Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Moderates privately urge Dem leaders: No vote on middle class tax cuts!

A number of "moderate" House Dems have privately given Nancy Pelosi and other Dem leaders an earful in recent days, urging them not to hold a vote on whether to extend just the middle class tax cuts and not the high end ones, because it will leave them vulnerable to Republican ads, sources involved in the discussions tell me.

If Republicans block a vote in the Senate, as seems likely, there's a decent chance the House will not hold a vote of their own, according to a senior leadership aide and a senior Dem lawmaker directly involved in the discussions.

Both sources cautioned that no decision had been made, and that a vote was still very possible. And Pelosi is still behind the idea of holding the vote, the sources say.

But this issue is shaping up as another one pitting skittish moderates against House liberals, many of whom are urging a vote because they want the party to stand firm on an issue that will motivate the base and draw a sharp contrast between the two parties.

And it seems like the moderates may carry the day.

In recent days there have been indications that the Senate is getting ready to hold their own vote on extending the middle class tax cuts, and it's likely Republicans will successfully filibuster. If that happens, the senior lawmaker involved in the discussions tells me, "that will probably be the end of the discussion."

"The question is whether you have a symbolic vote in the House or let members take it district by district. I'm not sure we could even pass it," the lawmaker says. "People are still taking the temperature of the caucus -- that seems to be where the caucus is."

Three dozen moderate Dems have signed a letter to Dem leaders demanding a vote on extending all the tax cuts. And behind the scenes, they are telling House Dem leaders in no uncertain terms that they don't want a vote focused on just the middle class ones, the sources say. The leadership aide says moderates are complaining that if they take the vote, "they'll be subject to a 30 second ad saying they raised taxes."

But the aide cautioned that Pelosi still wanted the vote. "She's listening to members, and to her caucus," the aide said. "We could still decide this is something we want to do."

So that's where we are.

UPDATE, 1:19 p.m.: TPM has a very useful list of the moderate Dems who are most likely behind this push against holding a vote.

By Greg Sargent  | September 22, 2010; 12:18 PM ET
Categories:  2010 elections, House Dems, House GOPers, economy  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: How Dems should talk about stimulus: Localize!
Next: One Democrat who isn't running away from Dem agenda

Comments

Yup.

Posted by: wbgonne | September 22, 2010 12:20 PM | Report abuse

Hey Greg: Feinstein doesn't think you're right in the head:

"While Democratic leaders ponder whether to vote on extending the Bush-era tax cuts before the November midterm elections, California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein said Tuesday that she thinks it would be a terrible idea.

“I don’t know who takes a tax vote in their right mind just before an election,” Feinstein told The Daily Caller. “But that’s just me.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/09/21/feinstein-anyone-who-takes-a-tax-vote-before-elections-not-in-their-right-mind/#ixzz10HBGHSHK

Posted by: sbj3 | September 22, 2010 12:25 PM | Report abuse

LOL

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 22, 2010 12:26 PM | Report abuse


To All Mike, Liam, Nslieb - All you who think you are so smart and morally superior:


All your words, all your defenses of Obama will be MEANINGLESS if - as Obama is anticipating - this country "ABSORBS" ANOTHER TERRORIST ATTACK as a result of Obama's policies.


Obama WANTS TO TAKE THE RISK.


I don't - the country doesn't.


This isn't what Obama promised during the campaign - it represents another set of DECEPTIONS AND LIES FROM OBAMA.


Please don't tell it to me - Please don't type anything to me - JUST THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU WILL SAY TO THE FAMILIES OF THE DEAD AFTER OBAMA'S POLICIES LEAD TO A FEW MORE THOUSAND TERRORIST DEATHS.


What are you going to tell them Liam?


What are you going to tell them Mike in Arlington?


What are you going to tell them Ethan ?


What are you going to tell them nsleib??


What are you going to tell them rukidding?


Seriously folks - if the terrorist in Chicago had built his own bomb -


OR if the terrorist in Chicago had decided to team up with someone else who would be giving him a real bomb...


We would be having a few thousand funerals right now, THIS WEEK.


What are you going to tell the families ???


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 22, 2010 12:29 PM | Report abuse

I'm happy to see my House Rep, Mary Jo Kilroy, taking yet another stand that I applaud.

