Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Game on? Senate Dems move towards vote on middle class tax cuts

Okay, it looks like Senate Democrats are getting close to staging a major confrontation over whether to extend the Bush tax cuts for the middle class.

A senior Congressional aide tells me that the Senate Finance Committee, in tandem with Harry Reid's office, is working on legislation that would "force a vote on middle class tax cuts."

"Dems will likely introduce a middle class tax cut package and ideally that would be voted on, whether as an amendment to a stand-alone piece of legislation or as an amendment to a bill," the aide says, adding that the Dem leadership wants the bill on the floor "next week."

The aide tells me that a handful of Senate Dem moderates don't want a vote, but otherwise, the Dem caucus is relatively united behind a move "to proceed full speed ahead with middle class tax cuts."

The GOP may well successfully filibuster the measure, the aide continues. If so, Dems will point it to as proof of their message that Republicans are holding a vote for an extension of middle class tax cuts hostage to an extension of cuts for the rich.

"We win with either option -- either the middle class cuts pass or Republicans are isolated and look awful stalling and defending tax cuts for the richest of the rich," the aide says.

Also: Christina Bellantoni, who reported on this earlier, notes that Dems want to start the floor debate as early as next Monday. That could quickly crank up the heat on this issue to full boil.

One crucial wrinkle: This movement still doesn't settle the question of whether the House will hold a similar vote, which would arguably be more important for Dems in political terms, given that control of the House is at risk. Dem leaders may conclude that if the GOP filibusters the bill in the Senate, a clear enough contrast will have been drawn between the two parties, negating the need for a House vote that would be inconsequential in any case, since the measure died in the Senate.

But at least we're now seeing some movement towards a vote. More when I learn it.

By Greg Sargent  | September 20, 2010; 3:34 PM ET
Categories:  2010 elections, House Dems, House GOPers, Senate Dems, Senate Republicans  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Tea Party candidates at odds with top GOP figures on homosexuality
Next: Happy Hour Roundup

Comments

BRING. IT. ON.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 20, 2010 3:41 PM | Report abuse

"But at least we're now seeing some movement towards a vote. More when I learn it."

Thanks, Greg. Maybe the spine implant will take.

But:

""We win with either option -- either the middle class cuts pass or Republicans are isolated and look awful stalling and defending tax cuts for the richest of the rich," the aide says."

Everybody with a brain already knows all that. Don't talk about it. DO IT!

Posted by: wbgonne | September 20, 2010 3:41 PM | Report abuse

Of course when Ben Nelson and Blanche Lincoln join the GOP filibuster, the right will declare that their position is bipartisan.

Posted by: cmccauley60 | September 20, 2010 3:44 PM | Report abuse

And then they will say this:

A handful of Republicans — including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and California’s GOP senate nominee Carly Fiorina — have been claiming recently that extending the Bush tax cuts for the richest two percent of Americans (at a cost of $830 billion) will pay for itself. “Let me propose something that may seem crazy to you: you don’t need to pay for tax cuts. They pay for themselves, if they are targeted, because they create jobs,” Fiorina said.

There is a whole host of economic data showing that this claim is clearly and demonstrably false. But Colorado’s Republican senate nominee, Ken Buck, not only thinks that the tax cuts will pay for themselves, but that they will actually help to “pay down the deficit“

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/09/20/buck-magic-deficit-reduction/

Posted by: cmccauley60 | September 20, 2010 3:46 PM | Report abuse

YAY!

$750 Billion.

It either sits in off-shore accounts gaining interest for the wealthiest people on Earth...

OR it cuts the burdensome deficit.

Time to take a stand against the Bush Deficit, once and for all.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 20, 2010 3:46 PM | Report abuse

I'd like to see them add an additional 2% tax cut for everyone under 250k for 1 year to spur economic growth and put an end to supply side voodoo economics.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 20, 2010 3:48 PM | Report abuse

IMO, if the Senate can pass it, and I think they may be able to, the House will follow. I believe the House was squeamish about going first. I know there are BDogs who want to extend the cuts above $250k but it would be pretty tough to vote against the cuts for the middle class. I hope.

Posted by: lmsinca | September 20, 2010 3:51 PM | Report abuse

cmccauley60:

It would be more "bipartisan" than when Collins or Snowe joined your side for a vote ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 20, 2010 3:53 PM | Report abuse

The Republican Fat Cat Pets have all the money now, and they are not using it to jump start the economy, or to create jobs. They are not even acting like high rollers to rescue Las Vegas, and put people back to work there.

When working class people have a jingle in their pockets, they purchase things, and take trips to Las Vegas . The Republican Fat Cat Pets just sit on their additional Bush Tax Cut wealth, and wait for the poor and the broke to increase consumer demand, so that they, and their Wall St. Robber Baron Cronies, can returning to playing fast and loose with other people's savings.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 20, 2010 3:53 PM | Report abuse

More republican arithmetic from Jake.

Posted by: cmccauley60 | September 20, 2010 3:57 PM | Report abuse

My wife and I just got back from a three day trip to Las Vegas (to prove it, the three mystery words from Chris Angel's 9:30 PM Saturday show were "James", "Florida" and "7").

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 20, 2010 3:57 PM | Report abuse

cm, if they "paid for themselves," why didn't they "pay for themselves" in the last 10 years?

It's brainless, logic-free talk. People need to start knowing the difference between political BS and simple economics.

Furthermore, why would we doubt a failed, fired CEO? What could possibly go wrong....

Posted by: BGinCHI | September 20, 2010 3:57 PM | Report abuse

Recent recessions are highlighting the problem when 2% of the population control such a high portion of consumer spending. When they get their undies in a bunch, they pull back and hurt the other 98% of the population.

We need to figure out a way to increase wages at lower and middle levels. Fair trade agreements need to be re-evaluated. Until that is addressed I fear we'll be in an endless loop of having to rely on the top 2% to not pull back every time they get panicky.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 20, 2010 3:57 PM | Report abuse

cmccauley60:

And here's my fear: The Dems make a deal (among themselves, most likely) that there will be a vote on the full package of tax cuts -- including Bush's cuts for The Rich --immediately after the vote on the Obama Middle Class Tax Cut. So OMCTC fails then Bush Tax Cuts pass. Dems lose again.

Dems must take Bush's Tax Cuts for The Rich off the table. If the Dem Cong Leadership can't or won't Obama could do it AND take the heat for it by declaring his intent to veto.

