HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Democrats Declare Checkma...

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 08:59 PM

Democrats Declare Checkmate in Fiscal Cliff Debate

Source: National Journal

Democrats Declare Checkmate in Fiscal Cliff Debate

In the ongoing fiscal cliff chess match playing out on Capitol Hill, Democrats have a message for Republicans: checkmate.

Democrats look at the political landscape and see a win whether a deal gets cut now or after the country goes over the cliff. Worst-case scenario, they say, the House will approve legislation the Senate passed in July extending Bush-era tax cuts for everyone but the rich, an idea that Republican House Speaker John Boehner has flatly rejected.

If Boehner refuses to pass the Senate bill before the end of the year, Democrats say their hand only gets stronger in the new year when the Senate will have 55 Democrats and at least five Republicans who have signaled they could vote to extend the middle-class tax cuts.

“We have the political high ground -- there is no question about it. The sooner they realize it, the better it will be for them,” Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer said of the Republicans. “In 2010 it was the opposite. They had the political high ground and we had to do just about all cuts and no revenues. Now, the election was fought on revenues; we won it on revenues; the public is with us on revenues.”


Read more: http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress-legacy/democrats-declare-checkmate-in-fiscal-cliff-debate-20121213

32 replies, 6741 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 32 replies Author Time Post
Reply Democrats Declare Checkmate in Fiscal Cliff Debate (Original post)
kpete Dec 2012 OP
geckosfeet Dec 2012 #1
Dakota Flint Dec 2012 #7
geckosfeet Dec 2012 #9
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #2
jtuck004 Dec 2012 #3
plethoro Dec 2012 #5
reACTIONary Dec 2012 #8
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #12
emulatorloo Dec 2012 #13
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #18
HisTomness Dec 2012 #22
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #23
reACTIONary Dec 2012 #27
socialist_n_TN Dec 2012 #10
John2 Dec 2012 #14
jmowreader Dec 2012 #30
customerserviceguy Dec 2012 #4
democrattotheend Dec 2012 #6
xxxsdesdexxx Dec 2012 #17
John2 Dec 2012 #21
xxxsdesdexxx Dec 2012 #31
Coyotl Dec 2012 #11
John2 Dec 2012 #15
olddad56 Dec 2012 #16
ThoughtCriminal Dec 2012 #19
Doug.Goodall Dec 2012 #20
grahamhgreen Dec 2012 #24
Bucky Dec 2012 #25
zentrum Dec 2012 #26
SleeplessinSoCal Dec 2012 #29
SleeplessinSoCal Dec 2012 #28
xxxsdesdexxx Dec 2012 #32

Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 09:08 PM

1. Reality has not been the republicans strongest card of late....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geckosfeet (Reply #1)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 09:45 PM

7. of late

Do you mean...oh I don't know.....the last thirty-some years?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dakota Flint (Reply #7)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 09:46 PM

9. Oh yeah. Going back to tricky the dick.

On edit: But I don't like the tone that the article takes. Every other paragraph ending suggests that the dems are overplaying their hand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 09:13 PM

2. If President Obama has proposed dropping the corporate tax rate from 35% to 28% (but is

 

said to be closing corporate loopholes so that the lower tax rate will be revenue neutral), can this be called as a "checkmate"?

If this proposal is really revenue neutral, why go to all the trouble?

And if we are going to be clearly informed that the proposal is to drop the corporate tax rate from 35% to 28%, is any effort being made to clearly inform us what those corporate loopholes are that will be closed?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #2)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 09:31 PM

3. Shhh. If the sheep aren't making noise, it's a great achievment, one for the history books. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #2)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 09:39 PM

5. Exactamundo...............Somebody laid down the wrong king, I'm afraid......nft

 

ddddddddd

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #2)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 09:45 PM

8. The reason for going through the trouble is...

...that it would eliminate tax advantages given to special interests and make the tax fairer, simpler to comply with and simpler to enforce.

The corporate tax code supposedly contains numerous "loop holes" and "special exemptions" each of which give tax breaks to a few special interests that lobbied for them. Getting rid of them spreads the burden more evenly and allows the rate to be lowered without loss of revenue.

Simplicity in the tax code is a virtue. It is fairer and easier to understand and comply with.

That's the theory. Whether it is true and whether it is worth the effort is another question.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reACTIONary (Reply #8)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:06 PM

12. Wait a minute. First you say "The reason for ..." and then you say "That's the theory."

 

By your adding "That's the theory," even you are admitting knowing that the so-called reason is not a real reason.

Years of experience has shown us that the trickle-down theory, by which the rich get tax breaks (while making the tax system fairer, simpler to comply with, and simpler to enforce), doesn't work. No other aspect of the trickle-down theory works either.