"The effort was organized by Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, along with Reps. Mary Jo Kilroy and Alan Grayson."

http://topicfire.com/House-Progressives-Press-Pelosi-Not-To-Pass-Extension-Of-Bush-High-Income-Tax-Cuts-15543098.html

I just mailed her a check for her stand opposing Social Security cuts.
~

Posted by: ifthethunderdontgetya | September 22, 2010 12:32 PM | Report abuse

I'm still waiting to hear what you all want to tell the FAMILIES of the dead - after Obama "absorbs" another terrorist attack on US Soil.

Are you going to the funerals ???

HOW FAR does your PARTISAN BLINDNESS GO?


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 22, 2010 12:33 PM | Report abuse

Well, I'm not surprised to see that my Blue Dog DINO, Jim Matheson, is leading this charge. I've told him in person and via his web site that I, personally, think ALL of the tax cuts need to expire. My husband and I were doing just fine before the Bush tax cuts went into effect, and we aren't doing so fine anymore with the economy in the tank. He's in health care, which in general is doing OK (thank god), but I'm in academia and the legislature here in UT doesn't believe any of us are earning our keep now. . . let alone giving us a raise. I haven't seen one in four years. I say let the tax cuts expire and get the economy back on track for EVERYONE.

Posted by: Michigoose | September 22, 2010 12:42 PM | Report abuse

Weak. I'll vote against the Repubs come November, but I'm certainly not voting for the Dems.

"HOW FAR does your PARTISAN BLINDNESS GO?"

Keep posting here and maybe we'll find out!

Posted by: Alex3 | September 22, 2010 12:42 PM | Report abuse

OT-

Yeah, all of these changes in HCR are "so horrible" http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_q_a
Oy. And where would we be had we had a GOP-controlled Congress? *crickets*. And now they want to withhold funding for it.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | September 22, 2010 12:50 PM | Report abuse

Savetherainforest: What are you blabbering on about? Can't you stay on topic for a minute?

Dems: Get some balls and vote. Who cares if the Blue Dogs get voted out? They don't vote with the party on anything anyway!

Posted by: LAB2 | September 22, 2010 12:50 PM | Report abuse

"And it seems like the moderates may carry the day."

Day? How about almost two years. Sheesh. And I'm sending money to Boxer for her re-election but I'm beginning to hope someone primaries Feinstein when she's up.

Can't we just say we're voting on the extension of the middle class tax cuts now and if someone wants to try to extend the others, be my guest. Two separate bills. I think the MC cuts should only be extended for a couple of years until the economy turns around. After that, let's go back to what they were in the 90's, it seemed to work.

Posted by: lmsinca | September 22, 2010 12:52 PM | Report abuse

NO one wants to say what they will tell the families of the dead Americans - if Obama's policies lead the country to "absorb" another terrorist attack.

HHHMMM

The truth is this: the nation is STUCK WITH OBAMA'S WEAK NATIONAL SECURITY POLICIES until the end of his term, unless Obama resigns or is removed from office after impeachment.

Blue Dogs - please IMPEACH Obama immediately.

There is NO REASON to continue to needlessly RISK American lives with Obama's policies - and you are RISKING PEOPLE'S LIVES WITH OBAMA.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 22, 2010 12:52 PM | Report abuse

Don't let the Democrats' cowardice fool you - as they will be telling you in ads for the next 5 weeks, they can strike out with lightning speed and ninja force from the fetal position!

And accomplish nothing.

Posted by: JennOfArk | September 22, 2010 12:53 PM | Report abuse

http://www.bradblog.com/Images/BushDeficitChart_June2010.jpg

Ouch.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 22, 2010 12:53 PM | Report abuse

@Mike Great chart. Ouch is right!!!!

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 22, 2010 1:04 PM | Report abuse

Message to the Country


Obama and the democrats can't decide WHEN they want to hold the vote to raise taxes $700 Billion Dollars


While the economy is trying to recover.

Obama WANTS to raise the taxes $700 Billion - the question is when to have the vote.

Democrats - don't you think the damage is already done ?


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 22, 2010 1:05 PM | Report abuse

@lmsinca "Day? How about almost two years. Sheesh."

As always you're right on target! I'm still waiting for the progressive version of the Tea party to spring up. But perhaps we are a very small minority. This is supposed to be a "progressive' blog..yet you, wbgonne and I seem to be the only 'radicals" left.
And then we get blasted for griping about the Republicrats. At least Lincoln is circling the drain.

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 22, 2010 1:11 PM | Report abuse

But, but, skipsailing, isn't the DEFICIT what we should be hating Obama for? (Right-wing economics make me so confused.)

