You guys realize there should never have been a juxtaposition of cuts and unemp pay right?

[donco6]

And we're all arguing amongst ourselves about whether the compromise is "worth it". It's not the right argument. This "compromise" should NEVER HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO HAPPEN. PERIOD. Providing for those in need is a government's responsibility, not open to gamesmanship. It should never have been brought to the table, and frankly, I'd like to know who did it.

[vi5]

1. I realize that.

And I suspect most on here realize that. Even the select few for whom every failure is simply an excuse to spin faster and blame it on those of us who don't want to just clap louder for abject failure.

[molly77]

90. Duh

In a country that openly censors whistle blowers and feels free to snoop on it's citizens any way they want.

Also wages war for oil, allows it's poor people to work like slaves and die young for lack of health care.

Where the great progressive leaders die in mysterious ways and then have no truly open and fair investigations. Also the investigation into 9/11 stunk to high heaven.

Our election system is a joke.

Where republican reps get away with everything and democratic reps. are scrutinized and criticized continuously. i.e. Mark Foley as opposed to Don Seigleman.

Maybe Obama had no choice. Until WE name the problem and actively fight it, WE will only get worse. WE should not have allowed the republicans to steal the presidency in 2000 and 2004.

[somone]

2. Separate issues

Obama should have kept them separate from Day One. It's his job.

[Solly Mack]

3. Seems to me that compromise has come to mean that people

are often asked to choose between their foot and their hand and then told to be grateful they had a choice.

[gkhouston]

24. +1000. n/t

[activa8tr]

34. +2,000,000 All the unemployed will agree with THAT n/t

[avaistheone1]

79. Well said.

[Greyhound]

80. K&R. Just as the meaning of "reform" has been perverted. n/t

[mdmc]

84. 1

[jonnyblitz]

4. exactly! who came up with this blackmail? nt

[formercia]

11. I'd call it extortion by the GOP

Obama should just tell them to pound sand.

[jaxx]

17. Call it what it is, a compromise.

The pubs do not want those tax cuts to expire. This is their only way and they have to give in to the unemployment extensions, plus other Obama tax incentives for the people. It is in no way as one-sided as is being presented here.

[activa8tr]

36. What is one-sided about showing the RETHUGLICANS for what they are?

Greedy money-grubbing friends of big rich businesses, corporations that got billions in bailouts and guaranteed loans, banks and investment houses that continue to give out million dollar bonuses to the assholes who were too dumb to see the fall coming, or who simply didn't care. Republicans in congress represent the wealthy, not the will of the majority of Americans, who want EVERYONE to do their fair share, namely, pay taxes as they did under Clinton!

Honestly, your comment critical of people calling out a spade when they see one, perhaps you are on the wrong board. Free Republic and Tea Party sites are still defending this as a "compromise" when it's actually selling the unemployed down the river, threatening them with home foreclosure, scaring Dems into thinking we will have 2 million or more homeless people in a year, in order to get 1.5 MILLION DOLLARS MORE FOR RUSH LIMBAUGH's BOTTOM LINE AFTER TAX INCOME.

This is bribery, intimidation, arm-twisting ROBBERY of the US TREASURY's BUDGET, to BORROW MORE MONEY FROM CHINA SO WE CAN GIVE those filthy rich who don't need it A BIG TAX BREAK.

[bluethruandthru]

57. Obama needed to stand up and say he's mad as hell and he's

not gonna take it anymore! Tell the world that the republicans need to stop holding the country hostage in order to line their pockets and the pockets of their rich friends. THe only problem is I don't think he is mad about it.

[donco6]

50. "Give in" to unemployment extensions? They're not giving in to anything.

They benefit just as much from those extensions, because half the unemployed are almost certainly REPUBLICANS. It's a win-win for them - totally and completely.

[jaxx]

5. The repubs said no to extensions of unemployment.

What else do you need to know?

[thecrow]

9. Where do I get a job?

That's what I'd like to know.

My unemployment just ran out.
I suppose I'm now contributing to the numbers that will show less unemployed people.

[jaxx]

15. This is why the unemployment extensions have to be extended.

There are a few jobs, thousands try for each one. It should be a no brainer to pass whatever it takes to keep people receiving benefits.

[mrdmk]

76. Dude, here is a no-brainer for you!

When you say one thing and do another, people get mad, very mad to the point of calling you a lair! That is a point you miss with great consistency.

Here is another, 2 years at $800 billion a year (tax cuts for the rich) verse 1 years at $60 billion a year (unemployment extension) sounds like a real stupid deal.

