Skip to main content

So Reid and McConnell are working on a plan. Reid specifically is asking McConnell specifically to propose good faith additions to the democrat plan. In other words, McConnell gets what he wants. Probably this means that the cutoff goes up to $400,000 rather than the $250,000 in the original senate bill. This isn't a lot different from what the expected result of the Plan B would have been. Once the house passed it (hypothetically) the senate would lower it and it would end up somewhere in $400,000 to $600,000 range.

And that is a problem. Obama's proposal to increase the cutoff to $400,000 in his latest offer was based on the assumption that a lot of deductions would go away. This is a nice fat tax break for people who don't need it simply because the guys on our side seem to be unwilling to call the republicans bluff on an issue they have zero leverage on.

I'm very concerned that after starting with a non-negotiable platform we won the election on we are conceding this for nothing at all.  Democratic demands are once again shown to be hollow low-ball negotiation offers that will be whittled down. This expectation gives no incentive for other democrats to stand firm in their demands at all. The republicans are by nature a more ideologically unified party but you would expect a party holding the presidency to be able to show unity. George Bush took the house democrats to the cleaners over iraq war funding and forced pelosi to pass appropriations with republican votes.

Obama's comments such as "I realize I'm not going to get everything I want" and "everyone has to give a little" are mystifying to me. He is the President of the United States and he is announcing to the world that his demands are low-ball offers??????

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  additions to the WHAT? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SottoVoce, wilderness voice
    propose good faith additions to the democrat plan.

    "I'm sculpting now. Landscapes mostly." ~ Yogi Bear

    by eXtina on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 10:53:33 AM PST

  •  The President said those things (7+ / 0-)

    because the House is controlled by Republicans, and he can't get anything done without Republicans.  

    And the President can't force Republicans in the House to pass legislation.  They were elected by people, too, and the people who voted for them voted knowing the positions they would take.    The Republicans were very clear, during the election, that they wanted no tax increases at all, and that they wanted to cut spending, and they won more of those 435 elections than Democrats did, so they control the House.  That's the way our Constitution works.  

    So, if the President wants to get anything passed in Congress, he needs the Republicans.  As they need him.  That's why it is true that neither side is going to get everything they want, as the President said.  McConnell is not going to get everything he wants, either.  But he's going to have to get SOME concessions, or the Bill doesn't get out of the Senate (it gets filibustered), much less get passed in the House.  If the President does not want anything to get out of Congress, then no, he doesn't need Republicans.  

    It always mystifies me when people say, "No compromise! Force them to give us everything we want!"  Just how do you expect the President to do that?  

    •  2010 was the wrong year to fumble (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sebastianguy99, wilderness voice

      Without redistricting we might be having a different discussion right now. It is hard for some to wrap their heads around the numbers. Obama won but Romney got 47%. So Occupy's slogan should be "we are the 99 - 47 percent"(?)

      Without the House nothing can get done. It's nasty and true for at least another 2 years.

      If you didn't like the news today, go out and make some of your own.

      by jgnyc on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 11:17:53 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Very disengenuous (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      eXtina, Mr Robert, Bmeis, cynndara, Gordon20024
      The Republicans were very clear, during the election, that they wanted no tax increases at all, and that they wanted to cut spending, and they won more of those 435 elections than Democrats did, so they control the House.  That's the way our Constitution works.  
      Everyone who is politically savvy knows all too well that the ONLY, let me repeat that O-N-L-Y reason the GOP controls the House is because of extreme partisan gerrymandering.  It is how the constitution works but to claim the GOP has some kind of right to push their bullshit agenda because they won a majority of the 435 races when they were rigged from the start is disingenuous.

      The reality is the House is fucked up because of that extreme gerrymandering.  But that doesn't mean the president has to kowtow to them because of it.  The new congress will have a 17 vote difference.  The president can wait it out then apply extreme pressure to the GOP and force 17 of them to crack.  He doesn't have to be compromising squat right now because after 1/1/13 he will hold the best hand.  If the GOP wants to vote down unemployment extension and tax cuts for the middle class they do so at their own peril.    Polls clearly indicate that the public is on his side so why would he compromise away the farm just to get a deal done.  

      As for the Senate, fuck McConnell.  If President Obama wanted to he'd support filibuster reform, get a majority of Dem senators to vote for it and McChinless would be rendered obsolete.

      It always mystifies me when people cry "Compromise PLEASE! Give them what they want so long as we get some scraps!".  It would be a lot easier now and in the future when the next manufactured crisis hits if the president just kicked the GOP in the fucking balls to show them who is boss, instead of wilting like a delicate daisy in the Arizona sun every time they say no.

      This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

      by DisNoir36 on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 11:35:26 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Gerrymandering has always been part of the system (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        science, sebastianguy99

        Majority-minority districts are gerrymandered so as to creat that majority -minority situation and those "safe" Democratic seats (which also, perversely, help to create the "safe" Republican seats).  