Posted by: wiccan | September 22, 2010 1:12 PM | Report abuse

not sure why this plan would only cost $2 trillion instead of $3 trillion but Ds definitely need to vote on tax cuts NOW!


"The Baucus package, which would cost close to $2 trillion, or half of McConnell’s, would make the middle-class reductions permanent as well as estate tax relief. And he said he favors a flat rate of 20 percent for dividends to mirror that for capital gains.

“We want permanency, predictability,” Baucus said. “I’m so tired of an extender Congress. I think that’s one reason people are unsettled.”

“Changing dividends to 20 percent as opposed to ordinary income rates and keeping it the same as capital gains, I think, is good policy. I’m going for policy. Twenty percent on dividends and capital gains is the right policy.”

Posted by: leichtman1 | September 22, 2010 1:16 PM | Report abuse

This is depressing.

And Feinstein is the poster child for what's wrong with the party.

Better Dems, please.

Posted by: BGinCHI | September 22, 2010 1:18 PM | Report abuse

OT:

* Florida's gay adoption ban ruled unconstitutional *

A Miami appeals court ruled Wednesday that Florida's ban on gays adopting is unconstitutional and affirmed the controversial adoption of two foster children by a gay North Miami couple.

The unanimous 3-0 decision deals a critical blow to Florida's 33-year-old law banning adoption by gay men and lesbians, and most likely sends the case to Florida's highest court for resolution.

"Given a total ban on adoption by homosexual persons, one might expect that this reflected a legislative judgment that homosexual persons are, as a group, unfit to be parents," the opinion states. "No one in this case has made, or even hinted at, any such argument.

"To the contrary, the parties agree 'that gay people and heterosexuals make equally good parents.'"

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/09/22/100966/floridas-gay-adoption-ban-ruled.html

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 22, 2010 1:21 PM | Report abuse

"I'm sending money to Boxer for her re-election."

I hope you've been reading Geraghty's series this week on Boxer.

"In her long political career, we’ve seen Boxer appear to buy endorsements, jet-set around the world to exotic resorts for “official business,” and bounce checks, and there will be two more examples of embarrassing behavior to come later this week. She has yet to suffer a serious consequence for any of this."

http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/247363/barbara-boxer-s-bad-week-part-three-five

And let's not forget what the LA Times had to say about Boxer's intellect: "On the Democratic side, we find that we're no fans of incumbent Barbara Boxer," the newspaper said in an editorial Friday. "She displays less intellectual firepower or leadership than she could."

Posted by: sbj3 | September 22, 2010 1:23 PM | Report abuse

I heart Feinstein, just think she is wrong about this call.Better to vote now then to drag this debate on to Oct 2012, which is precisely what Rs are scheming to do.

Posted by: leichtman1 | September 22, 2010 1:26 PM | Report abuse

The correct approach consists of these steps:

1. Propose and vote on a bill to make permanent the current tax rates on income below $250,000.

2. (that's it actually)

Posted by: AMviennaVA | September 22, 2010 1:29 PM | Report abuse

less intellectual power then let' say Jim DeMint, Sharon and her second amendment remedies/the earth is flat Angle, Cristine mice cloned with human brains/my campaign chest is my personal ban account O'Donnell or for that matter, Carly driven HP stock value into the ground and American workers prefer their jobs be taken to China Fiorina. What a joke.

Posted by: leichtman1 | September 22, 2010 1:35 PM | Report abuse

personally I would not oppose also a second vote on $250-1 $trillion tax cut to give Linclon, Nelson and Pryor cover which likely still lose then Ds could claim they gave the GOP their vote and the public voted and said we can t afford it today get back with us in a couple of years and we will see if the country has an extra $700 billion to throw down the rat hole.

Posted by: leichtman1 | September 22, 2010 1:41 PM | Report abuse

What AMVienna said.

Really, they're worried about ads saying they "raised taxes" when the only vote they made lowered taxes for 97 - 98% of taxpayers?

How about this, you moron Dems: get out in front with an ad trumpeting your vote to lower taxes for that 97 - 98%. Make the Republicans follow you into the weeds by explaining how allowing tax cuts for rich people THEY set in law to expire to expire is a vote for increasing taxes.

Both parties need to go out of business. The Republicans lack the sanity and good sense to govern responsibly, and the Democrats lack the will and the nerve.

Posted by: JennOfArk | September 22, 2010 1:41 PM | Report abuse

polls show that 65 precent of 'republicans' support getting rid of the Bush Tax cuts for the wealthy.
.
Why the hell don't Dems *want* to do this ASAP? Let the GOP run ads saying they are in favor of the wealthy over the middle class...