Here is some simple math: 800 + 800 + 60 = 1660. The 1660 number means by 2012 this country has the potential of being $1.66 trillion more in debt. What do think the Republicans going to do with $1.66 billion dollars added debt (hint: they are not going to blame themselves.)



:grr:

[MNBrewer]

53. That's because THEY understand negotiation

and the Democrats don't

[Pholus]

91. So what does the chess master have to trade in ONE year? It won't be tax cuts...

I'm figuring social security. And we'll have a bunch of apologists again telling us how we "just don't understand."

Bookmarking this thread. It will haunt you next year when this debate starts anew.

[lunatica]

6. It's easy to see if one has the will to look

Truth isn't always comfortable or fair or wonderful, but it's always best to know the truth. Always. This 'compromise' is anything but. But maybe that's how trench warfare has warped the minds of our representatives. Remember, Boner and Wax face melt have formally declared war on Obama, even on a personal level. Their psyches are in war mode.

[Skidmore]

7. It is extortion.

[kentuck]

8. Thanks donco.

I was just getting ready to post that. Unemployment should not be tied to any tax cut legislation just as defense spending should not be tied to tax legislation. Hmmm...maybe it should?

[budkin]

10. The Dems walked right into that trap... set up perfectly by the GOP

[groundloop]

16. That seems sadly true.

But what the hell do you do to fight it, go ahead and let unemployment benefits run out for millions? That's exactly what would happen because a minority of 42 can control what gets voted on in the Senate. As long as those 42 stick together NOTHING would get done. I think a part of the Democratic Party downfall in this is that most Democrats are compassionate about trying to help the unemployed, and caving on extending tax cuts a couple more years may not have seemed like such a huge price to pay.

I keep wondering where we'd be if at some point in the past 2 years Harry Reid had called the Republican's bluff.

[xchrom]

12. It has an uncomfortable feeling to it.

Given the severity of this turndown -- not one
Of our country's prouder moments.

[alcibiades_mystery]

13. Shoulda, woulda, coulda

The Republicans are bargaining in an outrageous manner, to be sure, but that doesn't make the actual consequences any less severe.

What allowed it to happen: the Republicans allowed it to happen because they are willing to throw 2 million citizens into penury. End of story. They have the balls to do it, so it was done.

It's clear that the "just let them all expire!" crowd is finally starting to realize this, as we're now at the point of "how did we get in this situation?" That's easy: we got in this situation because the GOP is brazen in its extortion, and there seem to be no consequences for them in the public sphere. Scott Brown openly bragged about killing unemployment benefit extensions the first time it came to the floor, and he's a GOP moderate from a blue state. I understand that many would like to blame this on the Administration for "letting it happen," but I'd also like an explanation of how such a thing could have been avoided. The GOP saw a piece of leverage, and they deployed it. It's not a whole lot more complicated than that.

As it turns out, the "Just Let Them Expire" advocates are much more the naive idealists than the Administration. Now all we hear from them is "UI benefits are a separate issue! DADT is a separate issue! The DREAM Act is a separate issue!" and on and on. No, they are issues bound together as soon as a power forced them together: the GOP caucus in the Senate. You can deal with that responsibly, or not, but you can't avoid its immediate reality.

[groundloop]

19. Well said. In the long run this could be a PR nightmare for republicans

Even our local TV news programs in Georgia are saying that republicans are fighting to extend tax cuts for the wealthy. I know a few people who buy into the BS that the wealthy are the ones who create jobs, but I think for the most part people are going to remember republicans fighting tooth and nail for the richest Americans.

[gkhouston]

25. If the wealthy create jobs, then where are they? The rich have only gotten richer

in the past ten years, while jobs have evaporated. We could do a lot for the unemployed instead of bribing the rich, and that would actually help our economy as well as the unemployed. The very idea that we can't help the unemployed unless we grease the palms of the wealthy is obscene and the Dems should be calling the R's out on it.

[droidamus2]

93. I saw a great one

I don't know what her name was or actually what program I was watching but they had Bill Press on the Democratic side and some Republican woman radio talk person on the other. She actually claimed that if you didn't extend the tax cuts rich people might lose their houses and then they wouldn't be paying for lawn care and people to clean their houses so not extending the tax cuts for the wealthy would cause unemployment. In a roundabout way she was trying to show how lowering taxes on rich people creates jobs because they hire manual laborers to make their lives easier.

