Oh dear. The GOP never cared about the deficit. They don’t want the taxes of those who fund their political campaigns to go up. They don’t want the government spending that profits the funders of their political campaigns to go down.

Everything else is fair game, as long as they think it will help them win elections.

How Obama could believe the B/S they say, instead of what they actually do, is beyond me. Same goes for Majority Leader Reid with the fillibuster. What a bunch of boobs.

“Years have been wasted …”

Jon, that is not all that has been lost or squandered.

Haven’t you come to realize, after years of political analysis, that it is kabuki? That it is intentional? That it is theater of the “Idiotic”, performed for the fools known as “the people”?

Somebody is a slow learner … perhaps lots of somebodies are slow learners?

Do you honestly “believe” that Barack Obama is among them?

“Looking forward”, how well-off will Obama be at the end of his “term” of “public service”?

And how well-off will be the many?

DW

I think you’re right, although it is tempting to simply believe he’s as evil and rich people-loving as the R’s. There is some of that..he’s far more conservative than most dems let alone liberals (socialist! hilarious if it weren’t so pathetic that so many folks believe this).

But I do think it comes from his history; everywhere in his life he has negotiated, given up things to get along, and it has always worked. Opponents were reasonable people. He’s a reasonable person.
Actually, I was taught in law school that negotiating would result in compromise acceptable to both sides because both sides would realize xyz settlement was reasonable, practical, etc., that what they wanted most wasn’t doable, etc. etc.
This only works when one side isn’t batshit crazy and willing to be seen as such to get what they want and not settle for a penny (or whatever) less!
I blame Obama for not recognizing this sooner, much sooner, but Reid even more. Obama hadn’t been around Congress all that long; Reid has been there for years, even as the R’s shifted from mostly reasonable to almost all batshit crazy. He really really should know better.

I’ll never understand why a billionaire would be so vehemently opposed to paying a few per centage points more in taxes. What is the rationale for objecting to higher taxes when you have such an obsene amount of money. I don’t believe greed is the only answer, but maybe it is. I also don’t understand the republican justification for protecting the fat cats. It will never, never make sense to me. It is just insane.

DW, I really think, after years of contemplating the conundrum, that it is some of both. Yes, what O wants in some cases is the same as what the R’s want…and I think it’s just so mind-boggling to him that they would reject his offers to do exactly what they say they want that he just can’t accept it.
OTOH, I do think his entire history back to living in Indonesia as a foreigner has trained him to be reasonable and to compromise,even when what he wants is different from the R’s. And I’m reasonably convinced there are some of those things.
YMMV; I expect it does. But that’s where I am now.

Republicans mostly use/mold their ideology to excuse their own greed and unwillingness to contribute to the greater good.

It should be a no-brainer that they don’t want to pay taxes.

You might want to think of the Republicans and taxes vs. deficits in a different way.

I read something not so long ago that seems to trace their pattern.

As long as it isn’t defense spending (the hog trough), they are opposed to any spending that increases any deficits.

That being said, they don’t view deficits that are caused by reduced taxes as deficits. That’s simply “starving the beast”.

The logic fault is obvious. If taxes were zero and the country went belly up . . .

Well, you get the idea.

I think it’s wrong and tribalist to say Republicans hate new taxes. Truth is a lot simpler – MOST Americans believe no matter how much we give Gov’t., Gov’t. will ALWAYS spend it (and spend way too much of it irresponsibly), and Gov’t. will ALWAYS want want more.
How many Representatives, either Party, leave office with less assets than when they arrive? Does anyone believe their DRAMATIC increase in wealth, while they are being paid to represent their constituents best interest, is anything less than corrupt, immoral and unethical? Why does Jon harp on the Republicans? What did Obama do to deserve FDL “sit out” the election campaign? What has Obama done to HELP the people who voted for him?
Lest everyone forget, Obama is a Democrat. Obama did NOTHING to right the wrongs of thirty years political abuse by BOTH Parties WHEN he controlled all three Branches of Gov’t. He is the WORST Democratic President in our history and one of our worst of all our Presidents. Would anyone care to explain why he wouldn’t even throw Americans a tiny little bone, say drug reimportation, when he was giving so much away to Pharma? Anyone want to explain how ANY Democratic President could give away so much to the top 1%, ignoring those who elected him?
By all means, let’s focus on what Republican House Reps. want and believe!
Hard to believe, FDL & JON were the BEST on the Internet for almost all of Obama’s 1st 2 years – I think the best by far!