Posted by: wbgonne | September 20, 2010 4:01 PM | Report abuse

Two (2) Democrats joining a GOP filibuster is, in fact, MORE Senators than one (1) Republican joining the Democrats on a vote. Not sure which "math" you are referring to, or what point you are even trying to make, as usual.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 20, 2010 4:02 PM | Report abuse

This from TPM -
If Republicans allow it to go forward, there can be a vote. If they insist on their plan to freeze tax rates at their current levels, keeping the tax cuts for the rich, they would be allowed to do so in the form of an amendment to the middle class bill.

But to pass that amendment, 19 Democrats would need to jump on board as well..."

There aren't 19 Dem votes for this, so it looks like the Senate may be the Waterloo for the GOP and show them for the top 2% boot lickers that they are.

Posted by: filmnoia | September 20, 2010 4:03 PM | Report abuse

sickening.

Watching the liberals here salivate over the idea of confiscating money from other people is both sad and sickening.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | September 20, 2010 4:04 PM | Report abuse

So, you do have a basic understanding of arithmetic. Congratulations. Try to apply these simple concepts to tax policy and you'll be making some real progress.

Posted by: cmccauley60 | September 20, 2010 4:07 PM | Report abuse

Keep reminding people that The newly Born Again Republican Fiscal Hawks are the ones, who want to add Four Trillion Dollars To our national debt, which we will have to borrow from China, in order to pamper Fat Cats, who have too much wealth already, and have not used it, to rescue the economy or create jobs.

There were Fat Cats, before the Bush Tax Cuts, so they were doing just fine, and so was the economy, and we were actually starting to pay down the national debt. The Republicans threw all that away, just to keep more money in the hands of people who were super rich already.

It destroyed our economy, caused millions of working class people to lose their jobs and their homes, and it ballooned our national debt.

Now, the Republican Party wants to borrow another Four Trillion Dollars, to repeat that very same act of monumental fiscal stupidity.

Just keep hammering home that truth, to as many voters as you can.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 20, 2010 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Hey Skippy: If you don't want to pay taxes just leave the country. One less phony rugged individualist. Problem solved.

Posted by: wbgonne | September 20, 2010 4:09 PM | Report abuse

Or, filmnoia, the Dems are going to toss the GOP in the "briar patch" whereby the Republicans finally get the Dems to buy-in on the "Bush" middle class tax cut AND after they get back the majority in both houses of Congress, tax cuts for the rest of America (I mean, Dems can't oppose them on principle anymore since they went along with middle class tax cuts, right?) as well as the END of death tax or they bring the entire government to a standstill!

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 20, 2010 4:09 PM | Report abuse

Here's what I hear from modern day conservative partisans.

'Here are your tax cuts wealthiest American's, now please hire us back!'

Consumer spending drives growth. Hiring of workers only exists if the consumers are spending. Find a way to increase wages of 98% of Americans and we can reverse this trend our country has been on for the last 30 years.

U.S. needs to look to Germany to figure out how they do it. Wages are extremely high, they maintain strong exports and they remained virtually untouched by this global recession. I think their politics hasn't been as polluted by industry as ours has. I think their politicians still think of the worker when designing trade laws.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 20, 2010 4:11 PM | Report abuse

Watching the liberals here salivate over the idea of confiscating money from other people is both sad and sickening.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | September 20, 2010 4:04 PM
==========================

Current law, as passed by the Republicans, is to have all cuts expire.

Plain fact, skip.
~

Posted by: ifthethunderdontgetya | September 20, 2010 4:11 PM | Report abuse

Skip, why don't you read this and tell me what you think about "confiscating" money from these heroes, these defenders of the American Way (of greed, selfishness, and inhumanity).

"Charles Munger, the billionaire vice chairman of Berkshire Hathaway Inc., defended the U.S. financial-company rescues of 2008 and told students that people in economic distress should “suck it in and cope.”

“You should thank God” for bank bailouts, Munger said in a discussion at the University of Michigan on Sept. 14, according to a video posted on the Internet. “Now, if you talk about bailouts for everybody else, there comes a place where if you just start bailing out all the individuals instead of telling them to adapt, the culture dies.”

Bank rescues allowed the U.S. to avoid what could have been an “awful” downturn and will help the country as it deals with the housing slump, Munger, 86, said. He used the example of post-World War I Germany to explain how the bailouts under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama were “absolutely required to save your civilization.”

CULTURE is NOT profit-making at any expense, nor is it the unfettered reach for greater and greater wealth.

Disgusting indeed.

Posted by: BGinCHI | September 20, 2010 4:12 PM | Report abuse

So, I guess you're not so good at math, eh Jake.

Darn ... disappointed again by a republican.

Posted by: cmccauley60 | September 20, 2010 4:12 PM | Report abuse

"END of death tax"

The Silver Spoon Tax should be increased. We don't have economic royalty in this country.

Posted by: wbgonne | September 20, 2010 4:13 PM | Report abuse

There is no need for President Obama to threaten a veto. Get that nonsense out of your head. If Pelosi or Reid do not have the votes to stop a Republican Amendment from passing, they have the veto power all ready, to not bring it to a vote.

Anyone who keeps calling for a President to threaten a veto, when his party controls both houses does not have a clue about politics, and should go play with fantasy games on an X Box instead of yelling at President Obama to do some thing stupid.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 20, 2010 4:14 PM | Report abuse

wbgonne:

Why should George Steinbrenner's family be the only ones to not get taxed on his estate?

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 20, 2010 4:16 PM | Report abuse

I think the country is just waiting for Obama to pick another partisan fight.


That was what Obama was elected to do, right?


Go ahead, the whole thing just proves Obama's bad faith.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 20, 2010 4:17 PM | Report abuse

mikefromArlington:

And Germany has weathered the economic crisis in part because it has a strong social welfare net, including national health care, that relieves employees and employers of the terrible burden of health insurance, making both workers and businesses more nimble.

D*mn socialists, kicking our as* economically. What's next? Communist China whupping us?

Posted by: wbgonne | September 20, 2010 4:19 PM | Report abuse

CULTURE is NOT profit-making at any expense, nor is it the unfettered reach for greater and greater wealth.

Disgusting indeed.

Posted by: BGinCHI | September 20, 2010 4:12 PM
.................

The TeaParty crowd suffers from Collective Amnesia.

They conveniently forget that TARP was a President Bush program, to rescue Wall St. Banks.

He sent Hank Paulson up to Congress to plead on his knees for the TARP funds, or else the economy was "going to collapse so catastrophically, that unemployment figures would hit 25% by the end of 2008, and would not be recovered for decades to come"

That is the recent history of Republicans in control, that the Tea Party now pretends never happened.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 20, 2010 4:21 PM | Report abuse

"Watching the liberals here salivate over the idea of confiscating money from other people is both sad and sickening."


