GOP senators pledge to block all bills until Bush tax cuts extended

[theeedude]

Because not everyone believes in class warfare, that raising taxes on one group and not others is fair and appropriate.

Really? So you are OK with a flat Social Security tax?

 

[Craig234]

Don't you know? Tax credits are the new form of welfare!

The irony. Tax cuts CAN'T be welfare for the rich, can they, in your world?

 

[ayabe]

They don't have the numbers or support in the house to pass such a bill.

Sure they do, until the changeover. You think all of those outgoing D's have anything to lose?

 

[theeedude]

Dems should vote on extending tax cuts for middle class. If that fails let them expire. Then if GOP wants to propose repassing Bush tax cuts, take it through the CBO and let American people know how much deficit that is going to create. Then at least GOP won't have a leg to stand on when asking for spending cuts in the name of deficits.

 

[MrX8503]

This is bad news.

If the American people can stand to benefit from a certain bill the GOP will block it anyway. How do you expect a country to prosper with that kind of mentality?

 

[child of wonder]

 

[theeedude]

This is bad news.

If the American people can stand to benefit from a certain bill the GOP will block it anyway. How do you expect a country to prosper with that kind of mentality?

If American people stand to benefit from a certain bill, GOP will block it.
That is their plan for 2012. Do their best to maximize the suffering of American people, then blame Obama for it, and use it go gain power. Once they gain power, it's going to be 2000-2006 all over again, except starting from a lower baseline.

 

[Fern]

No, the gop will twist it around and say the dems raised taxes on everybody.

If they are successful in doing that, the Democrats deserve to lose. You put up a bill to renew the tax cuts on those under $250,000, and you make them filibuster it until taxes go up.

This is so easy the messaging writes itself, the only thing Democrats have to fear is their own ineptitude. (which, okay, is a big thing to fear)

I think JSt0rm is correct.

The progressives have erroneously convinced themselves this is about 'tax cuts'. This rather disengenous spin relies heavily upon somewhat intricate knowledge of the legislative finer points about the Bush tax cut bill. And worse, these finer points are unique; I don't recall any other major tax bill passed through reconciliation.

Throwing partisan spin aside, this is about a tax increase. There's really know way around it other than ideological self-delusion.

If the Dems don't get something passed the 'average man' is going to see his taxes go up. I predict it will be broadly seen by the public as the tax increase it is. Clever political mumbo-jumbo about 'tax cuts for rich' won't disguise it.

If you poll for 'tax cuts for rich' I doubt it would be popular. But if you poll for increasing taxes (for anyone, including those making above $250K), I also doubt it would be popular, certainly not in this economy.

And contrary to Guitardaddy's claims, the middle class got quite a lot. Not only were the lower brackets slashed, but a number of credits for the middle class are in the Bush tax regime.

So yes, Eski, I agree the message writes itself, just not how you see it.
-------------------

For some time now I've been wondering if the Repubs have an ulterior motive in holding out for those making $250k and above. It just seems too obvious, and too easy, to compromise and get this done. Why not follow Shumer's suggestion and just raise taxes on those making $1million and above?

I'm wondering if that ulterior motive may be campaign fund raising for the next election. Let's face it, people with that kind of money are better able to contribute. IMO, the Repubs may be in a win-win situation. If those peoples' taxes are not raised, the repubs can claim to have fought successfully for them and point out that the Dems WANTED to raise their taxes. If their taxes are raised, the Dems can be blamed and the Repubs can ask for the top earners support ($'s) to oveturn it.

Fern

 

[thraashman]

I think JSt0rm is correct.

The progressives have erroneously convinced themselves this is about 'tax cuts'. This rather disengenous spin relies heavily upon somewhat intricate knowledge of the legislative finer points about the Bush tax cut bill. And worse, these finer points are unique; I don't recall any other major tax bill passed through reconciliation.

Throwing partisan spin aside, this is about a tax increase. There's really know way around it other than ideological self-delusion.

If the Dems don't get something passed the 'average man' is going to see his taxes go up. I predict it will be broadly seen by the public as the tax increase it is. Clever political mumbo-jumbo about 'tax cuts for rich' won't disguise it.

If you poll for 'tax cuts for rich' I doubt it would be popular. But if you poll for increasing taxes (for anyone, including those making above $250K), I also doubt it would be popular, certainly not in this economy.

And contrary to Guitardaddy's claims, the middle class got quite a lot. Not only were the lower brackets slashed, but a number of credits for the middle class are in the Bush tax regime.