Greed has no limits.

You have a problem WITH your caps locK?

Do you know how HARD it is to read that style of typing?

Emphasis comes from context. Not CAPS.

Obama has constantly underestimated Republicans’ opposition to new taxes and it has repeatedly blown up in his face.

No one smart enough to get elected president can be this dumb when it comes to understanding Republicans and taxes.

The more sensible explanation is that Obama and the mandarins of the Democratic Party have signed on to austerity and trickle-down economics but don’t want to admit it to the millions of people who think the party is a real alternative to the Republicans.

The best thing would have been the repeal of the Bush Tax Cuts For The Rich in 2009 (don’t give that 60 vote nonsense, because Bush never got 60 votes to pass his tax cuts in the first place).

OK, the next best thing would have been the “automatic” expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts For The Rich at the end of 2010, which required Congress and the President to do exactly nothing. Instead somehow the rich got another tax cut, now renamed the Bush-Obama Tax Cuts For The Rich.

Then at the end of last year, AGAIN Congress and the President had to do exactly nothing to solve the deficit problem by letting the tax cuts expire. Instead they enacted a PERMANENT tax cut for the rich that applies to the first $400,000 of income.

It’s almost as if nobody in Washington is on the side of ordinary Americans. Which can’t be true because they keep telling us how much they love the middle class.

They lie. They all lie.

Just a point of reference for you.

You correctly point out that the Republicans could never get 60 votes for the Bush tax cuts. That’s why these cuts have always been “temporary” and Congress has to keep voting on them over and over again. If they had the 60 votes they could make the tax cuts permanent.

From your post, I’m not certain if you realize that.

The Bush tax cuts were passed using reconciliation, which meant the legislation would expire after 10 years. The Obama tax cuts for the incomes up to $400K were passed using the regular processs, and will never expire. To change those taxes there would need to be new legislation.

Reply to Tejanarusa @ 5

Perhaps, it is mind boggling for Obama, Tejanarusa.

However, given Obama’s “positions” on many things, be it refusing to hold responsible those who engaged in torture, refusing to hold accountable those who engaged in criminal fraud, making even more use of drone assassinations than Bush, going after whistle blowers with a vengeance, NOT coming to honest grips with environmental issues, and so forth and so on, I find that on this “issue” of taxes, where Obama waffled on the “Bush Tax-Cuts” to the degree that they became the Obama Tax-Cuts, that he insists upon austerity, that it serves Obama’s “interest” to have people “believe” that Obama somehow, just does not “get it”.

Frankly, while I readily understand the import of the legal training which you received, I suspect that you, nonetheless, are able to realize when those with whom you would negotiate refuse to engage in rational compromise.

That suggests that it is not boggling of the mind which motivates Barack Obama … after all of these “wasted years”, but something else.

I do not think it stupidity or an inability to learn.

I think it, by this time, must be seen as remarkably clever, deliberate, and purposeful.

Many argue, as does Robert Kennedy Jr., that Obama is being argued away from his principles, from his true understanding … Kennedy, although arrested just the other day regarding the Keystone Pipeline, still “supports” Obama, as one would imagine that he would, as a loyal Democrat, yet that continuing support does not appear to serve Kennedy’s professed interest in stopping the pipeline and the environmental damage he reasonably claims would result …

After a certain point, after many years of very clear behavior, it must be painfully obvious that to continue to trust the judgment of anyone in the political class who has consistently produced policies destructive to the Rule of Law and to the well-being of the many, to the certain benefit of the monied elite, even in the “signature” health insurance “plan” of this president’s first term … it must become abundantly certain that such patterns are very unlikely to change, that continuing “belief” and “support” are either self-serving, for those who “play” in the political fields or evidence of far more patience than, so far as I am concerned, is deserved or beneficial to the dire needs and reality of the many.

