Here's something Obama should have learned from previous administrations. You can't assume that the Democrats will fall in line lockstep to anything its leadership asks. Especially if you decide to try to force through a "compromise" without inviting Democratic Congressional leadership. In the eyes of the Dem house caucus it is utterly disrespectful, especially given all the heavy lifting they've done over the past two years to Obama's legislative agenda. They feel punished for doing everything Obama has asked of them in the last two years, and if I was in the house leadership, I could see why I would want to do this too.

 

This will pass, but the House Dems need their fingerprints on some of this too.

You know, I agree with them taking a stand on this, but the idea that they have done everything Obama has wanted is just silly. Things like the Health Care bill, the Stim bill, were massively different than what Obama had wanted.

 

You know, I agree with them taking a stand on this, but the idea that they have done everything Obama has wanted is just silly. Things like the Health Care bill, the Stim bill, were massively different than what Obama had wanted.

 

I want what you're smoking if you think the Democratic leadership had anything to do with that.

The problem is, they're rapidly running into recess deadlines. They need to bring along a large portion of their caucus within a week, without losing the Senate Republicans.

 

The only true recess deadline is January 5.

Here's something Obama should have learned from previous administrations. You can't assume that the Democrats will fall in line lockstep to anything its leadership asks. Especially if you decide to try to force through a "compromise" without inviting Democratic Congressional leadership. In the eyes of the Dem house caucus it is utterly disrespectful, especially given all the heavy lifting they've done over the past two years to Obama's legislative agenda. They feel punished for doing everything Obama has asked of them in the last two years, and if I was in the house leadership, I could see why I would want to do this too.

 

This will pass, but the House Dems need their fingerprints on some of this too.

 

You mean they'll want even more spending and larger deficits and debt?

You mean they'll want even more spending and larger deficits and debt?

Yes, they'll want more jobs. Don't you?

You mean they'll want even more spending and larger deficits and debt?

 

Maybe, or they may want to find some ways to make this a smaller fight that the GOP can come to the table with the next time around. They may even want to do things like have the debt ceiling be part of this agreement, or a guaranteed up or down vote in the senate on DREAM, START and DADT repeal.

 

They want to be part of the process.

You know, I agree with them taking a stand on this, but the idea that they have done everything Obama has wanted is just silly. Things like the Health Care bill, the Stim bill, were massively different than what Obama had wanted.

 

Definitely not because of the Progressive dem's who are the strongest opposition to this agreement.

I haven't read this whole thread (but I will this weekend...) but I do have to say it's annoying that DADT and that stuff is all tied together with all of this. Ridiculous.

 

Yes, they'll want more jobs. Don't you?

 

Yes sir, since we'll have to take second jobs to pay back all the debt.

I haven't read this whole thread (but I will this weekend...) but I do have to say it's annoying that DADT and that stuff is all tied together with all of this. Ridiculous.

 

I know, right? If only the Senate Republicans weren't such s***heads, maybe something could actually get done.

Yes sir, since we'll have to take second jobs to pay back all the debt.

Tex, I thought we discussed how we were going to stop this type of posting in this forum.

A bill has now been officially introduced into the Senate. It includes a few nuggets that weren't in the supposed agreement, such as extending the tax credits for ethanol production (with no reduction), in addition to some actual renewable energy credits.

 

The bill has been CBO scored and comes in at an $857 billion cost.

I haven't read this whole thread (but I will this weekend...) but I do have to say it's annoying that DADT and that stuff is all tied together with all of this. Ridiculous.

 

So is the DREAM act. So is the Defense Reauthorization Bill. So is any bill not related to tax cuts. The Senate Republicans are holding the chamber hostage and refusing to allow an actual passage vote on anything but tax cuts.

So is the DREAM act. So is the Defense Reauthorization Bill. So is any bill not related to tax cuts. The Senate Republicans are holding the chamber hostage and refusing to allow an actual passage vote on anything but tax cuts.

IF there's no electoral penalty and strong electoral rewards for doing so, why not do so?

IF there's no electoral penalty and strong electoral rewards for doing so, why not do so?

 

It's a shame that this has become the only way people in politics look at this. In reality, this is nothing but political terrorism - using the American population as hostages for political points.

It's a shame that this has become the only way people in politics look at this. In reality, this is nothing but political terrorism - using the American population as hostages for political points.

And you don't think that the language there is a little over the top, calling people "terrorists", as a way of similarly trying to score political points?

And you don't think that the language there is a little over the top, calling people "terrorists", as a way of similarly trying to score political points?

 

I don't know how many political points I score by making this reference on a baseball board.

 

But I'll be happy to amend my remarks to refer to it as hostage taking if it pleases the people here.

I don't know how many political points I score by making this reference on a baseball board.

 

But I'll be happy to amend my remarks to refer to it as hostage taking if it pleases the people here.

 

You don't have to for me. I agree.

You don't have to for me. I agree.

 

I'm not accusing anyone because of their political party in this case. I think doing something like this over such a sustained period of time, regardless of party affiliation, is pretty much political terrorism. Especially if its not a question of doing an active filibuster to kill one specific thing (which is what these rules are designed to do), but when the clear motivation is to obstruct for the sake of obstruction - there's really no other way of describing it.

You don't have to for me. I agree.

Awww, pumpkin!

I know, right? If only the Senate Republicans weren't such s***heads, maybe something could actually get done.

 

Yes, they'll want more jobs. Don't you?

 

None of this is going to create jobs.

None of this is going to create jobs.

 

You could make the argument that by giving larger tax breaks to people who are less likely to be able to sock those savings away that the tax breaks will be spent more immediately, increasing retail sales and making job creation more likely in that sector, and then by cascading effect, in the manufacturing sectors that supply those retail stores (assuming anything is still made in this country.)

You could make the argument that by giving larger tax breaks to people who are less likely to be able to sock those savings away that the tax breaks will be spent more immediately, increasing retail sales and making job creation more likely in that sector, and then by cascading effect, in the manufacturing sectors that supply those retail stores (assuming anything is still made in this country.)

 

I think that would be an accurate statement. But I wouldn't expect any type of major jobs boost to come from extending all the tax cuts. Raising all taxes could, however, have a detrimental effect on the economy. I wouldn't expect any major hiring from corporations because of the tax cuts, it is more cost effective to get more out of existing employees, automate operations, and hire overseas for new positions.

I think that would be an accurate statement. But I wouldn't expect any type of major jobs boost to come from extending all the tax cuts. Raising all taxes could, however, have a detrimental effect on the economy. I wouldn't expect any major hiring from corporations because of the tax cuts, it is more cost effective to get more out of existing employees, automate operations, and hire overseas for new positions.

What is preventing corporations from hiring right now is a lack of customers. The business community is sitting on an enormous amount of assets in dollars right now, with no reason to invest it because it's not losing value (no inflation) and there's no gain if they do (already have more capacity than necessary).

 

The more money people spend, the more we bring that excess capacity in the economy back on line to produce goods for people to buy. The more money the government puts out right now, if it goes into the hands of people who are going to spend it, the more it brings that capacity online.

 

That's where the jobs boost comes from. The Federal reserve is printing another $800 billion in interest free dollars, handing it to the Treasury dept., saying "find a way to give that to people".