Posted by: rpixley220 | September 22, 2010 1:42 PM | Report abuse

LAB2:

Are you also upset at Ethan2010 and other libs for posting "off topic"?

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 22, 2010 1:44 PM | Report abuse

Topic: "Moderates privately urge Dem leaders: No vote on middle class tax cuts!"


curious how discussing taxes in jake's delusional world is off topic?

Posted by: leichtman1 | September 22, 2010 1:52 PM | Report abuse

@Jake I don't think lab2 or the VAST MAJORITY of the rest of us wish to see STRF go away because it can't stay on topic.

If you go back and reread lab's post you'll get a clue. It's the endless mindless BABBLING that comes from this idiots mouth that disturb us. It's the incredibly rude way he/she/it uses double spacing throughout entire posts. Basically nobody reads STRF once they realize who the post is from.

@GREG And so once again I'm begging for you to get your techies to simply place the poster's name at the head of their comments. No need to ban...simply give us the choice to immediately avoid wasted time for this idiot's drivel.

Posted by: rukidding7 | September 22, 2010 1:54 PM | Report abuse

They should take a vote and let the republicans explain why they voted against the people who need it the most. They can explain why they want to increase the deficit like crazy to give the wealthy even more money. The republicans should have to be on TV voting against 98 percent of America.

Posted by: hockeymom1 | September 22, 2010 1:56 PM | Report abuse

jake I counted at least 5 of your post the other day urging bloggers to text for Bristol(which incidentally she was horrible in) and curious why that had ANY relevance to the topic at hand or for that matter why her dancing consituted a pressing GOP issue. Certainly you will now deny your doing so.

Posted by: leichtman1 | September 22, 2010 1:57 PM | Report abuse

rukidding7 and leichtman1:

I am asking LAB2 a question (not admitting or denying anything else).

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 22, 2010 2:03 PM | Report abuse

At this point - we have a picture of an administration which is in complete meltdown.


Obama's economic team is in complete disarray - there is NO economic plan to get the nation out of the Great Obama Stagnation.


Clearly, Woodward's book portrays Obama's national security team in complete disagreement with Obama's policies - and Obama forcing a policy on the military which the military believes is ill-advised.


So, the administration is in disarray.

There is no direction to policy - Obama has gone from trial balloon to trial balloon - and nothing seems to fit.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 22, 2010 2:06 PM | Report abuse

Too funny. RUK is whining about the rudeness of another. Just hilarious.

I wonder what the h word wiccan is talking about. Does he (she?) (It?) even know? I kinda doubt it.

It is right that taxes become a huge issue for congress. About darned time too.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | September 22, 2010 2:08 PM | Report abuse

we understand. Your wasting our time the other day discussing w/n Bristol can dance is relevant political discussion "In Your World" but lab2 correctly imploring Ds to get some balls and vote on tax cuts, which I agree with 100%, is somehow off topic.

Posted by: leichtman1 | September 22, 2010 2:08 PM | Report abuse

LAB2:

As always, you are under no obligation to answer my question to you and free to leave at any time. If you don't understand MY question (as opposed to whatever anyone else thinks about it), please let me know.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 22, 2010 2:13 PM | Report abuse

Jake

No one wants to answer the question -


Obama is risking American lives - right on the streets of American cities.


Last Saturday, a terrorist tried to place a bomb in Chicago - we hear very little about this from the national media.


But thousands could have died.


Apparently, the Pentagon brass - for months - tried to get Obama to listen to reason - and Obama responded with ARROGANCE - and refused to protect American citizens with a strong Mid Eastern policy.


The country really has a problem on its hands with Obama - he really is THINKING IT THROUGH - AND OBAMA IS DECIDING TO LEAVE AMERICANS AT RISK OF TERRORIST ATTACK HERE IN THE US.

This is unacceptable.


We need the country to have an outcry - We need the Blue Dogs to call for Impeachment


We need to do something to make sure we have a STRONG MID EAST POLICY - and this policy that Obama has now gets REVERSED.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 22, 2010 2:14 PM | Report abuse

curious if others have some thoughts about the Baucus compromise which I posted above, which would save the deficit $2 trillion over the GOP proposal. Seems like that is a tad more impt than w/n we should text yes for Bristol Palin's dancing, don't you think? It includes lowering dividend taxes from 29 or 36% to 20%. Sounds pretty reasonable still don't know where the $2 trillion vs $4 trillion price tag came from though.