Ok,let's not confiscate anyone's income. So next time you need a cop , call Ghost Busters. If your house catches on fire, buy a hose, and while we are at it, let's abolish public education and only have charter school for those that can afford it. We are already on the down hill slide to being a second rate nation, with a service economy and low wages. If you would be more comfortable with no taxes and no services, then go find another country that is more to your liking.

Posted by: filmnoia | September 20, 2010 4:22 PM | Report abuse

More magic math from Jake. The Steinbrenners are just small businessmen looking for a break from government tyranny.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/09/gop-bechtel-pricewaterhousecoopers-and-other-small-businesses-will-see-tax-hike-charts.php

Posted by: cmccauley60 | September 20, 2010 4:24 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, Liam. We wouldn't want President Obama to assert himself. Bad form, you know. American love us some weak-kneed presidents. Besides, much better to let Congress handle it since they did such a bang-up job on health care and run like a well-oiled machine. I have no doubt the American people are looking forward to a reprise of the Congressional health care clusterf*ck.

You really aren't the brightest bulb in the political strategy department, are you? Maybe YOU should stop giving political advice, or at least refrain from criticizing what you can't understand.

Posted by: wbgonne | September 20, 2010 4:27 PM | Report abuse

Lay off all your local police. When you have a traffic accident; or some one commits a criminal act on you; just call the Koch Brothers to come and handle it. I understand those two Oil Industry Billionaires will also fill in for all the Fire Depts. around the nation.

Tea Party Members; Myopic Patriots, or Stupid Koch Suckers?

We report; you decide!

Posted by: Liam-still | September 20, 2010 4:28 PM | Report abuse

WoeBegone,

You are the one who wants a President, with a huge majority of his own party in control of both houses, to start threating them with a veto, just to make you feel good.

You poor insecure baby. Wah Wah Wah. Woebegone wants his Veto threat pacifier.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 20, 2010 4:32 PM | Report abuse

"You are the one who wants a President, with a huge majority of his own party in control of both houses, to start threating them with a veto, just to make you feel good."

One last time. In case you haven't noticed the overwhelming Democratic majority in Congress has been a bit less than overwhelming in reality. Largely because of your beloved Republicrats, who you say must be kowtowed to at all costs to the President, the Party, and the nation. OK with me if you think Ben Nelson should run the country but I disagree. We have a president and his name is Obama, not Nelson or Lincoln or any of those House Blue Dogs who are running AGAINST their own President and their party leaders and AGAINST their own legislative accomplishments, meager as they are. But by all means, leave everything to Congress. What could possibly go wrong?

Posted by: wbgonne | September 20, 2010 4:39 PM | Report abuse

"Tea Party Members; Myopic Patriots, or Stupid Koch Suckers?"

Great! Those guys in the Revolutionary uniforms would put a real scare into our neighborhood ax murderers. This Free Lunch crowd makes me laugh. Maybe all of our public servants ought to be volunteers and turn the clock back to 1785.
This tax situation is very simple. Those that have benefited the greatest from this society ought to pay their fair portion of the load.

Posted by: filmnoia | September 20, 2010 4:39 PM | Report abuse

cm, that chart is the awesome!

More GOP lies; more ideological mumbo jumbo on economics that don't have any relationship to reality from a party (GOP and Tea, or GOPTEA), who want to loot the economic productivity of this country in pursuit of greater and greater concentration of wealth.

It ain't a theory; it's a reality.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/09/gop-bechtel-pricewaterhousecoopers-and-other-small-businesses-will-see-tax-hike-charts.php

Posted by: BGinCHI | September 20, 2010 4:40 PM | Report abuse

The Democratic and Republican figures come from the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation. But numerous think tanks and government organizations have examined the data and come to similar conclusions: First, that letting the Bush tax cuts on the top two brackets of "small-business" income would impact a tiny percentage of those businesses; and second, that many of the "small businesses" that would be impacted are actually giant companies -- which explains why such a tiny fraction of them can account for half of small business income.

According to the Washington Post, which obtained its information from House Democrats, some of the "small businesses" that could see a small increase in their marginal taxes are household names like accounting giant PricewaterhouseCoopers and Tribune Corp. -- privately-owned behemoths whose owners and managers dodge corporate taxes by reporting profits on their income tax returns.

It's those receipts that allow Republicans to claim, based on a recent report by JCT, that Obama's plan will ensnare 50 percent of all "small business income. JCT addressed this in the same report. "These figures for net positive business income do not imply that all of the income is from entities that might be considered 'small.'"

Over the last three decades, the numbers of these types of businesses -- both small, large, and enormous -- has exploded.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/09/gop-bechtel-pricewaterhousecoopers-and-other-small-businesses-will-see-tax-hike-charts.php?ref=fpblg

Posted by: nisleib | September 20, 2010 4:43 PM | Report abuse

filmnoia:

Please quote a single TEA Party member who wants ZERO TAXES for everyone (that sounds more like an anarchist)? TAXED ENOUGH ALREADY acknowledges that some taxes -- or, at least, levy -- are necessary.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 20, 2010 4:45 PM | Report abuse

GOP Expanding War on Science to Include Mathematics

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/09/obama-if-you-think-we-can-cut-taxes-for-the-rich-you-cant-add-video.php

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 20, 2010 4:45 PM | Report abuse

Reality Check.

As long Democrats are in charge of both the House And Senate, no bill will be allowed to go to a final passage vote, that does not have the approval of Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Reid, and President Obama. If the votes are not there to pass a bill, in a form that they can all agree on, it will not be brought up for final passage.

That is Politics 101, and only some addled woebegone bedwetter fails to grasp that.

A President only vetos what the opposition passes, not what his own majority, and he, have already agreed to.

No veto threat required, so stop wetting your pants because President Obama will not make silly threats, to do something that he will never have to do.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 20, 2010 4:50 PM | Report abuse

OT, the Rip-Off Party of Florida:

Between 2007 and 2009, party officials expensed a whopping $381,786 in charges not related to party business. The auditors found another $98,000 that was "probably" not related to party business. Of that, less than $5,000 has been paid back.

Greer and Gov. Charlie Crist took a $13,000 trip to Disney World with their families in June 2009, according to the audit. Crist, who is no longer with the party, called the audit a "sham" and showed what he said was a personal receipt proving he paid for the trip himself.

[...]