[activa8tr]

94. They hire Manuel... as their "laborer", and pay him under the table, because

he's an undocumented foreigner and they pay him sub-standard wages, and no benefits or taxes.

They are vermin,(the rich) and they need to mow their own lawns and do their own housework, IMO.

As if a 3% INCREASE in taxes of incomes over a quarter million is all they pay their lawn guy and their housemaid?

Absurd baloney from the right, as usual.

[droidamus2]

98. Lack of historical perspective

Unfortunately most people in this country don't realize that taxes on the wealthy are actually already at a pretty historic low. I completely believe in the government making sure there isn't uncontrolled acquisition of wealth. Back in the 50's and 60's I think the idea was that people with over a certain amount of money need to be reined in and therefore money made over a certain amount was heavily taxed in something like the 60-80% range. The number of people in this country that bow to the idol of wealth is amazing. They so by into the 'anybody can be rich' thing but they don't seem to give much thought that a better model for society is that everybody is taken care. No I don't mean we are going to make the rich homeless or move all the homeless into mansions but there has to be some middle ground. Right now you have people that are living in 10,000 sq ft mansions with multiple cars and vacation homes bitching about paying an extra 3% in taxes that they were told would lapse when they were first enacted. If giving the rich more money creates job, it doesn't, then why not reverse the incentive. Instead of saying a tax cut gives the rich the money to create more jobs, or at least hoping against hope that is what they do, why not raise their taxes and give them tax breaks when they actually create jobs. That way we are closer to balancing the federal budget and we are giving strong incentives to create jobs. On canard that I am really tired of is that 'businesses', read the wealthy, are waiting to see demand pick up before they hire more people. Where the hell do they think demand comes, from people that are working and have money to spend. I think most of them aren't hiring because if they can get by with the employees they have, or in many case turning full time work into temps, they can put more money in the pockets and buy little Susie that new car on her 16th birthday.

[donco6]

43. So the GOP created this option?

How is it they're able to set the agenda when they're still in the minority?

[Hippo_Tron]

46. Because they calculated there would be no public backlash if they filibustered everything

Which no longer makes them a minority but creates divided government unless we can use reconciliation. And they were right. There was no public backlash to their abuse of the filibuster and there was no backlash with their bargaining with unemployment benefits. In fact, people liked it so much they gave them over 60 seats in the House and 6 in the Senate.

[alcibiades_mystery]

66. It's called the rules of the Senate

In the past, Senators have been to "decorous" to actually use them. For instance, we wouldn't have been in this mess if 41 Democratic Senators in 2001 had simply filibustered the Bush tax cuts. They didn't. they let them go to a vote, and they won 51-50, with Cheney breaking the tie. The GOP decided that they were going to filibuster everything, which, believe it or not, gives you quite a bit of leverage.

[dsc]

85. actually we couldn't filibuster them

they were passed via reconcilliaiton which is why they expired so they could cost little enough to pass via reconsiliation.

[Ozymanithrax]

14. If neither would pass, then refusing to make that juxtoposition...

means neither passes

Government is the art of compromise.

[liberation]

67. There is nothing "artistic" about capitulation...

[MineralMan]

18. Of course there shouldn't have been.

But, there is. I'm not sure how a President can manage not to allow Congress to do whatever Congress does. It's not possible for a President to demand that the Congress do anything. That's how the Constitution is set up. So, if Congress juxtaposes these two issues, there's really little that can be done about it in the short term. It's one of the weak points of our system of government.

It's easy for us to say what should and shouldn't be. It's a lot harder to make what we say happen, as we've all seen.

Of one thing I'm certain: It's not going to get better in 2011.

[MilesColtrane]

20. But, that's what happens when Republicans increase their power.

Is it a better decision for Obama to stand on principles and get nothing?

[MineralMan]

23. Some will think so, I'm sure. President Obama will

compromise. Not because he wants to, but because he has to to help those people who have run out of options. It is that simple, and the Republicans know it.

[donco6]

52. False dichotomy

It should never have been set up as a dichotomy. The two should never, EVER have been matched up against one another. They are not trade-offs in any possible way. In fact, the whole thing is such an overwhelming coup for the Republicans, I have to wonder if it wasn't all planned long ago. I just CANNOT believe our Dems could be that stupid to agree to putting this forward.

[TwilightGardener]

21. Democrats should have looked at the calendar and made sure

the tax cut package was offered well in advance of UE running out. They really waited too long for the tax cuts, and now Repubs can smell desperation in terms of all the other legislation that needs to get done.