Posted by: leichtman1 | September 22, 2010 2:14 PM | Report abuse

sounds like jake is back to his old The Fix ways of DEMANDING that bloggers answer his inane questions. Some how I thought The Plum Line was beyond that form of intimidation. Apparently not.

Posted by: leichtman1 | September 22, 2010 2:18 PM | Report abuse

All, check this out: Alexi Giannoulias comes out strongly against extending Bush tax cuts for rich:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/09/one_democrat_who_isnt_running.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | September 22, 2010 2:18 PM | Report abuse

Skipsailing and Jake


The number of liberal comments still FAR exceeds the number of conservative posts.


So what are they complaining about???


When the blog is an echo chamber of mindless re-affirmation of liberal hatred and name-calling - they have no problem with the blog.


However, when opposing points of view are in front of them, all of a sudden, rules are being broken and action must be taken.


Quite a laugh.


Ethan today even says that conservatives are UNABLE to UNDERSTAND what the liberals are saying.


I understand EXACTLY what they are saying - I just disagree.

It is people like Ethan who refuse to understand what the other side is saying - and Ethan refuses to comprehend that the liberals are just wrong.


.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 22, 2010 2:19 PM | Report abuse

"I wonder what the h word wiccan is talking about. Does he (she?) (It?) even know? I kinda doubt it."

I beg your pardon. Please clarify for me if it is more important to lower the deficit or to lower taxes. My imagination must be limited; I cannot see how we can do both. Perhaps you could help me?

Posted by: wiccan | September 22, 2010 2:22 PM | Report abuse

SaveTheRainforest:

The echo chamber is strong here.

LAB2 (last time I will ask, which is very different than "demanding" especially since I pointed out that you are under no obligation to answer):

You posted to SaveTheRainforest "Can't you stay on topic for a minute?", even though ChuckinDenton and Ethan2010 each posted off-topic as well. My question to you was simple: "Are you also upset at Ethan2010 and other libs for posting 'off topic'?".

Again, if you don't understand THAT question -- regardless of whether you think it is "inane" or not -- let me know.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 22, 2010 2:24 PM | Report abuse

HOW FAR does your PARTISAN BLINDNESS GO?

I'm new here -- this guy's retarded, right?

Obama was saying we as a country have the ability to stand tall after a terrorist attack, and he thinks Obama is asking to be hit again? Really?

I do like the irony of thinking the president wants us to be attacked and then blaming other people of "partisan blindness." That's hysterical.

Posted by: ottoman88 | September 22, 2010 2:28 PM | Report abuse

greg I would like to read some analysis of Baucus' Grand Compromise on tax cuts. It sounds intriguing although there will certainly be whining on the right about 20% cap gains which I could live with if it also includes a reduction on dividend taxes from 36% to 20%. Baucus claims it would save the deficit $2 trillion over the GOP proposal. That is no chump change if accurate.

Posted by: leichtman1 | September 22, 2010 2:28 PM | Report abuse

Just so y'all know history on STRF. He spent a few years on the Fix where he did the same spamming and repeat postings. Everyone complained endlessly. We ignored him, we challenged him, we asked him to stop with the formatting nonsense, we ridiculed him. Finally, a few months ago, posters organized a boycott of the blog to impress on Chris Cillizza we were all sick of it. STRF (his handle there was 37th&OStreet) was generating sometimes 70% of the lines and going 24/7.

Chris Cillizza asked STRF numerous times to stop spamming. Finally, he started blocking his handle. STRF would just change to another and this was happening a couple of times A DAY. Finally, Cillizza implemented a whole new comments software and human moderators who finally blocked STRF.

All Greg has to do is talk to Chris Cillizza to learn what a plague he's gotten.

From my experience, STRF hasn't really ramped up yet on this blog. He's afraid of getting banned. When he does (finally), his swan song will be: "oh, I didn't know the rules. No one else follows the rules. It's a violation of my right of free speech."

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 22, 2010 2:28 PM | Report abuse

actually jake telling a blogger to either answer your inane question or leave, is demanding.

12bar you are investor class like me. What do you think of 20% cap gains in exchange for 20% on dividends?

Posted by: leichtman1 | September 22, 2010 2:32 PM | Report abuse

@leichtman,

Don't know about your question. I have to learn more and think about it. Have links to educate me?

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 22, 2010 2:34 PM | Report abuse

leichtman1:

Pointing out that someone is "free to leave" is hardly a "demand". They never taught you about a Terry stop in law school?