Clearly, Tejanarusa, our mileage varies considerably, yet I thoroughly appreciate the tone and the measure, the inherent respect of others, and their viewpoints, that your comments invariably reflect.

DW

His only claim to fame at the end of his two pitiful terms as President will be that he was the first Black president. If this country were not so obsessed with race that would have about as much standing as his being te first left-handed president. Except for his ability to get himself elected against weak opponents, he’s got nothing. Either that, or as some are rightfully coming to suspect, he was a Manchurian candidate, the best we’ve ever seen.

House Republicans really really really hate new taxes.

this is complete baloney and ignorant of reality and the facts. republicans only “really really really hate new taxes’ ON THE WEALTHY!!!. The fact is that they are doing everything to raise taxes on the poor and working class. What do you think “broaden the base” means? It means making the poor and working class pay more of the overall tax collection amount. What do you think jindal’s proposal to eliminate the income tax in Louisiana and raise the sales tax is all about?

And lets not forget that republicans don’t believe in small government – they believe in HUGE government – they’ve complained about obama’s defense budget INCREASES in the face of drastic recession as not being enough! Their sick “starve the beast” mantra applies only to programs for average Americans. They can’t fall over themselves fast enough stealing working Americans taxes to shovel Americans’ money into the pockets of the ubber wealthy.

ssshhhhheeesssshhh!!! smarter progressives please – stop believing every damn thing republicans dish out! No wonder republicans have had there way for 33 years.

People who have $20 million WANT $40 million and so on and so on and so on………

When you gonna post some of these thought-filled comments on my FDL so we can all comment on the glennzilla type sentences you write, DW?

I just read your full comment to my high school senior who shook his head and said”I wish I could write like that.”( I counted nine comment worthy thoughts in the first long paragraph alone. :)

Funny observation. Kent Conrad is gone. Social Security has had nothing happen to it — yet. Patty Murray chairs Kent Conrad’s old Senate Budget Committee. The number of Blue Dogs in the House of Representatives is the lowest in a while.

Republicans don’t really hate taxes. They hate income taxes on the 1%. They are perfectly willing, and do, replace them in state with higher sales taxes, tolls, and proliferating user fees. And they are perfectly willing to channel the revenues from these to their buddies in the private sector.

Obama thought that hyping deficit concerns would get Kent Conrad to allow budget reconciliation for the Affordable Care Act. It did. Obama thought hyping deficit concerns would goose the stock market and bond market and it did until the GOP debt ceiling maneuver poked a hole in that “green shoots” bubble. Obama thought he could play brinksmanship with the debt ceiling threat. The Gang of Six played that into Republican hands. Obama thought that a sequester would bring the Republicans to their senses and get them to operate in normal politics. It failed in the Supercommittee and it failed again at the fiscal cliff; so he punted both times.

Republicans fear there is someone who will run on cutting taxes if they don’t hold firm on taxes. It’s not hate, it’s fear, and they fear because that’s the way they won their election from someone who promised to cut taxes but seemed to waffle.

So the question whether Obama believes the Republicans hates taxes or not but can he out-maneuver them when they hold a majority in the House, which has original power over taxes and spending.

The Holy Grail for a Democratic politician in this situation is to make them vote openly for a tax increase. What Obama is seeking is their voting close loopholes for their most generous contributors. It’s the equivalent of of Republican state governors trying to bust public employee unions because they are the troops that Democrats use for GOTV campaigns.

And just ANOTHER example of where Obama failed or underestimated the republican party. He has consistently mismanaged his presidency and the country.

