Skip to main content

View Diary: Did Obama Just Blow it Big Time on Tax Cuts? (51 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  couldn't bold politics have gotten to 60 here!? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    redstater, DontTaseMeBro

    this issue, maybe unlike HCR, just seems like it could have been T'd to get to 60.  HCR had so many moving pieces which, in turn, exposed it to scores of attacks (lots of them baseless conservative propaganda) from across the political spectrum.

    but i feel like it would have been achievable here to side step that and get to 60...

    let's say the bill had everything in it that this one does, but excluded the renewal of tax cuts for the top 2%.
    if you took a bill that gave 98% of the public a tax break, and introduced it in the Senate and then actually gave it a solid week or two for Rs and/or conservative Ds to actively filibuster it -- don't you think the court of public opinion (backed by an aggressive bully pulpit) would just crush that opposition?

    how long do you think a Senator could filibuster a bill that gave 98% of the American public a tax break -- on the grounds that the top 2% needed theirs too?

    wouldn't this have been the time (THE issue) to try to break the filibuster and push to 60?

    •  Maybe but unlikely. Remember, filibusters now (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      twcollier

      are silent. Unemployment extensions for a few months couldn't get 60 votes for weeks. Republicans were very good about enforcing party unity.

      •  true, but filibustering a tax break for 98%... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FG, DontTaseMeBro

        of the American public wouldn't stay silent for long.

        our community, every major media outlet, and (ideally) an impassioned bully pulpit, would -- i think -- crush anyone who dared to filibuster a bill if offered 98% a tax break, esp. if the filibuster was on the grounds that the richest 2% didn't get cut in on the deal.

    •  The numbers were never there... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      twcollier

      ...at best there were 58 Democrats, plus Sanders and Lieberman. And amongst those 58 were some Blue Dogs that thought that tax cuts would ruin their chances at reelection. The Blue Dogs in the House actually asked Nancy Pelosi to not bring up tax cut extensions in order to improve their chances at winning reelection. Look how well that worked out. After Ted Kennedy died, that made it even harder. Next year, the Democrats have a simple majority. We live in "interesting" times...

      Float like a manhole cover, sting like a sash weight! Clean Coal Is A Clinker!

      by JeffW on Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 07:17:24 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  No. lol Absolutely not. The Senate is (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DarkestHour

      impervious to political hardball.

      Democracy - 1 person 1 vote. Free Markets - More dollars more power.

      by k9disc on Fri Dec 10, 2010 at 07:33:48 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  filibuster back-breaker? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        k9disc

        you say "impervious to politial hardball". but, what do you think would happen if Senate leadership brought a bill to the floor that included everything in this bill -- less the extension of tax cuts for the richest 2% -- and someone actually tried to filibuster it?

        i have to believe that there'd be such intense public backlash against anyone who dared to do that, that that which seemed "impervious" would eventually bend and break.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site