[unblock]

22. right. it's only juxtaposed because it's "something we want" and "something they want"

it's the sort of thing only washington could love. there's no economic or moral merit to linking these.

republicans are MASTERS at tough negotiating, and democrats absolutely suck at it.
republicans never give an inch, they make democrats concede something for ANYTHING, even things that are absolutely essential.

this would work out reasonably well in the long run if democrats played the same tough game, but we don't. we compromise when we disagree, and we do whatever they want when we do agree. so what democrats what never happens unless it's also what republicans want.

[BzaDem]

26. Just because it's the government's responsibility doesn't mean it will actually happen if the

Republicans block it.

[donco6]

48. Then let them.

You NEVER put something like this on the table. Never. You make them have a separate vote on it and vote it down themselves and then THEY get to live with that. Instead, now it's going to be touted that "Republicans fought for tax cuts". And they only had to "give up" unemployment benefits extension (another win because half the unemployed are undoubtedly REPUBLICANS.)

Whoever paired up tax cuts for the rich with unemployment benefits should be drummed out of office. It was IDIOTIC.

[Winterblues]

27. You haven't been paying close enough attention. The Administration has said more than once

"Everything is Negotiable"

[kentuck]

28. The Democrats were rolled.

big time.

[eilen]

32. They were not rolled.

The leadership needs cover to cave.

The unemployed are their shield.

[glitch]

33. "The leadership needs cover to cave"

After awhile you recognize the pattern, if you can stomach looking at it.

[Lorien]

38. Exactly. nt

[hulka38]

63. well said.

[Ganja Ninja]

87. Bingo!

Lets remember it's not just Obama behind this. The Harry Reid and the Senate had this deal worked out before the election.

[spanone]

29. agreed 100%. N E V E R

[Bluenorthwest]

30. Thanks for saying it so well and so clearly

I tried and got shouted at' how dare you!' as if I were not a working class person with half my own home unemployed. The juxtaposition is foul and further, it is a hell of a slippery slope to step onto.

[tekisui]

31. How right you are.

[treestar]

35. What idealism gone wild

Of course it shouldn't but it will always be so.

When you go to court with a personal injury case worth $12,000, the insurance company should just pay you $12,000 rather than making you go to trial. That would be ideal. Because your case is a good case. There should be no court cases, because they wrong party should just do the right thing by the right party.

No one should ever disagree about what is right and therefore no bargains need be made. Those who are right should never have to "cave" to those who are wrong. it should be clear to everyone who is right and who is wrong.

[Edweird]

37. "We" aren't 'arguing'. The RW'ers here are trying to use that as an excuse to push their agenda.

[KansDem]

39. I realize it, too. It only grows the deficit...

...and if the Repubs really cared about the deficit as they say they do, this "compromise" wouldn't have happened.

The Repubs don't give a fuck about the American people; only its oligarchy. It's about maintaining and growing the plutocracy, the real people running this country...

[neverforget]

40. But the wealthiest need help too!

:sarcasm:

[Stinky The Clown]

41. Donco, Democrats have NO FUCKING CLUE how to have the "right" debate.

The repubicans kick our asses every fucking time.

You ever hear the term "topping from the bottom"?That's what repubs do. Dems, meanwhile, go out and buy padded handcuffs, hoping they can get to play the game. They can't because the look fucking ridiculous..

[donco6]

51. NO FUCKING KIDDING.

Jesus, Mary and Joseph. I negotiate across from the teacher's union every fucking year and even in this little district I would NEVER come up with that kind of dumbassery.

I remember when we had some newbies on our team and during one of the sessions we were each putting up options for raises. One of these guys gets up and puts up an option that trumped all of ours. So we pulled the idiot aside and said, "Uh, you realize YOUR NEGOTIATING FOR THE OTHER SIDE, right?" That's just what happens with the Dems every time. WTF?? Are they all really this kinda stupid?

[liberation]

70. "The repubicans kick our asses every fucking time."

And yet some people, here specially, see it as the Dem butts hurting the republican feet.

[donco6]

74. LOL! Yes.

I guess we should apologize for our asses being so calloused.

[droidamus2]

99. Or is it

The Democrats kicking themselves in the ass and the Republicans standing there laughing at them.

[donco6]

42. So what's the next "compromise"?

"we Republicans agree to let the Dems have Air, and in return, we get (and here I'm stuck, because I cannot think of one fucking thing they haven't ALREADY got!!)