There was almost no financial oversight at RPOF. The party's Audit Committee did not have contact with the accounting department, only met once a year and "did not engage in a substantive review of the financial statements." The treasurer and assistant treasurer "also did not provide effective financial oversight."

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/09/rpof_audit_greer_agreed_to_pay_back_7k_--_but_the.php

Rubio is shielded by the audit. Crist is pissed. Expect fireworks to peak in October. So much fun!

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 20, 2010 4:52 PM | Report abuse

The Billionaires Bankrolling the Tea Party

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/opinion/29rich.html?src=me&ref=general

The billionaire brothers (David and Charles Koch) who are waging a war against Obama.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer

The “current” GOP solution = cut food stamps; feed the wealthy Trillions, offshore manufacturing jobs to China. Ronald Reagan would be ashamed.

Ronald (Raised Taxes to Balance budget) Reagan and Richard (EPA, Clean Air and Water Acts):

NEWSWEEK Even Reagan Wasn’t a Reagan Republican: why every recent GOP president wasn’t conservative enough for today’s party.

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/05/10/even-reagan-wasn-t-a-reagan-republican.html

Posted by: Airborne82 | September 20, 2010 4:55 PM | Report abuse

Liam-still - I honestly can't recall the last time a President vetoed a bill when the Congress in question was of the same party as the President.

Can anyone provide an example of such?

I don't think it happens, ever.

Besides, a veto threat is a show of strength, it is a President saying, "Over my dead body." If a President HAS to issue a veto threat while his party is in power it goes from being a showing of strength to a showing of weakness. After all, if the guy can't get his own party under control... And IF the President IS going to issue a veto threat he sure as heck best be ready to follow through, or he'll lose all respect from everyone in Congress regardless of party.

Posted by: nisleib | September 20, 2010 4:57 PM | Report abuse

"As long Democrats are in charge of both the House And Senate, no bill will be allowed to go to a final passage vote, that does not have the approval of Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Reid, and President Obama. If the votes are not there to pass a bill, in a form that they can all agree on, it will not be brought up for final passage. That is Politics 101, and only some addled woebegone bedwetter fails to grasp that. A President only vetos what the opposition passes, not what his own majority, and he, have already agreed to."

I see that reason continues to elude you. The point of Obama staking a firm position, i.e., openly declaring what he will not sign, is to REMOVE the matter from the Congressional butchers who pretty much destroyed health care reform. Obama's declaration would take the heat off the Dem Caucus because they will all know there is no point pushing ANYTHING contained the Bush Tax Cuts for The Rich. It will end the intra-party squabbling for practical purposes. It will also have the salutary effect of giving Obama some desperately-neeeded wasta. which in turn will benefit all Democrats, except perhaps those Republicrats running AGAINST Obama and the Dem Leadership and who can take a hike anyway since all they do is p*ss all over the inside of the tent.

Posted by: wbgonne | September 20, 2010 4:58 PM | Report abuse

To deal with the deficit, let the tax cuts expire

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/01/AR2010080103287.html

Ten years of $2.3 Trillion in tax cuts, job losses and deficits while thousands of American soldiers have been killed and wounded in the Middle East.

America spends $256 Billion/year for foreign oil, plus $250 Billion/year annual trade deficit with China, resulting in sending $5 Trillion dollars overseas in 10 years for Oil and products made in China.

http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5700.html#2010

U.S. Imports by Country of Origin:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbbl_m.htm

Over a Barrel: U.S. Oil Addiction:

http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=8113439

Americans are paying historically low taxes that are the lowest since 1950. No one pays their tax bracket rate as write off allow everyone’s federal, state and local income taxes to average less than 9%/year and for the more wealthy landowners it’s often 0%.

All Bush Era tax cuts should end, even though the less wealthy would spend it on basic needs, education, housing, transportation, and food while the wealthiest would spend it on stocks, bonds, outsourcing of American manufacturing and jobs, and thousands upon thousands of lobbyists. Just look at Wall Street, Oil, Coal, Tobacco and Medical Insurance industries.

Military men and women fight, die, and experience daily casualties in the Middle East while most other Americans have forgotten the meaning of Sacrifice. It makes no sense to borrow money to support Bush era tax breaks for the most wealthy of Americans, and not tax gasoline enough to maintain and expand America’s Roads, Rails and Highways, especially while millions of Americans are looking for work and Soldiers and others are suffering and sacrificing for our country.

Posted by: Airborne82 | September 20, 2010 5:00 PM | Report abuse

Airborne82:

Let me guess that you didn't have a problem with BILLIONAIRE George Soros "declaring war" on GWB?

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 20, 2010 5:01 PM | Report abuse

"If a President HAS to issue a veto threat while his party is in power it goes from being a showing of strength to a showing of weakness. After all, if the guy can't get his own party under control"

Obama does NOT have control of the Dem Caucus. That is obvious. This would be a way to assert that control. How in the world will that make Obama weaker? Dems are already bashing everything Obama has accomplished and are doing so with impunity. You are kidding yourself if you don't think the American people know that Obama is NOT the boss. That's been clear since last Spring when Obama punted health care to the Dem Caucus. Do you think that worked out well?

Posted by: wbgonne | September 20, 2010 5:02 PM | Report abuse

BTW Greg:

It looks like the House is considering recess THIS WEEK; then it matters not what the Senate votes on next week ; )

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42439.html

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 20, 2010 5:04 PM | Report abuse

How come "The Liberal Media" has not given any coverage, to the fact that John, Full Body Nicotine Stain, Boehner has flip flopped on his promise to vote for a bill that would provide tax cuts for the Middle Class?

The Nicotine Stain; is in reference to how much he was in thrall to the Tobacco Lobby, and even passed out checks from them, on the floor of the house, just before a bill that the Tobacco Lobby wanted, was voted on.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 20, 2010 5:04 PM | Report abuse

Airborne82:

Yeah, only the GOP would put a war on the national credit card and sell our economic security to China to do so.

Posted by: wbgonne | September 20, 2010 5:05 PM | Report abuse

JakeD2

As a nation we are under taxed, and those that should be paying have had the tax laws written in their favor filled with deductions and hoarding their income overseas.This is one reason why our infrastructure is falling apart. I'm in the same age demographic of these Tea Party people. I can't take them seriously. First, because they aren't an organically grown movement, but bankrolled by those that look to keep their bootheels on the necks of the working and middle class , and secondly, where were they for the 8 years that the Cheney/Bush crowd was driving us into an economic hole with their wasteful foreign ventures?

Posted by: filmnoia | September 20, 2010 5:06 PM | Report abuse

Bill Clinton yesterday - said "what are you going to do, what are you going to do ?"