        Somebody has to decide how to boundaries  -- regular grids just evenly dividing the country up by land area would violate Baker v. Carr.  Baker v. Carr, and the Voting Rights Act, are limitations on drawing districts, but  other than that, those who control state government at the time of a census draw boundaries.   And the only reason that Republicans were in control of drawing lines after the 2010 census is because they won elections -- state elections -- in 2010.  That's how our system works.  Elections -- even state elections -- have consequences.  

        To say that the President should not deal with the Republican majority in the House because that  Republican majority is illegitimate is a rejection of our Constitutional system, and is every bit as bad as those on the right who claim that President Obama's presidency is illegitimate.  

        The Constitution set up the system.  The Republicans won elections in 2010, and, as a result, in many states, they controlled the state legislatures that redrew districts.  If those districts were in violation of Baker v. Carr or the Voting Rights act, then citizens would have challenged those districts.  Other than that, that's the system our Constitution set up, and unless want the President to disavow the Constitutional system, that's what he must deal with.  

      •  Exactly. (0+ / 0-)

        I hate to hold Nixon up as an example, but there you see a man who understood his power as President.  Congress passes a budget he doesn't like? VETO it.  Send it back until they pass something we can live with.  If they insist on letting the sequester fall, then use the powers of the Executive to make THEIR constituencies, both geographic and financial, howl bloody  murder by defunding their favorite programs first.  Tea partiers refusing to budge?  Call them into the Oval Office one by one, and show them The Files.  You know, The Files that the White House can get from all that (completely legal) spying that is now done on US citizens, showing what less-than-savory games they play when they're away from home.  Remind them of what will happen to their home life and their electability when said files are leaked.  I sincerely doubt that anything would need to be created.  Those guys are all such hypocrites that a "teetotaler" Mormon driving drunk on Christmas Eve is only the tip of the iceberg.

        The President has the power to rule this country like a dictator if he wants to.  I don't advocate THAT.  I do suggest that he keep his backbone firm and refuse to allow "compromises" that compromise the strength and prosperity of the nation he leads.

      •  I don't see this as disingenuous at all (0+ / 0-)

        poster was just pointing out what the Pres has to deal with, not justifying it.

  •  Kadeira (12+ / 0-)

    when you sit there puzzling about why the President won't hold fast and never compromise, it's because of the 2 million people whose only lifeline between themselves and homelessness ends today.  Because there are consequences that don't immediately affect YOU but do affect thousands of people just on Daily Kos, and for whom it means the ultimate in disasters.  And because we don't control the House.

    "Kossacks are held to a higher standard. Like Hebrew National hot dogs." - blueaardvark

    by louisev on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 11:08:34 AM PST

    •  And when they did control the house? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cynndara, wolf advocate

      We got what? A republican health care plan, as Obama himself pointed out, that allows 30% to go to private profit and a senate that needed, by choice, 60 votes to do anything. They even kept Lieberman as chair of an important committee despite his actively working to elect McLain. Obama will give the Republicans much of what they want because he too believes Republican talking points about "entitlements" and the god of the market place. Contrast what the democrats did with a majority in both houses to what Bush achieved with Only VP Chaney to break senate deadlocks. The whole cliff thing is hype and rubbish but a good excuse to make workers pay for banker's sins.

  •  Everyone knows McConnells is a man of his word (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    penguins4peace, dear occupant, eXtina

    It's not like he would ever lie or go back on a 'gentleman's agreement', right?

    "Marco Rubio es un pañuelo Rosa!" - Montgomery Burns

    by Fordmandalay on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 11:08:41 AM PST

    •  Don't worry. Reid and McConnell are "Big Buds." (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      What we see is just posturing.

      Here's an excerpt:

      McConnell, in an interview, said “it’s important for us to have a good relationship, and we do. I consider Harry a friend, and I think we trust each other, and I think that’s important for the institution.”

      Reid, who wasn’t available for comment for this article, told NPR earlier this month that “I feel comfortable with my relationship with McConnell and the Republican caucus.” He also said he was confident “that we can get some good things done.”

      The piece is entitled:  "Reid Friendship With McConnell Helps . . ."  Here's the link.

      Anyway, wouldn't surprise me if the so-called Grand Bargain was negotiated months ago.

  •  I think you are comparing apples and (4+ / 0-)

    oranges here.

    Many Dems, whether you agree or not had no issue with funding the Iraq war, reasoning that stopping funding wasnt the best way to end it.

    Compare that to GOP's intransigence when it comes to not raising taxes ever. Getting them to agree to a threshold of 400k would actually be very significant.

    I'm not sure Dems are getting nothing in return either. In a deal, assuming there is one, they would likely get an extension of unemployment benefits, which is pretty significant.