[tblue37]

All I can say is that I hope the Dems learn how to do better PR, because the truth of how this

happened would doom the Republicans.

[tblue37]

44. Dupe.

[Uncle Joe]

45. Here's who did it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x574113

Thanks for the thread, donco.

[Hippo_Tron]

47. The Republican Party doesn't believe it's the government's responsibility

They believe that if you're down on your luck you can starve and beg for charity. What's scary is that the people who believe this just won decisively in the last election.

[slay]

49. Exactly

the unemployeed were used as pawns in the whole game - BY OBAMA. he said he didn't want to play politics with this - bullshit! why would you even tie the two things together? obama has either played us or is stupid as hell. either way he's not a guy we want as president. this sucks.

[Moondog]

54. We are being led by

someone who simply is not equipped for the task. In over his head. Waaaaay over his head.

We are so screwed.

[nashville_brook]

55. amen donco!

[Skittles]

56. CORRECT

[stillrockin]

58. Yes. It was a set up from the get go.

[dflprincess]

59. So what I'm wondering is, is the extension of unemployment & tax cuts going to voted on all at once

or has the compromiser in chief agreed to let them be voted on separately? And, if the tax cut extension is voted on first, what's to stop his Republican pals from double crossing him?

edited for some really awful typos.

[donco6]

60. I'm assuming it's all part of the same bill.

And that it will be vote on as a package. But I could be wrong. In which case, there's nothing stopping them from doing whatever they want. Pretty much like now.

[bvar22]

61. Absolutely.

And whoever in the Party Leadership tied them together has the black heart of a true Sociopath.

[Orsino]

62. It was inevitable when we elected all those wingnuts.

When we allowed the rot in, it was always going to spread. Into both parties.

And it comes down to this, and the even worse this that comes next.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

64. Republican and Democratic administrations alike have always passed unemployment

insurance benefits when there has been an economic downtown in the history of this country. They should have NEVER been negotiated.

[donco6]

73. Exactly.

This was a chip we never had to play. We got NOTHING out of this deal. NOTHING.

[quaker bill]

65. With republicans

all things are open to gamesmanship. What about the last two years has not convinced you of this? It is about to get a whole bunch worse.

[russspeakeasy]

68. Yeah, we knoiw that..Our leadership doesn't.

So why do we need them.

[Democat]

82. What leadership?

Obama is not a leader.

[mmonk]

69. It was to provide cover.

The people are consistently being gamed.

[Jakes Progress]

71. The new DLC motto: Any excuse in a storm.

[Starry Messenger]

72. Yes. n/t

[bertman]

75. Exactly right, donco6. I'd like to know why the Presididn't feels obligated to

grouse about the Progressive wing whenever he gets the national platform, but he is all smiley makey nice with the Republican shitholes who are screwing over the whole frickin' nation.

The man does not have a backbone except when it comes to standing up against the people who want him to stand for real change.

[tomp]

89. do you not understand how much backbone it takes....

.... to pretend to have the interests of the people at heart? i'm serious! look at all the flak he is taking, look at how his party is in disarray an prospects for 2012 are dwindling. yet he does not change course. he continues to defend the interests of the rich. think about it! do you really think that does not take backbone? it does.

it's the republicans who have no backbone. they know the democrats will do their job for them. it takes no backbone at all to sit back and let the other team lose.

obama is standing up PRETENDING to be a man who wants to help the vast majority of americans. he is not failing AT PRETENDING and THAT takes backbone.

when you suggest otherwise, you indicate you have been fooled by the basic democratic plan: transfer wealth to the rich, gives bones and crumbs to the middle class and poor, if you absolutely must.

when people get THAT we can begin to understand the way forward, not before.

[bertman]

97. Okay.

[donheld]

77. Exactly right.

[inna]

78. kr, but it's pretty clear who did it.

[laughingliberal]

81. K & R nt

[truth2power]

83. I think someone here said that last night. Can't remember what thread

it was. But I remember it was explained very succinctly.

[chimpymustgo]

86. Thanks for this admonition. And don't forget Boner said on national tv he'd compromise on the tax

cuts.

[BrklynLiberal]

88. 1000% correct. Shows that the repukes were the chess players....

They set this entire thing in motion.....force a "compromise" and they get what they wanted..by holding a hostage that should never have been theirs in the first place. They were many, many moves ahead of the Dems...

[LWolf]

92. You are correct.

And I, too, would like to know who brought it to the table.

:grr:

[Name removed]

95. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[nyc 4 Biden]

96. ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW >>>