Well - isn't he talking to Obama as well?


What is Obama going to do for the ECONOMY?

Seriously folks, no one wants to hear about another $50 Billion Dollars to a stimulus.

WHAT IS OBAMA GOING TO DO ???

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 20, 2010 5:06 PM | Report abuse

O&O.

Posted by: wbgonne | September 20, 2010 5:07 PM | Report abuse

wbgonne - Sorry, but if you think Obama threatening a veto while his own party is in control of Congress will help then you really don't know much about politics.

Liam has the right of this one.

Posted by: nisleib | September 20, 2010 5:07 PM | Report abuse

"As the CEO of HP, Carly Fiorina laid off 30,000 workers."

Barbara Boxer on Wednesday, September 15th, 2010 in a political ad

It's clear that Fiorina laid off 30,000 workers as a result of the merger with Compaq, as she said in the interview with InformationWeek. And it's clear that by October 2005 the merged company employed more workers than the two separate companies had pre-merger (Fiorina had been forced out seven months earlier in February 2005). But some of those jobs may have resulted from acquisitions, and some may have been abroad. A company as large as HP is very dynamic, so it's possible that the initial layoffs resulted in a stronger company that contributed to job growth in the long run. That's good in the macro sense, but it doesn't cancel the fact that 30,000 workers lost their jobs. So we rate the claim:

Mostly True.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/sep/17/barbara-boxer/ad-sen-barbara-boxer-attacks-carly-fiorina-layoffs/

Fiorina The Layoff Queen...

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 20, 2010 5:08 PM | Report abuse

Obama has already lost the center.

Obama is losing the left.


Is it possible that Obama is the first person in history to lose BOTH THE CENTER AND THE LEFT?


Unprecedented.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 20, 2010 5:08 PM | Report abuse

"Sorry, but if you think Obama threatening a veto while his own party is in control of Congress will help then you really don't know much about politics."

I respectfully disagree. However, there is a near-certainty that Obama will follow your course not mine. So we'll see how it turns out.

Posted by: wbgonne | September 20, 2010 5:10 PM | Report abuse

I doubt that this will be a very popular suggestion but if the deficit is really the long term problem everyone (including Krugman) seems to believe it is, wouldn't it make sense for even the middle class tax cut to sunset sometime after the economy has recovered

Posted by: cmccauley60 | September 20, 2010 5:11 PM | Report abuse

nisleib:

Obama (allegedly) vetoed H.J.Res. 64 on December 30, 2009 -- when his party controlled both Houses.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 20, 2010 5:14 PM | Report abuse

wbgonne - I think it is one of the unwritten rules of politics that a President doesn't issue veto threats to his own party. I could be wrong, and you could be right, but I can't think of any example of such a thing happening.

Greg - You have a research staff, can they look into this for us? Like I said, I could be wrong.

Posted by: nisleib | September 20, 2010 5:15 PM | Report abuse

nisleib

This Woebegone is thick as a brick, and might just be JakeD2's twin,separated at birth. He does not seem capable of grasping that the House and Senate members are going to cast their votes, as they see fit, and only the party whips can hope to persuade some of them, to give enough votes to put a bill over the top.

President Obama openly threating them, might have just the opposite effect, and force more of those Blue Dogs, from traditionally red districts, to distance their selves from him.

If the votes aren't there, nothing will get passed, so there will be nothing to veto. Yet this woebegone whiner, still wants to have the President go public to threaten to veto what you do not pass, or ever send to my desk for signature.

Recall how this President operates. He consults with both house leaders, and works behind the scenes to persuade some members to sign on to the bill, in order to get it passed.

Does the name Bart Stupak ring a bell, and how the President worked behind the scenes to get him to switch, and provide the 218th vote for to pass health care reform.

Had The President instead, threatened to veto the bill, if it were not passed, he would have gotten nothing to veto. The bill would have been defeated.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 20, 2010 5:19 PM | Report abuse

filmnoia:

I'm not arguing "under" or "over" taxed. You insinuated that our position is to "not confiscate any income." I guess you weren't able to find a TEA Party member you actually said that?

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 20, 2010 5:20 PM | Report abuse

The Right will stop at nothing to destroy America's middle class. Let's fight then.

Posted by: TwoTermObama | September 20, 2010 5:23 PM | Report abuse

"Recall how this President operates. He consults with both house leaders, and works behind the scenes to persuade some members to sign on to the bill, in order to get it passed."

Pathetic apologia for weakness. Obama is THE PRESIDENT for god's sake, not some referee overseeing a Marquis of Queensbury boxing match.

"Does the name Bart Stupak ring a bell, and how the President worked behind the scenes to get him to switch, and provide the 218th vote for to pass health care reform. Had The President instead, threatened to veto the bill, if it were not passed, he would have gotten nothing to veto. The bill would have been defeated."

But that is simply preposterous. You are arguing that Obama handled health care adroitly? Are you insane? HCR took all the life out of Obama's presidency. I'm looking for a way to resuscitate it; you're denying there's a problem at all. Really. With friends like you and the Republicrats, Liam, the Democrats need more enemies.

Posted by: wbgonne | September 20, 2010 5:23 PM | Report abuse

nisleib:

You are wrong.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 20, 2010 5:25 PM | Report abuse

Jake - that was a pocket veto of a Bill no longer needed due to H.R. 3326 (Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010, Public Law 111-118), which was signed into law on December 19, 2009.

That is not the same thing as a veto threat, which is meant to show displeasure over a particular peice of legislation and, hopefully, change the particulars of the legislation in question before it reaches the President's desk.

But nice catch Jake! I'd forgotten about that.

Posted by: nisleib | September 20, 2010 5:26 PM | Report abuse

TwoTermObama:

Feel free to "fight" but pick a side: Do you think that he should threaten to veto any legislation that includes a tax cut for those of us who make more than $250,000?

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 20, 2010 5:28 PM | Report abuse

Poor Woebegone, trying so hard to paint the most successful President, in his first two years, since FDR, or even better than FDR, since FDR still had the solid south, and did not have two wars handed to him, when he came in.

Clearly WoeBegone is just some Right Wing Trojan Horse Troll, trying to divide Democrats.

Woebegone's constant refrain is that the Congressional Democrats are useless, and President Obama is a very weak leader. Why, just the other day, Woebegone went to the Quitter Palin play book, and accused President Obama of being "impotent"

Woebegone, your Trojan Horse Troll act has grown old and transparent. So F. you, and the Trojan Horse you rode in on.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 20, 2010 5:30 PM | Report abuse


"hopefully, change the particulars of the legislation in question before it reaches the President's desk"

nisleib: Isn't that EXACTLY what we're trying to accomplish?