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 22, 2010 2:41 PM | Report abuse

read the Baucus proposal today on Politico you might check it out. Sounded interesting but often Baucus plans have holes in them. We all know Kudlow and the GOP demand 0% on cap gains, but that is just not rational as much as many of us would like to see that happen.

David Rogers story today on Politico
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42520.html

seems like I am the only one taking that proposal seriously

Posted by: leichtman1 | September 22, 2010 2:41 PM | Report abuse

@leichtman,

Just scanned your posts above and I see this is Max Baucus plan. Well, it would save me money.

would be cautious endorsing the plan until I understood the overall effect of changing dividend tax policy to equal capital gain, to the behaviour of startup capital for one. I would not want to discourage any new investment in startups as that is good for America and all of us.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | September 22, 2010 2:44 PM | Report abuse

Maybe 12BarBlues should be banned for her spam (and continued stalking / harassment of one person in particular)?

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 22, 2010 2:48 PM | Report abuse

I have practiced criminal law for 30 year so please don't lecture me on Terry stops. As I recall you were the one clueless about custodial interrogations and Miranda.

Telling someone they are free to leave is uncivil and arrogant on your part. It suggest they either answer whatever idiotic question you pose or leave. Let's not go down that road again, we promised civility here. Why don't don't you instead just stick to discussing Bristol's dancing while the rest of us adults discuss dividend and cap gains taxes and the Baucus proposal.

Posted by: leichtman1 | September 22, 2010 2:50 PM | Report abuse

seems like cap gains were at 35% during the 90s boom years w/o hurting start ups.

Posted by: leichtman1 | September 22, 2010 2:58 PM | Report abuse

Liberals can't seem to grasp that people like me (middle class switch voters) don't really see tax cuts for "the rich" as primarily benefiting the rich. We see it as a necessary foundation to grow GDP which is the key to keeping unemployment and inflation low. I couldn't care less about "the rich" per se, but I also don't begrudge them their wealth...as long as GDP is growing and unemployment is low. The more I read, the more convinced I am that the Left is motivated by ideological hatred for the mythical "rich". The Left cares more about evening the score than they do about the long term health of the economy.

Posted by: JohnR22 | September 22, 2010 3:04 PM | Report abuse

John at 3:04


Thank you - you are correct.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 22, 2010 3:17 PM | Report abuse

Jake


You are right - all 12Bar is doing is stalking me


And she is trying to recruit other people to come over to this blog to start fights.


It is unbelievable - then she is attempting to make the case that someone else is not engaging in civil discussion.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 22, 2010 3:21 PM | Report abuse

Dear Ms. Pelosi,

We don't wish for our constituents to learn the truth about us and our party in 30 second campaign adds telling folks that we are tax and spend liberals. That is not popular with the majority of the country and will cause us to not get re-elected. Instead hold the vote until the day after the November 2 elections.

Thanks,
Liberal Democrats who call ourselves "Moderates"

Posted by: Charley_XF | September 22, 2010 3:25 PM | Report abuse

JakeD2 at 2:24 PM


I agree with you on the off-topic remarks - I didn't know you wanted me to say I agree - when the situation is obvious.

I just think the liberals should count up the number of their comments - and compare that to the number of conservative postings.


That would be the first measure if there is ANY imbalance around here.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 22, 2010 3:25 PM | Report abuse

@JohnR22:
Riddle me this, in an economy that is stagnating, is uncertain and people are scared. Why would people spend money they don't have to spend?
.
So if we continue all the Bush tax cuts, even for the rich, won't the rich simply hold on to their money until the economy turns around? If you know some reason they won't wait for better days to spend it please say so.
.
Whereas giving money via food stamps, unemployment and lower bracket tax cuts, actually starts improving the economy because these people *have* to spend the money.
.
Seems like the lower incomes will have more initial impact on the economy than the rich would until the economy starts moving forward faster again. So why are we giving money we don't have to the rich who aren't going to spend it?

Posted by: rpixley220 | September 22, 2010 3:26 PM | Report abuse

"Moderates" == moderately retarded.

Posted by: agio | September 22, 2010 3:26 PM | Report abuse

12Bar

I have posted several times my response to your craziness.


As always, I have stated that there was a group of 8-10 posters on the Fix who were causing the majority of the trouble - harassing other posters all the time.


I suggested that you and other look into the archives - going back two and a half years - to see the evidence if you don't believe it.