Excellent. Simply excellent.

He do know how to write real good!!!
Purdy dang smart too!

Not to ignore you TD……you silver tongued devil. :-)

Obama has constantly underestimated Republicans’ opposition to new taxes and it has repeatedly blown up in his face.

So much for the genius of Obama. The reality though is that Obama is no genius. However, what Obama is is perhaps the luckiest politician in the history of mankind.

There is never a shortage of Obamabots when you don’t need one.

There is no actual evidence presented in this post that “Obama thought” any of these things. The alternate theory, that he’s a thin-skinned, dishonest little neoliberal prick with a pea-sized brain and a yard-wide yellow streak up his back, is equally compelling and has demonstrably more factual basis.

It’s helpful even if it might be difficult to look at the situation from a Repub officeholder’s standpoint. –Come on, just try.

Congressional districts have been effectively gerrymandered so that the only real contest is in the primaries. For Repubs that usually means that any sitting Repub representative is conscious of the possibility that he or she might be contested by someone who is more to the right, someone who won’t hesitate to advertise any case when the rep has wandered from the true faith, or has compromised on traditional Repub values. Someone who will take the rep’s job away on one of more values issues. Usually these are social and financial values.

There is a similar situation in traditional Repub (red) states, that applies to senators.

So it isn’t only about what Repubs think and what Obama thinks, it’s about the political realities of our current political system, with all its ugly undemocratic characteristics, gerrymandering being an important one (along with campaign financing). Gerrymandering leads to more polarization, it’s a fact.

Okay, you can cease your Repub perspective now. Thanks for playing along.

Thank You

When dealing with a politician, you have to understand that your interests are not necessarily theirs. And their tactical maneuvering has nothing to do with much other than ensuring their election, and writing their pages in history. I just argued that Kent Conrad was a block to his writing himself in the pages of history by blocking the Affordable Care Act on procedural nicety grounds. And that his response was to adopt Conrad’s position for two tactical reasons unrelated to any values or policy.

And the fact is that Social has not been touched—yet. That is a fact. All of the noise is about each and every time that Obama has kept something related to Social Security is on the table.

Is he dishonest? Is he a politician? Is the Pope Catholic?

Is he a neoliberal? Yes he is but that doesn’t mean that he wants the Republicans to railroad him into cuts that hurt the Democratic Party. His free trade deals are likely to be more disastrous than NAFTA because they will bundle in environmental and intellectual property issues.

Is he over the edge on civil liberties? Read my comments on some of Kevin Gosztola’s diaries.

As long as one paints President Obama as a cartoon character, one won’t get traction on one’s criticisms and will likely fulfill one’s “I got banned from xxx site” quota. More importantly, one won’t take the steps that are available to one to change the way politics works in this country.

Keep your illusion that anyone who delves into the details is automatically an Obamabot. The status quo depends on it.

What is the rationale for objecting to higher taxes when you have such an obsene amount of money. I don’t believe greed is the only answer, but maybe it is.

I believe that for the most part, it is greed. The goal is not necessarily to acquire more toys. Rather, I believe that more often the goal is to build a larger pile of money. Acquiring wealth is a competition to them. It is how they measure their success.

I also don’t understand the republican justification for protecting the fat cats.

The mutual relationship between politicians and the wealthy has been going on for at least a couple thousand years. Politicians need money in order to obtain and maintain their political power, and people with money need politicians in order to smooth the way to acquire more money.

Yes TarheelDem, what you write here would be true IF in fact the two parties really opposed each other.

But I’m sorry, there just seems to me to be way too much evidence that in reality both parties don’t oppose each other (with the exception of social issues only) but try to make it appear as though they do in order to keep their bases happy.

If that’s the case, then this type of analysis really is like an Obamabot, i.e. ignoring reality and spinning the truth.

I won’t list all of the evidence out there to support the theory that they really don’t oppose each other (with the exception of social issues) but one such piece of evidence was front paged here at FDL just today.