Posted by: wbgonne | September 20, 2010 5:31 PM | Report abuse

Go for it or I am voting Gren party straight ticket! Darn deems Lincoln, Nelson, (Dodd) and Bacus all out to be taken to "reagan's woodshed"
I hope these greedy deems are defeated!

Posted by: crrobin | September 20, 2010 5:31 PM | Report abuse

"I guess you weren't able to find a TEA Party member you actually said that?

"who instead of "you" is what you mean.
I don't go around polling the TP members, plus I make sure in my private life not to consort with bigots and cretins. There are groups in this country who would like to abolish the income tax, whether they are official TP members with their Don't Tread on Me Flags and their fife and drum is really not material. I guess you still can't answer why this crowd wasn't out marching while Cheney and Bush sold us down the river? Purely rhetorical, since you should know why, but you're probably into denial, like the rest of the Right. Oh no wait, Dick and George are one of US not Obama the OTHER.

Posted by: filmnoia | September 20, 2010 5:32 PM | Report abuse

"TwoTermObama:

Feel free to "fight" but pick a side: Do you think that he should threaten to veto any legislation that includes a tax cut for those of us who make more than $250,000?

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 20, 2010 5:28 PM | Report abuse "

Those of who? You? You don't even have a job. But of course the tax cuts for the richest Americans shouldn't be extended. After all, you scream about the deficit daily (except when Cheney is running up a huge tab and 'deficits don't matter')

Posted by: TwoTermObama | September 20, 2010 5:32 PM | Report abuse

Well, do you want veto "threats" now or (as you originally claimed) actual vetoes taken against legislation passed by the President's same party? You can compare the actual vetoes yourself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_vetoes#Barack_Obama

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 20, 2010 5:33 PM | Report abuse

Jake - If I am wrong please provide an example of a President (of either party) issuing a THREAT to veto a bill when their party was in power.

I'm not talking about a pocket veto, pocket vetos are kind of the opposite of veto threats. A President issues a veto threat when he wants Congress to do (not do) something. It is meant to be loud. A pocket veto is what happens when a President wants to kill a bill quitely... Indeed the only reason for a pocket veto is that the President doesn't want to sign an ACTUAL veto.

Posted by: nisleib | September 20, 2010 5:36 PM | Report abuse

The deficit didn't matter during times of prosperity (am I the only one who can see that?).

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 20, 2010 5:37 PM | Report abuse

Uh huh.

Posted by: TwoTermObama | September 20, 2010 5:40 PM | Report abuse

TwoTermObama:

I don't have a "job" because I'm retired! My wife and I did make more than $250,000 last year though ; )

Care to answer my question to you now?

nisleib:

I gave you the link to look it up yourself. I think that GWB had to threaten (and actually go ahead with his first) veto on the stem-cell bill that Mike Castle -- yes, THAT Mike Castle -- got enough moderate Republicans to vote for. I'm sure it happened when Clinton was in office too.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 20, 2010 5:42 PM | Report abuse

Prosperty under Clinton.

Twenty two million jobs added, and an annual budget surplus brought about, that started to pay down the national debt.

All accomplished without the alleged benifits of Bush Tax Cuts For Fat Cats.

After Bush Tax Cuts for Fat Cats; not a single net job added after eight years, and an annual budget deficit converted into a massive annual deficit.
The Bush Tax Cuts for Fat Cats destroyed our economy.

Now the Republicans want to borrow Four Trillion Dollars more from China, to renew those failed Tax Cuts for Fat Cats.

Fiscal Deficit Hawks, MY Arse! Republicans are just lap dogs for the Fattest Cats in the nation.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 20, 2010 5:42 PM | Report abuse

* GOP plan to change health law could bring complications *

"There might be a little bit of 'barking dog catches car, doesn't know what to do'"

Here's a guide to what could be in store if Republicans call the shots.....

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/09/20/100854/gop-plan-to-change-health-law.html

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 20, 2010 5:43 PM | Report abuse

Kool-aid

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/09/13/100452_a100767/cartoons-for-the-week-of-12-september.html

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 20, 2010 5:44 PM | Report abuse

Jake - I looked at the wikipedia page and it says

________________________

"Occasionally, a President either publicly or privately threatens Congress with a veto to influence the content or passage of legislation. There is no record of what officially constitutes a "veto threat," or how many have been made over the years, but it has become a staple of Presidential politics and a sometimes effective way of shaping policy.

Barack Obama issued his first veto threat to Congress even before entering office"

__________________________

It doesn't surprise me at all that a President might threaten a veto before being elected, after all, who knows what the Congress will look like once elected?

But please, provide me an example of a President, whose party has large majorities in Congress, issuing a veto threat...

Posted by: nisleib | September 20, 2010 5:46 PM | Report abuse

"Did I hit anything?"

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/09/13/100452_a100768/cartoons-for-the-week-of-12-september.html

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 20, 2010 5:46 PM | Report abuse

nisleib:

President Carter vetoed (can't remember if he "threated" beforehand or not) while the Dems controlled Congress. In fact, a DEM Congress overrode two of Carter's vetoes. Not since 1952 had a Congress controlled by the President's own party overridden a veto. On 5 June 1980, Carter vetoed a bill that repealed a crude oil import fee of $4.62 per barrel. The same day, the House voted 335-34 to override Carter's veto. The Senate followed suit the next day by 68 votes to 10. At the time, Carter's own party (the Democrats) had a 119-seat majority (276-157) in the House, and a 17-seat majority (58-41) in the Senate. In August, 1980, Congress overrode his veto of a veterans' health care bill, by votes of 401-5 in the House, and 85-0 in the Senate.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 20, 2010 5:47 PM | Report abuse

All, Happy Hour Roundup posted:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/09/happy_hour_roundup_91.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | September 20, 2010 5:49 PM | Report abuse

I get so tired doing ALL of the heavy lifting around this place!

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 20, 2010 5:50 PM | Report abuse

(At least our gracious host caught the irony in the House adjourning THIS WEEK before the Senate even votes ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 20, 2010 5:54 PM | Report abuse

nisleib

It is so simple that clearly WoeBegone is just trying to agitate, and turn people against both the President and Congressional Democrats.