Why you continue to fight is beyond me - but you continue your hostile attitude - and it appears that you were prefer to have a fight which includes name-calling and a running fight on the blog -


I have to say this because that kind of fight is what you are always attempting to start with your hostile comments. In fact, you are seeking to get others to join in to fight other people.


As to my defenses - I think the first charge was I posted too much - however when I mentioned 4 or 5 other people who CLEARLY posted more than me, that charge went away


I don't know what to tell you. However can you TRY to be nice - and just TRY to stick to topics - and LEAVE other people alone.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 22, 2010 3:31 PM | Report abuse

Charley_XF

If your are searching for truth, Iwould suggest not loking for it in any of the comming 30 second Political adds we will soon see.

If the Republicans filibuster the middle-class tax cuts extensions in the Senate why waist time bringing them up in the House? The only people who want to see that are the Republicans.

If the Tax cuts are so important why not ask the Republicans why they voted to let them all expire.

This whole Bush tax cut is just a huge rip off for the people, and servicemen and women.

Instead of extending them all for two years - just to see what happens - hows this for a new plan for Obama - why not let them all expire for two years and promise to consider renewing them in two years? I can hear the Republicans choking on that one right now.

Dr King said "I have a Dream...", the Republicans and the backers of these tax givaways moto seems to be - "I have a Scheme"...

Posted by: alfa73 | September 22, 2010 3:35 PM | Report abuse

Message for "SaveTheRainForest"

Funny you and your fellow supporters of the Culture of Greed fail to note in any of your attacks accusing Obama of "voting to raise taxes by 700 Billion" - it was the Republicans who voted for and Bush who signed into law the bill that calls for the tax cuts to expire.

I guess in your twisted little world that too is all Obama's fault.

You should change your screen name to one more approiate to your narrow and mean spirited views - I'm thinking something like -

"PaveTheRainforrests"

Let the Culture of Greed expire. It will be the easist non-vote the Democrates will ever have to not take.

Posted by: alfa73 | September 22, 2010 3:45 PM | Report abuse

so you ask a loaded question and wonder why it is ignored?
===========================
But, but, skipsailing, isn't the DEFICIT what we should be hating Obama for? (Right-wing economics make me so confused.)

=========================
then of course you follow up with this:
========================
I beg your pardon. Please clarify for me if it is more important to lower the deficit or to lower taxes. My imagination must be limited; I cannot see how we can do both. Perhaps you could help me?

===================

Spare me the faux self deprecation. I'm not buying it.

And when did I proclaim a hatred for Mr Obama? Isn't that just part of the current liberal lietmotiff? a person who disagrees with Mr Obama, as the liberals would have us believe, can only be motivated by racist sentiment, right pal?

I must agree with you though, your imagination is limited. but that's not surprising most liberals simply cannot imagine the government actually spending less. Smaller government equals cheaper government. Cheaper government requires fewer tax dollars.

Maybe Michelle should refund the cost of her spain trip, eh? Great optics that was!

Posted by: skipsailing28 | September 22, 2010 3:46 PM | Report abuse

alfa73 wrote:
Instead of extending them all for two years - just to see what happens - hows this for a new plan for Obama - why not let them all expire for two years and promise to consider renewing them in two years? I can hear the Republicans choking on that one right now.
---------
I think that would be the best case scenario for team 0bama. Please send multiple letters to all of your congressmen and women and to the president and members of his administration and beg them to do this.

Meanwhile, I will stock up on the popcorn and beer.

Posted by: Charley_XF | September 22, 2010 3:54 PM | Report abuse

the debate starts off wrong right out of the gate when we talk about whether we should or shouldn't raise or cut taxes on the rich. It all depends on where you start. The rates before, after, or halfway between the Bush cuts aren't inherently the right, wrong, or indifferent rates in and of themselves. McCain thought Bush's cuts were too heavily weighted toward the rich and that the middle class should have gotten a better deal. There is no particular progressivity curve that is a priori the correct one. All we can ever say is that it appears that progressivity is stifling productivity, as it was before Reagan's tax reforms, or that we can't afford progressivity or overall rates, as low as they are at any given point because of the deficit. The Bush cuts expire. Proposing permanent cuts to 98% of folks is not a tax increase for the other 2%, but even if it was, it can't be right or wrong just because it's either an increase or a cut, it can only be right or wrong if rates after the increase or the cut are intrinsicly more or less sound than they were before. You don't get to use existing rates as an inherently correct reference point.

