Skip to main content

View Diary: House: Over the cliff we go (197 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Hows this for irony: (14+ / 0-)

    At the end of the day, all of this sound and fury, all to get to a point of keeping the Bush tax in place for everyone forever. Except of course for the top .9% that makes over half a million bucks a year.


    Now next year we can put this tax increases issue aside and focus on how deeply we need cut Social Security to continue to pay for the Bush tax cuts.

    •  except it might not play out that way (0+ / 0-)

      the republicans would not be in that much worse shape after the tax cuts expire. They can simply put forward a bill to cut taxes on everybody making less than $500K and dare Democrats to vote against it. Revenue bills must originate in the House unless the Speaker chooses to take steps to alleviate that necessity.

      President Obama and Democrats may actually do what they say- not pass (or in the President's case - veto) bills that are not balanced. He would say we got those tax cuts for free. That was the middle class. Or were you really opposed to those tax cuts for the middle class and only supported tax cuts for the wealthy. So, the President and Congressional Dems can stop any bills that simply cut spending without raising new revenue. And they can win that battle politically as well.

      Therefore, your position (which simply assumes the contrary) is probably incorrect. Not saying that his view should not be considered, but simply that in my estimation it is far from conclusive.

      •  I see your point. (5+ / 0-)

        Which is, essentially, the Democrats will simply bank this deal and refuse any further negotiation. That sounds like an awesome win for our side, correct?

        Except if that's true, then there is even less reason to negotiate anything on tax rates NOW. We could bank an even bigger revenues and still refuse to negotiate.

        But lets assume what you say is true...that Democrats are going to take a hard line on the debt ceiling and refuse to negotatiate any further spending cuts. The question is, how long could they maintain such a stance in an absence of the leverage of tax increases? I think it is pretty much untenable as things begin to slide, especially if you want to get anything else done on infrastructure, immigration or guns or energy as the president wishes.

        I suspect you'll hear a drumbeat beginning the day after Congress is sworn in. "The president got his tax increase. Now it is time to cut spending. We can't move any other legislation until this is dealt with." How long would Democrats sustain a position of "no negotiations." Then comes the 30 day debt ceiling extension bills, rippling through the economy with damage.

        So I don't think a position of "concede leverage now and stand strong later" is either wise or acheivable.
        Not long I don't think.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (135)
  • Community (63)
  • 2016 (52)
  • Environment (42)
  • Elections (38)
  • Media (36)
  • Republicans (36)
  • Hillary Clinton (32)
  • Barack Obama (30)
  • Iraq (30)
  • Jeb Bush (30)
  • Law (29)
  • Climate Change (29)
  • Culture (28)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (27)
  • Civil Rights (26)
  • Labor (21)
  • Economy (21)
  • LGBT (17)
  • Science (17)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site