So yes, Eski, I agree the message writes itself, just not how you see it.
-------------------

For some time now I've been wondering if the Repubs have an ulterior motive in holding out for those making $250k and above. It just seems too obvious, and too easy, to compromise and get this done. Why not follow Shumer's suggestion and just raise taxes on those making $1million and above?

I'm wondering if that ulterior motive may be campaign fund raising for the next election. Let's face it, people with that kind of money are better able to contribute. IMO, the Repubs may be in a win-win situation. If those peoples' taxes are not raised, the repubs can claim to have fought successfully for them and point out that the Dems WANTED to raise their taxes. If their taxes are raised, the Dems can be blamed and the Repubs can ask for the top earners support ($'s) to oveturn it.

Fern

Well, the intelligent American people (ie. liberals) know that this tax cut fiasco the Republicans created is a huge source of budget deficits and national debt. The intelligent Americans know that the shit these tax cuts were supposed to do didn't happen. Unfortunately, there's a lot more stupid as shit Americans than intelligent ones. And stupid as shit generally means "votes Republican".

 

[fskimospy]

In what world of spin is not passing new legislation cut taxes a tax increase? If that's the case, then what Bush passed in 2001 was actually simultaneously a 10 year tax cut followed by a tax increase.

If the Democrats don't get something passed, yes it will be seen as a tax increase. If they are so inept as to somehow have Republicans filibustering their tax cut bill get turned into them increasing taxes, they deserve to lose. People will be angry their taxes are going up, and I would love for the Republicans to try and explain how they had to make that happen in order to protect millionaires. I would LOVE to see the polling data on 'if Congress won't pass a tax cut for everyone the Republicans should block everything'. I bet you they have internal polling on that, and it's not pretty.

There's no need to take Schumer's compromise measure, and the Democrats shouldn't, as they hold most of the cards. What seemed far more likely to me was Republicans taking a temporary continuation of the tax cut for millionaires in exchange for pushing through the new START, DADT repeal, etc.

 

[werepossum]

Well, the intelligent American people (ie. liberals) know that this tax cut fiasco the Republicans created is a huge source of budget deficits and national debt. The intelligent Americans know that the shit these tax cuts were supposed to do didn't happen. Unfortunately, there's a lot more stupid as shit Americans than intelligent ones. And stupid as shit generally means "votes Republican".

Under your criteria the "smart Americans" are generally those who can't provide for their own health care, child care, education, etc. whereas those Americans not reliant on government are generally the "stupid as shit" Americans. You may wish to have irony explained to you.

 

[Fern]

In what world of spin is not passing new legislation cut taxes a tax increase?

In the 'normal world' where the results/effect are what counts. I don't think regular people care about the legislative 'jujitsu' that interests political junkies.

What seemed far more likely to me was Republicans taking a temporary continuation of the tax cut for millionaires in exchange for pushing through the new START, DADT repeal, etc.

Yep, that's already been reported. Although I don't recall DADT being mentioned; I thought it was extension of unemployment benefits.

I tend to think a START too complicated to get approved in the time frame they have. Personally, I don't like the idea of rushing something of that importance.

Fern

 

[ayabe]

Under your criteria the "smart Americans" are generally those who can't provide for their own health care, child care, education, etc. whereas those Americans not reliant on government are generally the "stupid as shit" Americans. You may wish to have irony explained to you.

Funny thing, looking at the in and outs of federal dollars, the red states are taking in way more fed dollars than they contribute. I know you know this already and are just trying to be coy.

 

[fskimospy]

In the 'normal world' where the results/effect are what counts. I don't think regular people care about the legislative 'jujitsu' that interests political junkies.



Yep, that's already been reported. Although I don't recall DADT being mentioned; I thought it was extension of unemployment benefits.

I tend to think a START too complicated to get approved in the time frame they have. Personally, I don't like the idea of rushing something of that importance.

Fern

'Rushing'? It was signed almost 9 months ago. It has the overwhelming support of the military, virtually all outside expert groups, and the public. As it stands now, we have zero ability to monitor Russian controls on their nuclear materials, meaning that every day we delay we possibly miss something of vital importance.

Exactly what are you looking for the Senate to do in another few months that it didn't do in the previous nine that would alter this?

In the real world that taxes go up will be what matters, yes. The idea that the Democrats will be blamed for a Republican filibuster is wishful thinking, at best. From a purely partisan perspective, I hope the Republicans try it. Every kid needs to learn that the stove is hot somehow, and if they won't listen, I guess they'll just have to put their hand on it.