Posted by: JoeT1 | September 22, 2010 4:11 PM | Report abuse

And how dems let themselves get into a position where proposing 2.3 trillion in tax cuts can be attacked as an irresponsible tax increase, while proposing 3 trillion in tax cuts and adding an additional 700 billion to the deficit is more responsible I haven't quite figured out yet. what a crazy environment we live in, where a President can't draw a line on tax cuts because he doesn't want to add even more to the deficit, but gets accused of threatening to raise taxes in the bargain. do we want him to reduce the deficit or not?

Posted by: JoeT1 | September 22, 2010 4:16 PM | Report abuse

TO: SaveTheRainforest who wrote:
“… the nation is STUCK WITH OBAMA'S WEAK NATIONAL SECURITY POLICIES until the end of his term …”

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

You might be interested to know that 9/11 holds the record as being the most devastating failure of American Intelligence in this country’s history, which, as you know, took place under Republican leadership and control.

We haven’t had a terrorist attack since the Republicans were voted out.

Nothing to worry about, unless the Republicans get back in, then they will allow their terrorist buddies from their oil rich countries to attack just so that they can get another term in office.

When are the freaks going to STOP rewarding the GOP for failing?


Posted by: lindalovejones | September 22, 2010 4:22 PM | Report abuse

Greggy-Poo,
What happened to hold. the. damn. vote.? Pelosi is tone-deaf, and you are too if you are still casting your lot with her. I would be a beneficiary if they kept all rates intact with no vote, but it would be worth the loss in E(X) just to watch the Dems flounder around on it for 5 more weeks. Other than class warfare, what else do the Ds bring to the table here? No ideas, no cohesion, results, no trust. Gotta say, it is very, very fun to watch.

Posted by: bzod9999 | September 22, 2010 4:30 PM | Report abuse

here's a classic of open minded liberalism:
==============
When are the freaks going to STOP rewarding the GOP for failing?

==============================

It can be concluded from the above that the definition of "freaks" is "Anyone with the temerity to vote for a Republican"

I've noted lately that the tone and tenor of the liberals has changed dramatically. Civility seems to be inversely proportional to an assessment of the potential electoral success in the pending election. As Democrats hopes fade, the vitriol from the left increases.

Last week a stalwart here called everyone in Iowa a cro magnon. Slanders and smears aimed at those who disagree with the liberal agenda are common place now.

Honestly, liberals are now liberalism's worst enemy. Keep talking like this, it is alienating folks in droves.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | September 22, 2010 4:33 PM | Report abuse

lindalovejones 4:22 PM


I would put that intelligence failure squarely in front of Bill Clinton - who cut intelligence assets in the Middle East for years - AND ignored repeated task force recommendations to improve intelligence and defenses against terrorism.

Bush had TOO MUCH CLASS to blame Bill Clinton for anything.


Such WAS the tradition among Presidents and former Presidents - the blame game stops when the administration changes. Obama has displayed a complete lack of everything in blaming Bush for anything.

As to your comment about terrorist attacks

We have Fort Hood in Texas from last year.


The Detroit bomber last winter didnt go off


The Times Square bomb didn't go off


And a bome in Chicago last Saturday night did not go off yet.

To try to give Obama credit because terrorists get through - but the bombs do not go off - well that is highly questionable.

I would say you are wrong on all accounts - as you have been in the past.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 22, 2010 5:12 PM | Report abuse

Boy, it's no wonder we're in the mess that we're in.

All these politicians care about is how to keep their jobs, not what is the most responsible thing to do for the country.


Posted by: wireknob | September 22, 2010 5:13 PM | Report abuse

Skip, all you have is your ego.

Nothing you say ever has ANY substance whatsoever. No facts, no evidence. NOTHING. Just more of your worthless, baseless, screeds that go nowhere but to feed back to your own self-absorbed self-centered ideology and ego.

It's always -- ALWAYS -- Liberals this and Liberals that.

Why don't you just leave. I'm tired of idiots like you getting in the way of real dialog about the issues that matter to Americans. You don't care about jobs, you don't care about the economy, you don't care about foreign policy. Why don't you just go home and play with your little play-dress-up Tea Party and leave us adults alone to discuss REAL issues that WE care about.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 22, 2010 5:17 PM | Report abuse

Moderate Democrat = Republican

Posted by: MagicDog1 | September 22, 2010 8:22 PM | Report abuse

Who are the other 32 Sham-Democrats who signed this royalist manifesto? I want to contribute to their opponents.

Posted by: threedy | September 22, 2010 11:19 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company