How it works. Reid Pelosi and Obama all consult on where things stand, and what they can get a majority of their own party to vote for. If President Obama feels that he can not sign such a bill, he lets them know that, and they go back to their caucuses and inform them where the President stands on the issue. All three of them do the best they can to hammer out the best bill they can get, and then they move forward. No public posturing and bluster is called for. If the three of them can not persuade their own caucuses to provide enough votes to pass the preferred bill, they either do not allow it to go for a vote, or they settle for a modified version, that will get enough Democrats on board, to get it passed.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 20, 2010 5:55 PM | Report abuse

Jake - Dubya Bush issued 11 vetoes (and 1 pocket veto). His very first veto came on July 19th, 2006. (it was the stem cell bill you mentioned.) And yes, Congress was still in the hands of the GOP at the time.

I guess you were right and I was wrong about the veto threat...

Still, it seems like a bad idea to threaten a veto when your party is in power, and Lord knows Bush issued a LOT more veto threats after the Dems took control of Congress than he did when the GOP had it. From a political stand point this makes sense.

Posted by: nisleib | September 20, 2010 5:57 PM | Report abuse

The Dems should also consider pushing through line-item veto power for the President.

It's legislation the Republican Party has promoted in the past, and it would give Obama some leverage if the Republicans took the House and immediately tried to de-fund health care reform and financial reform.

Posted by: tboyer33 | September 20, 2010 6:03 PM | Report abuse

See, that wasn't so hard to admit (I'm always right BTW ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 20, 2010 6:03 PM | Report abuse

Did we elect these people to play political games? Is their main function to raise money and engage in election year gamesmanship? I think there should be a generic choice on all ballots this November for "the other guy/girl", whoever is not the incumbent. There is something really dysfunctional about our government. I really wonder if a complete overhaul of Congress would be a risk worth taking.

Posted by: matt_1344 | September 20, 2010 6:07 PM | Report abuse

tboyer33:

What makes you think the line-item veto would be Constitutional this time around?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_v._City_of_New_York

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 20, 2010 6:09 PM | Report abuse

Quote of the day:

The deficit didn't matter during times of prosperity (am I the only one who can see that?).

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 20, 2010 5:37 PM | Report abuse

The most complete demonstration of ignorance that I have seen in some time.

Posted by: cmccauley60 | September 20, 2010 6:10 PM | Report abuse

Line item vetos are unconstitutional, because it would have the executive branch engaging in acts of legislation.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 20, 2010 6:11 PM | Report abuse

matt_1344:

Several States (Nevada included) allow a vote for "None of the Above" but even that won't save Harry Reid this time ...

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 20, 2010 6:13 PM | Report abuse

JakeD2, Were you referring to the Paris Hilton tax earlier? You know the tax that takes a portion of the money that somebody didn't earn?

Posted by: akcoins | September 20, 2010 6:17 PM | Report abuse

Don't worry, the Democrats will screw this one up too.

Posted by: MagicDog1 | September 20, 2010 6:18 PM | Report abuse

akcoins:

No (both of Ms. Hilton's parents are still alive). I was referring to the DEATH tax.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 20, 2010 6:19 PM | Report abuse

Jake, Then you were referring to the Paris Hilton tax.

Posted by: akcoins | September 20, 2010 6:24 PM | Report abuse

No, I was not.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 20, 2010 6:33 PM | Report abuse

Its high time the REAL Democrats stand and deliver. There are too many DINOs in Congress who are doing the Republicans dirty work on the other side of the aisle. This will expose Baucus, Nelson, Lincoln and other Democratic posers what thier true colors are: RED.

Posted by: atroncale1 | September 20, 2010 6:42 PM | Report abuse

Yes you are. If and when you want to call it by its real name we can discuss it like adults. Until then it is the Paris Hilton tax.

Posted by: akcoins | September 20, 2010 6:48 PM | Report abuse

akcoins:

Whatever (as if the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" is a REAL substantive name too ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 20, 2010 6:52 PM | Report abuse

For everyone else, the federal DEATH tax this year (2010) is subject to a "one year repeal" to be effectuated by a temporary, one-year-only rate of 0%, but on January 1, 2011 the tax is scheduled to return at a top rate of 55% and the exemption amount is scheduled to drop back down to $1.0 million. Many tax analysts suspect that Congress will not permit this legislatively scheduled repeal-and-increase scheme to actually go into effect between January 1, 2010 and January 1, 2011. To avoid the temporary repeal and subsequent reinstatement of the tax at the higher rate, the 2009 rate of 45% and exemption amount of 3.5 million could be extended beyond December 31, 2009, or the rate and exemption amount could be permanently fixed at some amount greater than zero before that date.

If anyone wants to argue why parents should not be allowed to leave some of their hard-earned and ALREADY TAXED estate to their kids, let me know.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 20, 2010 6:59 PM | Report abuse

when I visited Vancouver last summer and spoke to a realtor about buying a condo, they were totally amused about the whining Americans do over their supposedly high taxes. I was reminded that they have higher taxes on income and real estate purchases and yet the Canadian economy with their natural beauty, parks,dreaded healthcare and oh yes higher taxes has an economy who's GDP and employment picture far exceeds our's. Their mtg system differs from our's as well but the bottom line is that the quality of life and economic health of a country is not reflected by seeing how low our politicans can drive down taxes.

Posted by: leichtman1 | September 20, 2010 7:00 PM | Report abuse

Liam-still wrote,
"Poor Woebegone, trying so hard to paint the most successful President, in his first two years, since FDR, or even better than FDR, since FDR still had the solid south, and did not have two wars handed to him, when he came in."
------

LOL. You just could never make this stuff up.

Posted by: Brigade | September 20, 2010 7:04 PM | Report abuse

yea pretty sweet. Their is a local plaintiff's lawyer John O'Quinn who died this year in an unfortunate auto accident. His net worth was over $250 million and his heirs were pretty pleased that they have to pay zero in inheritance taxes. I am sure it is precisely these kinds of estates that the GOP so desperately wants to defend from taxes, so their heirs will have more money to contribute to D candidates.

Posted by: leichtman1 | September 20, 2010 7:06 PM | Report abuse

The middle class CANNOT afford to pay $700 BILLION for tax cuts for the WEALTHY.

Stop believing the myth that only the wealthy can create jobs. When a middle class American buys a product or pays for a service, a job is created. When a middle class American buys a house, they HIRE someone to fix it up or upgrade it. When a middle class American saves up money and uses that money to take out a small business loan and start a business, THEY CREATE JOBS.

70% of our economy is CONSUMER based. Guess who most of those consumers are? MIDDLE CLASS AMERICANS.