And, incidentally, after the corporate tax rate is reduced, there is not going to be a layoff of lobbyists. If there are any actual "loopholes" that are eliminated (whatever they are), they lobbyists will just come back and have them put back in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #12)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:13 PM

13. You are word parsing like a Republican. And you've got Republican willful misinterpretation

misinterpretation down pat as well.

The end result is more tax revenue from corps.

Your high-handed and haughty twisting of reACTIONary words is disgusting.

Sick of those kinds of tactics and disinformation campaigns, whether they are coming from Republicans or Holier Than Thou DU'ers.

Lastly your last paragraph promotes hopelessness. Why try to reform anything its hopeless! We should all just fuckng give up and not do anything.

Ugh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to emulatorloo (Reply #13)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 11:26 PM

18. Now you're engaging in name calling? Once again. Isn't that your usual tactic?

 

I've seen you do this before. More than once.

Years ago, there was a politician who perfected the technique of falsely claiming or suggesting that those who he disagreed with were disloyal. Maybe you recognize him.



There's a term for falsely accusing people of disloyalty. As noted in Wikipedia,

"McCarthyism is the practice of making accusations of disloyalty, subversion, or treason without proper regard for evidence."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #18)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 09:49 AM

22. Weak.

Just call him Hitler and be done with it.
You got called out for poor and unnecessary argumentation, and defeatism - and rightly so.
Deal with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HisTomness (Reply #22)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 10:39 AM

23. You want him to be called Hitler? Do it yourself. I don't think that he's equivalent to a Hitler

 

or that anyone such as yourself is entitled to call him a Hitler.

All he did, what he has repeatedly done on this board, is to use a McCarthyism tactic and question whether someone that he disagrees with is disloyal. My loyalty is to FDR principles. You don't have enough posts on this board for anyone to verify whether that is true for you as well. And quite frankly, if you get around to falsely implying or otherwise questioning my loyalty, I'll respond by pointing out any McCarthyite tactic that you use. Also, if you falsely imply or otherwise question the loyalty of others on this board without any evidence, I may do that as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #12)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 08:31 PM

27. It is a real reason...

...I say "that's the theory" to indicate that, in practice, it requires implementation and the implementation may be less than perfect.

Revenue neutral simplification of the tax laws is not "trickle down" at all. Its revenue neutral. No trickle down, no trickle up, no net effect on taxes. Just simpler to collect, easier to understand, and less pandering to special interests.

Of course there will still be lobbyists. So what? If we don't eliminate the loopholes, that will not deter the lobbyists... they are going to keep lobbying for more, regardless of the baseline. Start with a reset to a zero baseline, the net effect will be positive.

FYI here are some "loopholes". I didn't do much research into this, but I'm sure you can find a lot of examples and suggestions for loopholes and simplification.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/02/25/8-ridiculous-tax-loopholes-how-companies-are-avoiding-the-tax-man.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #2)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 09:58 PM

10. I researched an article on this very proposal the last time it came up.........

And I came to the same conclusion. If it's revenue neutral, why bother? In addition, the next batch of politicians bought off by the capitalists will just throw in more loopholes and the rate will STILL be at 28%.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #2)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:17 PM

14. It want happen,

 

because the Republicans look like they want to go over the cliff, in order to protect tax cuts for the wealthy. We go over the Cliff and all the tax cuts will expire. The tax cuts for the wealthy will go up to the Clinton years. Everybody else's tax cuts will also return to the Clinton years.

Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are not in the cuts. I think over 500 billion dollars of Defense cuts are there. The Democrats wanted to cut Defense any way. What is not in those cuts are benefits for veterans. Military weapon systems are in there, including base closings over seas and state side. That will hurt the military industry. The President and Defense Department get to choose those closings. That will hurt the economies of some Red States. I know North Carolina has several military bases and it will hurt Governor Elect Pat McCrory's first term, if he plans on turning around North Carolina's economy in his first two years. McCrory ran on cutting North Carolina's budget too. I don't know what he will do without Federal money. because those bases do help our economy. Not only this McCrory has plans to cut unemployment bemefits received from the Federal Government. So McCrory will fill the cuts, or either raise taxes, because nothing runs on air. People will probably move out of his state for better jobs. Maybe they will move to California, Ohio or Michigan even? I was thinking about moving out West, where there is more freedom. I just might move to Michigan and help those people get rid of Snyder in two years. I don't need a green card either. I was born and raised in the United States. I think the citizens in Red states will hurt mostly. They will miss that Federal spending by the time 2014. Those Governors will have to create some miracles with these cuts. I was also stationed in Huntsville Alabama once. The last time I was there, they had part of the NASA program there. I think they also had cuts for NASA in the sequestrian too. nASA just as well cut back their offices in Alabama. That is probably where the recession will hurt the most.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #2)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 06:43 AM

30. History shows why closing loopholes is bad

In the 1980s Reagan closed a loophole for passive loss. This is loss from a business that doesn't require active participation - specifically, leasing commercial real estate. Without this deduction, commercial leasing always operates at a loss.

