dems? Nope, the repubs didn't though. Maybe they were the responsible ones then? Bullshit-I know. But why is it a problem for this money?


Why didn't the House take up this issue well before the election? President Obama didn't stop them.

[InvisibleTouch]

56. That's amazing to me too.

It's more important to me to see unemployment benefits preserved than to whine about how much money "the rich" have. It does me no harm to know that rich people are rich; I'm not part of that world, so why waste time and energy in jealousy? It *does* harm me when damage is done to people who can absolutely not afford to take the hit. It seems that this "compromise" protected the people that need it most.

[jtuck004]

94. Respectfully, if one listened to Senator Sanders it does not

protect the people that need it most.

It doesn't protect the woman who was covering her windows with plastic to try and keep what little heat they have.
It doesn't protect the woman who can't afford gas to go to the doctor or grocery.
There are tens of millions of people it won't "protect".

It will distribute about $60 billion for the unemployed, at a a few hundred a week for 99 weeks, at least part of which is taxable. Then it stops. On the other hand it gives 114 billion dollars to rich, and very, very wealthy people who will use it to take profits from the stock market and investments overseas, which will deny help to the job seekers, will cause a loss of some jobs. That will very likely be taxed at lower rates, if at all.

The short-term solution of dropping payroll taxes for a year is just that - a short-term solution with dire long-term consequences. It will deprive SSI of a year's worth of funding, which will be one more stake through its heart. Alan Simpson's black heart warms when he hears people talk about this, because the agenda for the right is to get rid of, cripple, or privatize every single regulation and program begun during the Depression.

Wherever it is spent it is very likely to wind up profiting companies outside this country, the ones who take jobs. Senator Sanders read several statements from companies, including the Chamber of Commerce, expressing their desire to move work wherever it was cheapest. So it is entirely possible that someone who is working today will be fired as a result of the spending of that money. And that helps no one.

The Tax incentives (humorously called the big stimulus) for business will do nothing except put money in the pockets of the owners of the business. DEMAND is the only thing that has ever caused business to hire, and there will be precious little demand as a result of this bill. Since Ronald Reagan and the Laughter Curve (Laffer Curve), the trickle-down folks have been trying to convince everyone that if you just build business up the benefits will just squirt every which way, and some of that will fall on the head of the worker.

It has never, EVER, worked that way. Instead, during the early years of the application of this theory the income inequality between the 2% that hold about 27% of all assets (today) increased by over a trillion dollars. At the same time, the deficit increased BY AN ALMOST IDENTICAL AMOUNT. It is nothing but a money transfer to the pocket of the wealthy, and the bill is left to be paid by you, me, all of us, and our children. And a quick look at the graph of worker's income will show you that those incomes have remained roughly flat ever since, while the privately held wealth of the top 20% have done nothing but increase.

There are several states which are in or sitting on the edge of bankruptcy. Part of this bill ends the Federal help they were getting, and will precipitate a crisis in public employees. Teachers, firefighters, police and others will, in fact, lose their jobs, property owners who have faced the loss of their jobs or reduction in hours will find a demand for higher property taxes to compensate for this, and it will increase the numbers of people on food stamps.

There is no single person I have ever communicated with on this board that doesn't want to help the unemployed. But there are 30 million of them, and this only helps 2 million, and then only one year at a time. Then it is over. A year from now there will be less jobs than there are today because of these very policies. And the Republicans will stop UI in its tracks.

The Democrats have been in office for two years. Unemployment is increasing, over 40 million people (a record) are on food stamps. We are very likely getting ready to enter another period of decreasing values in homes. There is nothing in that bill which is going to do much at all for anyone, which means conditions will very likely be somewhat worse in 2012.

If anyone thinks there is a Republican that doesn't know that, after watching the effects of those policies from 2000-2008, they are just not paying attention. They desperately want us to sign off on this bill. It will be their best hope for regaining the presidency in 2012.