The Democrats, if they really, really opposed the Republicans on issues, can end the filibuster in the Senate today, or tomorrow, or whenever they want to. That is fact. Therefore, that they don’t end it, and continue to allow the Republicans to block any and everything is proof that want the Republicans to have this power, and be able to use it for excuses of why so-called “Democratic” legislation can’t pass.

The real proof though was evident in the first two years of Obama’s presidency, when Democrats had huge majorities in both houses of Congress, yet the only kinds of bills that passed (again excepting stuff on social issues) were bills based on Republican ideas, even when not a single Republican voted for them (health care bill).

If the Democratic Party really, really opposed the economic and foriegn policies of the Republican party, things would look vastly different today. That it doesn’t should be all the proof one needs. I mean, ask yourself, what you would do if you were a Senator or Congressman, and wanted to pass real health care reform, a real minimum wage, a real tax hike on the rich. If you’re like most of us here at FDL, you would be willing to whatever you could to meet these goals because they are so urgent. Yet the Democrats NEVER do go to any extremes.

How much proof do you need?? Remember the health care bill eventually had to be passed by reconciliation and thus required only 50 votes instead of 60, what the Democratic leadership did??? They refused to allow things like a public option or re-importation of drugs be a part of the reconciliation vote.

The evidence that these two parties are really working for the same masters appear to me to be overwhelming. The only thing they really do “fight” over is who gets to be in power, not policy.

Bingo!

Republicans work hard to enforce Borg-type behavior through successive primary purges. Democrats do not purge and do not like purges. Because the public kabuki that plays the supposed differences between the parties is false, that does not mean that there are no differences between members of Congress. There are in fact differences because different members are carrying water for different factions of the 1%. On health care reform, those differences were between the health care insurers and the providers. And that was where the struggle was in Congress. Max Baucus wrote the health insurers bill. Various House members protected various interests of providers. But the bottom line for having a bill that could be sold to the public as an improvement was (1) having protections for the very ill (no denial of pre-existing coverage, no rescission, no annual or lifetime limits) and (2) closing the Medicare Part D doughnut hole. President Obama and supporters of legislation had to fight the insurers and providers even to do that. The public option is not in the bill because the chair of the Senate Finance Committee Max Baucus did not want it in the bill. Kent Conrad got bought off with the Bowles-Simpson Commission. There was nothing to buy Max Baucus off with on the public option; it was a non-starter for the insurers. Bernie Sanders got bought by extending the number of community health care clinics in the bill; that’s a good way to get bought for supporting an otherwise half-assed bill. Sanders was probably working on the public’s behalf more than anyone else in Congress; he made the best power play he could. The public option, not being a budget matter, could not be passed by reconciliation even if Kent Conrad had wanted to (which he didn’t).

Getting bills through Congress is a very inside game as we saw all too well during the debate of the Affordable Care Act. The only people you have to convince are other members of Congress, and that is done behind the scenes. I’m not sure what you mean by Democrats never going to any extremes.

The two parties are working for the same pool of masters, but they are constantly competing for their masters’ approval and support. The details of the struggles do matter.

I think what you say is partly, maybe mostly true. I assume you include SSMM in what you call social issues. There is a huge difference between the Rs and the democrats on those issues even given the chained CPI issue. On the ACA the public option was effectively doomed by the opposition of Baucus and Conrad, I believe.

Both parties are sold into the neoliberal economic meme. To that extent they are both ignorant. The Rs are further in the pocket of the top one percent, the billionaires. But both buy into the nonsense.

Both parties are indeed more interested in their own reelection than in most anything else. In some cases the blue dogs are in conservative districts and so they may take the R side That may be changing, given the changes in congressional districts.