    •  2 million unemployed (5+ / 0-)

      who are about to go off the cliff without a job and without a benefit, would definitely agree with you! it's significant!  There are also all of those people making $50k a year who can't afford a $2,000 tax hike.  Yeah, the $400k and up don't deserve a break, but balanced against those for whom the $2,000 tax break will mean the difference between health care, affording the car they use to get to work, or squeezing out a rent check... it's significant.  And the right thing to do, in my opinion.

      "Kossacks are held to a higher standard. Like Hebrew National hot dogs." - blueaardvark

      by louisev on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 11:23:06 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  What doe you mean by $2,000 tax hike? (0+ / 0-)

        Are you talking about this?  

        The payroll tax holiday this year has reduced workers’ tax on wages up to $110,100 to 4.2 percent from 6.2 percent. In 2012 that translated into a $700 tax cut for a person making $35,000 a year and a $2,202 tax cut for workers making $110,100 and up.

        It has been reported (NYT, etc.) for several months now that the payroll tax cut is unlikely to survive into 2013.

        Here's an excerpt:

        “This has to be a temporary tax cut,” said Timothy F. Geithner, the Treasury secretary, testifying before the Senate Budget Committee this year and voicing the view of many in the White House and on Capitol Hill. “I don’t see any reason to consider supporting its extension.”

        The White House has not pushed for an extension. “We’ll evaluate the question of whether we need to extend it at the end of the year when we’re looking at a whole range of issues,” Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, told reporters last month.

        Here's the link.
  •  Bargaining with Thieves and Liars (5+ / 0-)

    is always your first mistake.

    Much better to call them out for the Thugs they are.

    The mooks who would throw families out into the street.

    Quit holding the Unemployed Hostage at the edge of the Cliff
    by jamess -- Dec 27, 2012

    Dems could always proposed a rescue plan for the Unemployed after the first of the year.

    Turning the heat up on the ongoing Republican Agenda -- the one that values Millionaires more than the average American Worker.

    If we don't turn up this heat, we'll never get the House back.

    Isn't it time to fix the Filibuster?
    -- Here's how.

    by jamess on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 11:21:02 AM PST

  •  Take it over the clifff (4+ / 0-)

    It will be insurance against a terrible cave-in.  This country needs a big jolt.  Call it the fiscal defibrillator.

    I have cheese in my veins. Wisconsin cheese!

    by trekguy66 on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 11:27:23 AM PST

  •  would $400K be so bad? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I haven't seen the numbers on hw it all works out. But Obama started at $250K and if he goes up to $400K, maybe that would be where he figured he would end up anyways.
    Still lower than what many Dems have been talking about, $1 million.

    Obama 2012...going to win it with our support!!!

    by mattinjersey on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 11:28:38 AM PST

  •  Seems ok (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    If it's $400k, and:  (1) everyone below that avoids a tax increase, including a bunch of people who really can't afford one; (2) the unemployed get an extension of benefits; and (3) the country avoids a likely recession that would be hardest on those with lower incomes (through increased unemployment of people who have no cushion to fall back on), I'd be ok with it.  People who make $250k or $400k don't need a tax break, but they're not the ones pulling the republican strings.

  •  there's nothing the least bit mystifying to me (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    joe from Lowell

    about anyone ever saying that they don't expect to get everything they wanted...and its even less mystifying in the political arena.'d have preferred that President Obama pretend he's George Walker Bush and, basically, tell the whole country that it's his way or the highway? That worked so well for Bush and his Republican, it didn't...nor would it work well for President Obama.

  •  $400,000 is a ton of money! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cynndara, newpioneer

    We should all know that when they talk about $250k or $400K we are talking about adjusted gross.  You know line #33 on the old 1040.  That is after your itemized deductions, after your IRA deduction and a few more deductions from the front side.  So when you talk about a $250k limit that is most likely $300,000 in gross income.  Which is something like 6 times the average gross income.  So why would any democrat want to raise this to $400k?  Which is most likely $475k -$500k of gross income.

  •  i read the link...this is not in the story (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    joe from Lowell
    In other words, McConnell gets what he wants.

    Coming Attraction: "Tea Party II - now with more stupid!"

    by memofromturner on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 01:12:12 PM PST

  •  I don't understand why this is the second (5+ / 0-)

    Diary in two days to call it "the democrat plan".  Are we not Democrats?! It's a "Democratic plan" (unless you are a republican or watching Fox).

    20 innocent children were slaughtered. The gun lobby and NRA bear responsibility and it is time to fight back!

    by the dogs sockpuppet on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 01:12:15 PM PST

  •  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, yeah right nt (0+ / 0-)
  •  ugh (0+ / 0-)

    don't do the Chamberlain/Hitler thing.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site