Bernie Sanders tried to warn us before the financial crisis of what was to come, and as he said he was one lone no vote in a sea of yes's. He has been proven right time and time again. Short-term thinking is dangerous, and will hurt a lot more people than it helps.

[Jakes Progress]

57. Amazing all right. Members of DU willing to argue for a republican bill.

They come right out and tell us to get on board with john boehner, john mccain, jim inhofe, jim demint, and john cornyn.

They want us to support a bill that these asses want and that people like Nancy Pelosi and Bernie Sanders don't want. Sounds a little like RU.

[ncteechur]

64. There are plenty of parts that we dems want too. why do all bills have to be one sided?

Is extending unemployment republican?

Are middle class tax cuts republican?

Are education tax credits republican?


How about repealing DADT or passing START which the GOP senators have refused to advance unless they got tax cuts for those over 250K? Are they republican?


I know one thing, letting people lose the little bit of money they might get through this bill is definitely not democratic. I don't give a shit if he had to give the rich more money, if there are poor that got some because they desparately need it, then so be it.

All this late in the game bullshit about deficit spending is utter crap when we all say around and applauded the first stimulus.

[Jakes Progress]

93. Too surface thinking.

While you say you don't give a shit if the rich get $700 billion while the poor get pennies, you should look at why the republicans are so gleeful to give both. They will use that $700 billion added to the debt as another reason to curb all that wild Democratic spending like Social Security and Medicare. Please try try to understand that we are being, once again, set up. Our administration is following the trail of crumbs laid by the republicans that will lead us to ruin.

Have you ever played poker? If you start to raise and the guy across the table begins grinning, you should think again. Here we are about to grab what we think is a big old pile of social responsibility and the guy on the other side of the aisle is already crowing and back-slapping himself. Just look at the gleeful countenance on the faces of the asshats I mentioned. They can barely contain themselves with how happy they are about this. Their bluff worked and they are setting us up for the next hand.

[jenmito]

65. K&R up to 1. I've been posting similar posts all day. I can't believe what's going on! n/t

[Politicub]

72. It's not the extending of tax cuts that bothers me, its the Social Security contribution cut

Most of us get that the critical extension of unemployment benefits was pitted against making sure the beds of the rich were padded. I don't like it, but I can accept and understand it.

What I can not accept and that President Obama and the dems should have used more rhetoric against is reducing the payroll contribution for Social Security. If anything, the income ceiling should have been lifted. But just the opposite happened.

In truth we will all be forced to accept whatever deal comes to the President's desk and he signs. It's sad that the deal as reported initiates the insane RW wet dream of dismantling social security.

But I hope you can appreciate why the stealth Social Security bloodletting matters. It's heartbreaking.

And yes, I agree that principles won't put food in your mouth if you're unemployed and the extension is necessary. Maybe this deal is the best that President Obama could get, like you contend. But deal or no - he doesn't have to go along quietly.

[ncteechur]

76. I get your concern. Randi Rhodes explained the SS thing yesterday.

[OhioBlue]

79. I understand that.

I support the compromise because I think we have to do it now before the Repubs get control. We need to extend the middle class tax cuts, get UI extended and move on to the vote for DADT and hopefully DREAM and START b4 we have Speaker Boner.

But, I do wish the compromise didn't include the SS cut instead of the making work pay tax credit, the estate tax giveaway or the freezing of capital gains taxes. I support the President, but do think that he should have negotiated better on these issues.

[JamesA1102]

78. Don't confuse the demagogues with facts nt

[jefferson_dem]

80. This place has gotten all fucked up.

Sad, really.

[Jakes Progress]

98. I know. All these supposed Democrats

supporting a bill that all republicans and blue dogs want, that the most noble Democrats don't want. Makes you wonder.

[akbacchus_BC]

81. Correct me if I am wrong, didn't President Obama wanted this passed

before November 4 and most Democrats said it would hurt them in the mid-terms? Democrats did get hurt as one thing we have to understand, the GOP rally around each other and would vote no. This along with DADT should have been taken care of before November 4.