Posted by: paulflorez | September 20, 2010 7:06 PM | Report abuse

Woebegone, your Trojan Horse Troll act has grown old and transparent. So F. you, and the Trojan Horse you rode in on.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 20, 2010 5:30 PM
-----

Nice reasoned response.

Posted by: Brigade | September 20, 2010 7:07 PM | Report abuse

Yes you are. . . .

Posted by: akcoins | September 20, 2010 6:48 PM
-----

I know you are, but what am I?

Posted by: Brigade | September 20, 2010 7:11 PM | Report abuse

Leichtman1,
Good to see you here. I'd like to put your mind at ease. You can stop expending all that time and money supporting Bill White. You say that Texas cannot afford another four years of Perry, but Schrodingerscat, a former Texas resident, assured us yesterday that it is of no consequence who the Governor of Texas may be. It's merely a formality that you even have a governor. According to s-cat, an eight year old child could do the job of Texas governor. You know---cutting ribbons and making speeches. Feel better?

Posted by: Brigade | September 20, 2010 7:16 PM | Report abuse

leichtman1:

I couldn't care less about PI lawyers. I am more concerned about the family businesses that employ lots of Americans but will have to be sold by heirs since the tax is too much in the next few years. I think that even MarkInAustin was concerned about this.

BTW: Canada's GDP last year was $1.28 trillion; the U.S. was $14,26 trillion.

Although I went to law school -- because I wesn't good with math -- even I know that first number is smaller than the second and certainly does not "far exceed" it.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 20, 2010 7:19 PM | Report abuse

Brigade, What? Is this a third grade discussion?

Posted by: akcoins | September 20, 2010 7:39 PM | Report abuse

"We win with either option -- either the middle class cuts pass or Republicans are isolated and look awful stalling and defending tax cuts for the richest of the rich," the aide says.
=================================
Yup, that's what it has come down to: political quests trump responsible policy.
We need a change.

Posted by: mtpeaks | September 20, 2010 7:47 PM | Report abuse

Vote for Bristol Palin tonight on "Dancing with the Stars" :

Vote online, and text the word "VOTE" to 3407 or call 1-800-868-3407

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 20, 2010 8:00 PM | Report abuse

The day the democrats took over was
>not January 22nd 2009 it was actually January 3rd 2007 the day the Democrats took over the House of Representatives and
>the Senate, the start of the 110th Congress. The Democratic Party controlled a majority in both chambers
>for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995.

For those who are listening
>to the liberals propagating the fallacy that everything is "Bush's Fault",
>think about this:
>
>January 3rd, 2007 was the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress:
>
>At the time:
>
>The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77
>
>The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%
>
>The Unemployment rate was 4.6%
>
>George Bush's Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of
>JOB CREATION!
>
>Remember the day...
>January 3rd, 2007 was the day that Barney Frank took over the House Financial
>Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee.
>
>The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the
> economy?
>BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES!!!
>
>THANK YOU DEMOCRATS for taking us from 13,000 DOW, 3.5 GDP and 4.6% Unemployment...
>to this CRISIS by (among MANY other things) dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic
>loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac FIASCOS! (BTW: Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie - starting in
>2001 because it was financially risky for the US economy).
>
>And who took the THIRD highest pay-off
> from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac????
>
>OBAMA

And who fought against reform of
>Fannie and Freddie???
>
>OBAMA and the Democratic Congress
>
>So when some one tries to blame
> Bush...
>
>REMEMBER JANUARY 3rd, 2007.... THE DAY THE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER!" Bush may have been in the car but the Democrats were in charge
>of the gas pedal and steering wheel they were driving.

Set the record straight on Bush!


>"It's not that liberals aren't smart,
>it's just that so much of what they know isn't so" -Ronald Reagan

Posted by: Jimbo77 | September 20, 2010 8:13 PM | Report abuse

YAY!
$750 Billion.
It either sits in off-shore accounts gaining interest for the wealthiest people on Earth...
OR it cuts the burdensome deficit.
Time to take a stand against the Bush Deficit, once and for all.
Posted by: Ethan2010 |
=========================
Ethan, here's the problem: taxing the upper 2% will save $750 billion, but extending the tax cuts to the middle class will cost $3 trillion.
So, where are we going to find another $3 trillion to offset the middle class tax cuts?
Add it to the deficit, and expect our kids to pay, perhaps?
That's why this issue will likely be postponed---the dems can't find the offset, despite the political spoils.

Posted by: mtpeaks | September 20, 2010 8:26 PM | Report abuse

Republicans urged Obama to do this 7 months ago and now ...they changed their minds.

They crashed the car. Blocked the jaws of life and blame Obama when the passenger dies.

Republicans are despicable.

Posted by: thebobbob | September 21, 2010 1:41 AM | Report abuse

brigade our lt. governor has more power than our governor except in 3 areas:
1. ReDistricting 2. Appointments(Perry and his croanie supporter appointments) and 3. Image nationally. Judicial Appointments especially at the District and State Supreme Ct and replacements on our State Bd of Education are very impt to me. Our Governor is in denial and stunningly our budget deficit projected to be upwards of $21 billion exceeding even Ca's. We also have the nation's highest h/s dropout rate, and Bill White is being overwhelmingly being supported by educators, principals, and state school bd members; I know I have contacted hundreds as a volunteer for the campaign.

Gee jake do you think that Canada's GDP might be just a tad smaller than our's,da?
My point is that Canada's actual projected GROWTH in GDP for 2010-2011 looks to be 8.6% and their inflation rate .02%. This from a country that laughs at Americans like you who constantly whine about our high taxes. Their economy even with higher aggragate taxes and national healthcare is doing better in growth of GDP.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703406604575278660820788770.html

I know its hard for you to concentrate but my point about the deceased plaintiff's lawyer was about the windfall his estate will see thanks to having 0% estate tax.Certainly you only read Plaintiff's lawyer. He was not a family farm or hardware store, nor was Mr. Dan Duncan, a billionaire oil tycoon who died this year and who's heirs will pay zero:
http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/texas-billionaires-heirs-will-inherit-fortune-tax-free/19509404

I suppose we will hear how much their heirs desperately needed to pay 0% in inheritance taxes for the wellbeing of our country. By the way the current system excludes the first $1.2 million in assets and is setbto increase to a $2 million dollar exclusion.

Posted by: leichtman1 | September 21, 2010 7:53 AM | Report abuse

I read your entire comment, so let me know when Canada's "growth rate" actually catches them up to us. As for the death tax, too bad if the family business is worth more than $2 million, huh? The feds should NOT be able to tax those job-sustaining businesses to the breaking point.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 21, 2010 11:15 AM | 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