The Dorgan (drug reimportation) amendment was proposed after the bill was out of the finance committee, had enough Republican votes to pass, and was defeated by the defection of Senators like Durbin who should have been on the “liberal” side. There seemed to be a lot of people (including Reid) who thought that the public option would meet the requirements of being in the reconciliation bill that was passed after the major ACA bill. I don’t know whether this second bill had to go through the budget committee or not. Would Kent Conrad have had some sort of veto power even if the bill didn’t go through his committee?

I think Obama should get with Hagel and make sure all 45 billion in defense cuts come in republican states and districts.Preferably in Boners,Cantor,McCarthy and McConnels states and districts.Time to start playing hardball like the rethugs play.Maybe then we can get some much needed revnue thru a few simple steps.Finacial transation tax,end the oil subsidys,end the offshore shell corp. tax shelters,ect…..ect….ect…

First of all, the public option did affect the budget, as CBO constantly scored the cost of any bill with a public option as much lower than the bill without it. It most certainly could have been part of the reconciliation vote.

As to extremes, let me ask you this. If there were 51 FDLers in the Senate, who really did want real health care reform, or a living minimum wage, do you think the filibuster would still be around??? I would bet my very life that it wouldn’t be. We would’ve trashed it the first time the R’s blocked votes on such issues. The D’s of course choose not to do that.

Another example would be health care itself. In the early 1960′s, when the country decided the delivery and payment for health care for the elderly needed to be reformed, everything was on the table and they passed a single payer bill. In 2009/2010, when health care reform was once again the topic, they refused to even have the extreme of single payer or state run health care (like the UK) discussed, much less voted on. It was never seriously discussed. Yet the other end of the extreme spectrum, letting people die if they can’t afford health care, was on almost every news channel when discussed at a Republican Presidential Primary debate.

It seems to me that the evidence is overwhelming that the there is only one direction the Democratic Party has been moving in, and that one direction is to the right. Therefore, it seems to me, that those who continue to support the Democratic Party must agree with things moving to the right, or why support them?

That we’ve moved left and improved things on social issues is very true, and I think it’s entirely fair to give all the credit for that to Democrats. But social issues don’t cost the PTB a penny, and on issues that do matter to the bottom line of people (their wages/standard of living) the Democrats have moved so far right that they would’ve been considered conservative Republicans 40 or 50 years ago.

Just look at all of the evidence. The distribution of wealth has moved only in one direction. And one of the mechanisms that made that happen were the Bush era tax cuts. Yet the Bush era tax cuts got extended in the Congress that had the supermajority of Democrats in both houses.

Real wages have only moved in one direction, and one of the mechanisms that contributes to that is making unions weaker and weaker. Yet when the Democrats had huge majorities in both houses of Congress EFCA (card check) never even came up for a vote despite the President himself campaigning on it. Not even for a vote.

Come on man, you know that with a supermajority of folks anywhere to the left of, say, Ronald Reagan, would’ve at least had it come up for a vote, and most likely passed.

Wall Street power has been moving only one way too. Yet after trashing the entire world’s economy and engaging in fraud on a level never seen in human history, the financial reform legislation that passed, again in the Congress of 2009-2011, was so watered down and toothless that Reagan, hell, Newt Gingrich, probably would’ve supported it back in the 80′s. And in a Democratic administration, with a Democratic DOJ, not ONE SINGLE Wall Street asshole has had to make a perp walk. Not one. Even though the evidence for fraud is overwhelming.

I’m sorry but I don’t believe there to be a real difference between any of them on the bottom line pocket book issues, as well as foriegn policy, and all of these “fights” over the same always end up resolved in the same way, in the favor of the right. There is simply no way possible that happens with real opposition. Thus the only purpose of these “fights” appears to me to be to make it appear as they oppose each other in order to keep the masses convinced of the lie that they oppose each other.

And therefore, IMO, it’s understandable for some to believe that those who continue to believe in and spin the actions of the two parties in support of this lie are in fact a part of the kabuki, and thus get called that at times.