 

[thraashman]

Under your criteria the "smart Americans" are generally those who can't provide for their own health care, child care, education, etc. whereas those Americans not reliant on government are generally the "stupid as shit" Americans. You may wish to have irony explained to you.

You seem to be of the belief that everyone who benefits from liberal policies votes liberal. That's quite untrue. You can find videos of people all over that were at Tea Party rallies protesting government run healthcare and Democrats who have medicaid or VA healthcare.

 

[werepossum]

You seem to be of the belief that everyone who benefits from liberal policies votes liberal. That's quite untrue. You can find videos of people all over that were at Tea Party rallies protesting government run healthcare and Democrats who have medicaid or VA healthcare.

Clearly not everyone who takes government bennies votes liberal, but just as clearly most of those do. The correlation between precincts with heavy Democrat voting and heavy federal benefits is simply too strong to ignore. A precinct of mostly public housing is far more solidly Democrat than even the labor unions.

 

[thraashman]

Clearly not everyone who takes government bennies votes liberal, but just as clearly most of those do. The correlation between precincts with heavy Democrat voting and heavy federal benefits is simply too strong to ignore. A precinct of mostly public housing is far more solidly Democrat than even the labor unions.

However the elderly overwhelmingly benefit from medicare which is government run healthcare that Republicans all rally against and Democrats want to improve and expand. Democrats were also who enacted medicare and Reagan, Dole, and Georgia H.W. Bush were heavily against it. And the elderly also overwhelmingly vote Republican despite this program which so greatly benefits them probably more than any other single program is a liberal program.

 

[IBMer]

Clearly not everyone who takes government bennies votes liberal, but just as clearly most of those do. The correlation between precincts with heavy Democrat voting and heavy federal benefits is simply too strong to ignore. A precinct of mostly public housing is far more solidly Democrat than even the labor unions.

You'd have to do a correlation between who is on government bennies and who actually votes for that to hold any water. Just from personal experience and having several family members in poverty, neither they are anyone they know vote.

 

[Argo]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/12/01/gop.senate.demands/index.html?hpt=T1


I find this news disappointing and a little shocking, I think everyone knew this would be their unstated position, but to just come straight out and declare extending tax cuts for the richest americans to be their #1 priority and threatening to filibuster any other legislation is just childish and only hurts perception of the GOP in the long run.

Your title is misleading. The article didn't say "until tax cuts are extended", but rather until a consensus is reached. Big difference.

 

[Darwin333]

Third, they have an agenda for screwing over almost all American that's corrupt and evil.

Hell, if their agenda is screwing over the corrupt and evil Americans <cough> banksters <cough> they have my vote on that alone. Its about time those bastards get boned.

 

[Darwin333]

However the elderly overwhelmingly benefit from medicare which is government run healthcare that Republicans all rally against and Democrats want to improve and expand. Democrats were also who enacted medicare and Reagan, Dole, and Georgia H.W. Bush were heavily against it. And the elderly also overwhelmingly vote Republican despite this program which so greatly benefits them probably more than any other single program is a liberal program.

And George W Bush signed Medicare part D which was the biggest expansion of entitlements in a looong time.

 

[ericlp]

good, I guess obama can keep vetoing all the repugs until the bill expires. Problem solved.

you guys are lame.

 

[Generator]

The Democrats and Obama are soft and the Republicans know it.

 

[Vette73]

Majority leader of the house is calling the bluff. Said he will put up a bill that carries over the tax cuts for those that make 250k or less.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...allow-vote-thursday-on-middle-class-tax-cuts/
" House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer announced that House Democrats would push ahead on a vote Thursday to permanently extend tax breaks just for those making $250,000 a year or less. Republicans argue tax cuts should be extended for everyone, including the wealthy."

 

[Fern]

Majority leader of the house is calling the bluff. Said he will put up a bill that carries over the tax cuts for those that make 250k or less.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...allow-vote-thursday-on-middle-class-tax-cuts/
" House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer announced that House Democrats would push ahead on a vote Thursday to permanently extend tax breaks just for those making $250,000 a year or less. Republicans argue tax cuts should be extended for everyone, including the wealthy."

I think it more appropriately characterized by saying that he is throwing this hot potato over to the Senate.

The House votes and it passes (the Dems hold a big majority, so why not) but the Repubs vote no claiming they oppose tax increases. Big deal. That's barely newsworthy.

But then it shifts over to the Senate. And they're under pressure. Somebody is gonna be blamed if taxes for all go up in January. Are the Senate Dems willing to play that game of 'chicken'?

We'll see.

Fern