Skip to main content

View Diary: Warning: Swallowing the President's Bitter Pills May Cause Harsh Austerity (246 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  They were set to expire (8+ / 0-)

    because they were passed during reconciliation.  You see, you have to know these things. The leverage was all on the President who only had to do nothing. "Scary" letters from Republicans changes nothing. Maybe we should just cower every time they say something like Mitch McConnell after Obama's reelection?

    Nope, I'm right. Not securing a debt ceiling raise in the negations led to the debt ceiling debacle we are still dealing with today. Only Boehner stopped it from happening so they passed a stop go which wasn't the original BCA. We're still dealing with it now so to even talk like that shows you don't understand what happened at all.  It's in my last diary linked above. Those wonderful hostages you are excusing.

    Only someone so desperate could state extending Bush tax cuts=DADT repeal and start.

    No other president fumbled that badly on the debt ceiling so you can make all the excuses you want but we're still dealing with the fallout and the grand bargain was merely put off until now.

    I don't negotiate grand bargains with deficit terrorists!

    by priceman on Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 05:43:07 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  They were set to expire because a sunset (0+ / 0-)

      provision was written into the bill that was passed in 2001.  It was set at 10 years because that's the customary length of time for CBO projections.

      The only leverage that counts is having the votes to pass a bill in Congress.  The letter with 42 signatures on it just means that the Democrats didn't have enough votes in the Senate to get past a procedural filibuster.  No cowering needed.  It's simply a matter of getting what you want.

      Doing nothing wasn't going to extend the lower tax rates on income under $250,000.  It wasn't going to extend unemployment benefits either.  The President believed that it was important at that time to fund those two things for the sake of the economic recovery.  Unemployment came in at 9.8% at that point.  If the Democrats couldn't pass what they wanted on their own they had to deal.

      The Democrats gave away an extension of the lower rates on the highest income to extend lower rates on income under $250,000 and unemployment benefits.  Some people are never happy.  If the President had done nothing, some people would be griping because he promised people earning under $250,000 that their taxes wouldn't go up.  

      The circumstances today aren't the same as they were in 2010.  It isn't productive to anticipate the worst.  

      "Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves." - Abraham Lincoln

      by leftreborn on Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 07:02:26 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Wrong, it didn't pass the Byrd rule (6+ / 0-)

        which has to do with the CBO score and having a budget related time that doesn't raise the deficit to pass rocniakltion. A Democrats, any Democrat could have raised a point of order invoking the Byrd rule but they didn't in 2001 so then a Sunset provision was stuck in for 10 years based on the CBO projections. The robust public option among other things weren't scored ten years ago during HCR. 10 years is the time frame taken into account. That's a bizarre excuse. It has to do with parliamentary procedure and reconciliation and the Byrd rule which has to do with no raising the deficit.

        The continual damage is ignoring the advice of James K. Galbraith(who rightly said to challenge the debt ceiling as unconstitutional) because of this fear mongering about Republicans(nothing was going to get done) and the filibuster(which BTW Democrats can get rid of anytime there is a new session in Congress but they decided not to). There wasn't all this whining and complaining about 60 votes during Republicans term. It's a cute little fear based revisionism historical diagram you are drawing, but it doesn't have anything to do with reality.

        Republicans wanted those tax cuts to stay and they were set to expire because of the Byrd rule. That does give leverage. more so than (OMGZ a letter with signatures and tough talk from the opposition!) There was no excuse for this political failure. Lowering taxes on 250,000 should have been kept up and if it failed, it failed. Putting the full faith and credit in John Boehner's hands is much more damaging than the Clinton era tax rates going up. If Democrats were so worried about the 9.8% unemployment they probably should have pushed harder for a bigger stimulus and stopped talking about the deficit. Besides the stimulus had already passed by then and as inefficient as it was it's mostly responsible for lowering the official UE rate.

        No basically by excusing this you are straight up excusing failure. IT's a failure to give the full faith and credit of the US to John Boehner willingly as a hostage so we go through dumbass debt ceiling debacles every time it is time and deal with the fallout of each of them. I'm afraid you just don't understand how naive and how unenlightened your position is and how damaging it is. It's really naive and damaging but have fun cheerleading when we go through this again.

        I'm never happy. You're damn right I'm not happy with the unprecedented political failed those like you still cheer for, "But it was all da Republicans!" BS! You either want to learn what happened or you want to wave a scary letter from the opposition and 60 votes and every other piece of garbage I have debunked for a couple of years now.

        We're still dealing with the fallout from 2010 which shows you don't' even know or care what happened. The circumstances are the same because we are still dealing with the debacle you have excused. People should have to suffer because you don't know the extension fo the Bush tax cuts led to the debt ceiling debacle. That is a fact and you can wave whatever scary Republican letter you think excuses putting the full faith and credit of the US in Boehner's hands next time it has to be raised and Social Security and medicare are on the table, but not one with any real political acumen should ever listen to that garbage.

        I don't negotiate grand bargains with deficit terrorists!

        by priceman on Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 07:56:06 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  spot on priceman & people need to drop the name (5+ / 0-)

          'Bush's tax cuts' since they had no life beyond ten years ,and because the gift to the super wealthy currently exists ONLY because of actions taken by the Congress in 2010 and the signature of Obama.

          It's a pain to hear Obama call them the Bush Tax cuts when the legislation is a product of Congress two years after Bush left office, and one Obama signed into law.

          without the ants the rainforest dies

          by aliasalias on Thu Nov 15, 2012 at 09:12:01 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site