I think you’re one of the most intelligent and thoughtful posters here at FDL, but I too sometimes think when I read your posts that you are indeed a D apologist, so it’s not surprising to me when someone else might call you an Obamabot. It’s too bad, and almost assuredly not fair, but I do understand how it happens. After all, you’ve got “Dem” right in your name.

But whatever, I do have a great deal of respect for you and thank you for sharing your knowledge here. You’re one of the ones I’ve read here and learned so much from here at FDL. In fact, I think I learn something almost every day I read here. And IMO that’s pretty cool.

Ugh, jeebus, disregard that, once again way, way, way too long.

Sorry.

Wow. This “Obamabot” comment really got under your skin. Didn’t it? Thus hinting at the likely credibility of the accusation. :)

On a serious note though, I disagree with your beliefs. But, I must say, that you are very good at explaning your prespective. Best wishes to you.

The Koch brothers and other Republican sugar daddies don’t want taxes to increase. There you have it.

Wow. This “Obamabot” comment really got under your skin. Didn’t it? Thus hinting at the likely credibility of the accusation. :)

I don’t think it got under his skin as much as you think. He clarified his earlier comment and you should show more respect. The smiley face doesn’t take away from the dig.

That’s my point. There were not 51 Democrats who wanted the public option. But each one might have not wanted it for reasons of fronting for different interests. And those interests get fought over behind the scenes. So there is real conflict in the Congress and there are differences between the parties, but those differences reflect differences in the 1%.

Glad you got your cheap lulz.

I think you have me confused with someone else.

Apologies. Clicked the wrong link. Thanks for your comment at 43. It’s the monotony and the lack of thoughtful contribution that sometimes gets to me.

It surely seems to have gotten under YOUR skin. Note the lack of a smiley face in my response to your comment.

The tax problem is the same problem as all of the rest of our problems. In the Southern red states they vote as a bloc: The Confederacy in all its’ faded glory. In the small states you have populism and dynamic wealthy ” fronts ” who sound like Huey Long but vote like Strom Thurmond. In the cities you have pluralism and diversity, where progressive forces rule, but it’s energy is thwarted by the crazy rules of 2 Senators for 700,000 people ( Wyoming, The Dakotas, etc ). So we end up with 70% of the population ( city folks ) ruled by crackers and rubes. And, it goes on and on and on… It is high past time to form a different, more perfect union. Leave the fuckin’ crackers and rubes to their own devices.

PCCC and FDL had statements and video saying the votes were there. Maybe that explains why Democrats don’t believe, or act as if they don’t believe,Republicans on raising taxes. They don’t know what it is to stand by what they say, or to be held accountable for it by their voters.

If the chair of the Senate Finance Committee won’t let the bill out of committee, it doesn’t matter how many votes are there. That’s just the way the institution of Senate chairmanship works. Daniel Patrick Monyihan did that to Hillarycare–stopped it dead in the water by holding it up in committee.

I understand about the committee chair, (though I wasn’t clear if the reconciliation bill, like the main bill, had to go through the committee). However the Baucus argument is different from the not-enough-votes argument which was made after there were already enough people making public statements claiming they would vote for it.

It also brings up the question of why bother. If Max Baucus and Kent Conrad were calling the shots, why did everyone else – Obama, Congress critters, spokescritters, etc. pretend there was a negotiation going on and that any of them (not to mention any of us) mattered? I don’t mean you need to answer these questions, of course.

The hypersensitive one is you. The mildest criticism gets under your skin and you lash out. I objected to your rudeness. You respond with anger. Perhaps the following link will be some help.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001930/

The unpaid for Medicare drug benefit undercuts your theory. There the GOP drastically increased the deficit to funnel billions to drug companies. Deficits sure didn’t matter then.

Spot on.

> There were not 51 Democrats who wanted the public option.

I think this flat assertion is unsupportable. And surely their arms could have been painfully and successfully twisted — if there only had been someone in a position of great political power who had promised to include it and didn’t wish to be embarrassed as a craven liar.