This President is so alone, guess his VP and Nancy Pelosi are the only ones who have his back and us!

[CakeGrrl]

82. Yes, people like to ignore that inconvenient fact. n/t

[akbacchus_BC]

84. That is what is so amazing but the chickenshits are at work. You have

no idea how I am pissed at the treatment of this President on here! We are being drowned out.

[ncteechur]

83. Yes, that was his timetable. Now he and we are painted in a corner.

[akbacchus_BC]

85. Never mind, President Obama will Prevail! I believe in him and he will

come through for Americans and he still has the respect of world leaders.

Check out Weeseeyou!

[damonm]

88. Too bad I can't rec this about 5 million times...

[ProgressiveEconomist]

89. K&R! Spot-on rant!

[Citizen Kang]

91. Did you support the Bush tax cuts last time?

Because that's what's being extended.

The unemployment benefits did not have to be tied to extending the Bush tax cuts. Democrats could have forced the GOP to block them again and they would have caved, just like they have every other time.

But now, they are tied to the Bush tax cuts, so we HAVE to support it, right?

What screwed up logic.

If you support the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, you are in the wrong party, Bub. Just like Obama apparently.

[ncteechur]

96. I did not. But that was when we had a surplus, and we didn't have this crazy unemployment, and

before Bush got us into to wars and didn't pay for them. In no way, shape, or form, did I say I was happy with giving tax cuts to those that don't need them but I am also not in favor of hanging those of us struggling the most out to dry in order to stick it to republicans.

[Warren Stupidity]

101. "But that was when we had a surplus"

:wtf:

700B more in budget busting give-aways to billionaires is now justified because we don't have a surplus?

Seriously?

[cornermouse]

92. I don' t hate him. I never have.

I do hate republican policies repackaged as democratic.

[Vinca]

102. Whether it's a Democratic plan or a Republican plan, extending

tax cuts for people who don't really need the money is beyond foolish. You do realize the $250 million Warren Buffett will get is borrowed from China? If we had a surplus, it would be one thing, but we're in the black hole. They should do unemployment benefits as a stand alone issue and then do middle class tax cuts as a stand alone issue. There shouldn't be a "holiday" on social security contributions. SS needs to be funded and the amount you might see in your paycheck is minimal. It's time to act like grown-ups and not give out ponies when we can't afford to feed them.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

103. Those Are Good Ideas

How do we get the Republicans to join us and making them into law?

[Vinca]

104. Promise them anorexic ponies?

Honestly, I don't know. I can't figure out why conservatives aren't taking to the streets because this bill increases the debt more than the stimulus bill did.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

105. Because They Are As Sincere About The Defecit As The Dems Are

The Repubs blow but they don't have a monopoly on insincerity.

[mwooldri]

106. "The filibuster is meant to protect...

... the minority from the absolute will of the majority" - sums the whole problem up totally.

The filibuster has been abused, misused and left unused.

We had all kinds of outrageous legislation with a Republican House, a Republican Senate majority (but not supermajority) and a Republican President, because the opposition in the Senate did not filibuster them.

We had decent legislation proposed by a Democratic President, passed by a Democratic House, and despite a "on paper" supermajority at one time, stuck up in the Senate by Republican abuse of the filibuster.

President Obama has appeared to have got so used to the Republican threat of a filibuster that it appears to us he has been conditioned to compromise to get something good for the American people.

There are people on DU who have said they would prefer to see the option of unemployment insurance being extended go by the wayside for the greater good of the general economy - and the President doesn't agree with this (and I am in with him on this). However it does not mean that we should still persuade those people who supposedly represent us, on our side, to work and get a much better deal than that being offered. Senator Sanders yesterday made a great start - and it got the message rolling again.

There are a lot of things that are unbelieveable, even here. However we need to do a much better job of holding our elected representatives accountable. Regrettably money talks, and lots of money does lots of talking.