The S&L industry was the primary source of commercial mortgages. When Reagan killed the deduction, most commercial leases defaulted, and the banks failed shortly thereafter. That shit from the media about risky investments is shit - until Reagan destroyed the investments' profitability there wasn't anything wrong with most of those mortgages.

I don't know about you, but I never want to hear about revenue neutrality again. If these assholes are going to spend time writing a tax bill that won't change the amount of incoming revenue, I'd rather they hold a hearing to discuss the great question of our time - does Miller Lite taste great or is it less filling?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 09:38 PM

4. It ain't over till it's over

Yes, they feel they have more to lose at this point, but things may change if we do go over the cliff.

The big business types don't want even a minute's interruption of the pursuit of profit that going over the cliff would mean, but if it happens, they'll adjust. They'll gladly go Galt and create a recession designed to hurt the little people way more than fatcat captains of industry will feel.

The Repukes may realize they're already going to get the blame for the cliff dive, they may decide to go all the way, and vote for absolutely no economic relief, even refusing to raise the debt ceiling.

Can the President withstand what happens if that occurs? I hope so, but it's going to be tough to see on TV the faces of the unemployed whose benefits have run out, the elderly patients whose doctors tell them to find another healthcare provider, the folks who are affected by the sequester, and the people who see their paychecks shrink because of the expiration of tax breaks.

The rich know they can hold out as long as it takes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 09:44 PM

6. Naive question

But how did the bill to cut all but the top 2% rates pass the Senate? Did 7 Republicans vote for that, or was it done through reconciliation?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to democrattotheend (Reply #6)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:58 PM

17. I think they allowed it to be voted on and didn't filibuster

If I have the Senate bill, S-3412, correct then no Republicans voted for it from what I could gather.

Grouped By Vote Position

YEAs ---51

Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Begich (D-AK)
Bennet (D-CO)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Conrad (D-ND)
Coons (D-DE)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Hagan (D-NC)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Manchin (D-WV)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Warner (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

NAYs ---48

Alexander (R-TN)
Ayotte (R-NH)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Blunt (R-MO)
Boozman (R-AR)
Brown (R-MA)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coats (R-IN)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Heller (R-NV)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Johnson (R-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lee (R-UT)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Moran (R-KS)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Paul (R-KY)
Portman (R-OH)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rubio (R-FL)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Snowe (R-ME)
Thune (R-SD)
Toomey (R-PA)
Vitter (R-LA)
Webb (D-VA)
Wicker (R-MS)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xxxsdesdexxx (Reply #17)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 09:46 AM

21. So you are saying Webb

 

voted against it as a Democrat? What was his problem with middle class taxcuts?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to John2 (Reply #21)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 10:26 PM

31. Yes he did. Not sure why, but he's gone in the next congress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:01 PM

11. Go over the cliff and take the capital gains increase. Huge opportunity here.

There won't be another chance to raise capital gains tax. We want to go over the cliff for this one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Coyotl (Reply #11)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:36 PM

15. Going over the cliff,

 

sure will cut a dent in that Deficit in two years. Just get out your guns and go hunting for game. The Feds are cutting spending. I think Lindsey has some extra guns for hunting game.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Coyotl (Reply #11)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:45 PM

16. I'll bet a lot of the people in the middle won't be too happy about paying the AMT.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 12:01 AM

19. Republican Strategy

Claim that rooks can move diagonally, be converted to queens when on white squares, and knock the board off the table when shown the rule book.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 06:45 AM

20. Next Republicans overturn board, scatter pieces around the room

and we all get to jump off a cliff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 12:51 PM

24. Worst case scenario is a bad deal now, like extending the Bush tax cuts at 37% &

increasing Medicare age.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 01:01 PM

25. Are the Dems Thelma or Louise?

The analogy breaks down when you realize the Republicans are Brad Pitt in that movie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 06:57 PM

26. If Kerry leaves Senate

...how will the Dems still have 55 Senators? Isn't knocking out Kerry the entire point of going after Rice?

Elections are unpredictable. How would Kerry leaving effect Dem's ongoing ability to deal with this fiscal issue if his seat changes to Reptile?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zentrum (Reply #26)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 08:34 PM

29. heard yesterday that Ed Markey is ready to run. That is great news IMHO.

Lawrence O'Donnell I think. Supposedly Markey has the funds and is raring to go.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 08:32 PM

28. We have a major revenue problem - The wealthy hide their money even with the low rates.

Yet every time I hear a Republican talking on the tv, they say "we have a spending problem". I've yet to hear the word "hogwash" in response, but somebody ought to say it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 10:37 PM

32. Yes, I wish the media would call them out on it when they say it.

It's annoying when they say their big lie with such conviction, as if it was a fact, and the anchor just says "We'll leave it there" or "Thank you for being here congressman, we hope to have you back". Call these prevaricators out on their fabrications.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread