Hoyer: House Vote On Tax Cuts For The Middle Class "A Specious Act"

Exhibit A for why the Dems will get creamed in November, Steny Hoyer:

WALLACE: Why not pass the extension of the middle-class tax cuts before you go home to campaign for a month?

HOYER: The obstruction is in the Senate. Well, it would be a specious act for us. [. . .] But what we have -- what is not a specious act, Chris, is we have absolutely guaranteed that there will be no increase in middle-income taxes. The president's that. The speaker and I have said that. Harry Reid and Dick Durbin have said that. There will be no increase...


Speaking for me only

< Sunday Open Thread | The Myth Of Structural Unemployment >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    No 11th Dimensional Chess this time (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by lilburro on Mon Sep 27, 2010 at 12:04:49 PM EST
    I guess...

    Will we be so lucky? (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 27, 2010 at 12:26:05 PM EST
    Someone is going to pull an 11th dimensional chess write up out of their arse or what will the apologists do?  Eat cake?

    So this could be a fake? (none / 0) (#14)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 27, 2010 at 12:34:31 PM EST
    The cuts will (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by lilburro on Mon Sep 27, 2010 at 12:39:29 PM EST
    probably be extended (in some way).  No one's going to actually raise taxes on the middle class.  But they'll probably extend the cuts for everyone...and we'll have lost more seats than we had to to boot.

    I have no clue how this can play out (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 27, 2010 at 12:47:46 PM EST
    I really don't.  I believe no counting of any unhatched Axelrod chickens.  But inspiring such writeups is his job.  How many promising writeups have we been fed though and what did we get?  What has changed that would cause me to believe I will get anything beneficial that isn't going to involve breaking the whole country even more than it already is?  The rich will get their tax cuts too and then Obama will "tweak" Social Security which is where he phucks the middle class and the poor some more while the rich just get richer.  The income disparity becomes even worse,  the infrastructure becomes even more broke and broken, and the economy becomes even weaker.  That is what I plan for until I have REAL reason to plan for anything different.

    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by lilburro on Mon Sep 27, 2010 at 12:58:21 PM EST
    the 700 billion counts.  

    I don't really see how they plan on getting a bunch of lame ducks to end the Bush tax cuts for the rich.  Why, it's at just that very moment that the rich will be wanting to sweep the duckies into their arms, granting them wealth and luxury in exchange for access.  And then the duckies can charge back onto the hill as advocates for whatever corporate cause they received the most money to support.  Plus, you know that when the GOP wins a bunch of seats the media will say it is a "mandate"...and it's a mandate that will actually be taken seriously and acted upon.


    God help us (none / 0) (#18)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 27, 2010 at 01:21:08 PM EST
    I've got a mandate and I'm gonna (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 27, 2010 at 01:27:39 PM EST
    spend it!

    Actually, I was thinking maybe Axelrod is doing a head fake re waiting until after the election re extending the Bush tax cuts.  Maybe he and Obama really, really intend to push this through b/4 the election. Which is the only thing that makes any sense.


    Our first 11th dimensional Talkleft chess (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 27, 2010 at 01:52:06 PM EST
    player on the tax cuts....oculus :)

    I wish I could believe that.... (none / 0) (#25)
    by kdog on Mon Sep 27, 2010 at 01:54:06 PM EST
    but I could totally see everybody paying a bigger nut next year...the Feds didn't bat an eye raising tobacco taxes, and neither did my blue state...they'll tax the f*ck out of anybody and everybody if they can get away with it...and once the election is over, what incentive is there not to increase the feds receivables? They won't have to answer to voters for 2 years.

    Exactly what i think will happen (none / 0) (#27)
    by ruffian on Mon Sep 27, 2010 at 02:25:01 PM EST
    why would anything else happen? (none / 0) (#32)
    by lilburro on Mon Sep 27, 2010 at 03:22:30 PM EST
    I suppose this is a clumsy way of covering for both Blue Dogs and liberals.  But we know what choice is made when Dems on the Hill have to choose between the two.

    Well, would YOU (none / 0) (#39)
    by NYShooter on Mon Sep 27, 2010 at 10:34:36 PM EST
    stick your neck out defending the 98% tax extension knowing Obama's history of saying one thing and then cutting your gnats off at the first sign of Republican objection?

    Those 40-something Democrats didn't become "Republicans" on their own. Do I have to say it? "Fool me once........."


    So it looks like Durbin is saying (none / 0) (#29)
    by ruffian on Mon Sep 27, 2010 at 02:35:12 PM EST
    there are Repub Senators that will vote with the Dems after the elections. And voters are supposed to take that to the bank come election day? Sounds like Lucy (Or Olympia) with another football to me.

    (Snort!) (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by jbindc on Mon Sep 27, 2010 at 03:55:28 PM EST
    There's at least one Dem who's embracing Bush

    More are completely rebranding themselves - away from the current Democratic Party.

    And in the Midwest (what is it with North Dakota today?) Dems are even less popular than in the rest of the country.

    According to a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll last month 55% of Midwesterners disapprove of the job President Barack Obama is doing, six percentage points higher than the rest of the U.S. And 66% of rural Americans believe the country is on the wrong track, five points more than U.S. voters as a whole.

    So maybe it isn't all the Blue Dogs' fault....


    Seriously... (none / 0) (#34)
    by kdog on Mon Sep 27, 2010 at 03:29:30 PM EST
    we could be so broke as a nation that the Supreme Court justices could be standing on a breadline and Brand R would vote against a .00002 percent tax increase to feed them.

    Bush the First is a dead breed of Brand R...especially with the teapartiers on their right flank pulling 'em off the cliff.


    specious act... (none / 0) (#1)
    by BTAL on Mon Sep 27, 2010 at 10:38:39 AM EST
    Hoyer's foot.

    More like what was predicted here, there are not enough votes in the house which would have been the ultimate embarrassment for the dem leadership prior to the election.

    A vote after the election under the moniker of "Obama Tax Cuts" is now impossible.

    Steny Hoyer (none / 0) (#2)
    by Edger on Mon Sep 27, 2010 at 10:45:25 AM EST
    fell through the mirror.

    This was the easiest issue to win on (none / 0) (#3)
    by Buckeye on Mon Sep 27, 2010 at 10:56:31 AM EST
    and the dems are going to blow it.  Obama could let taxes increase for everyone by doing nothing (and it would not be him raising taxes, it would be Bush by its original design).  This was incredibly easy, simply put together a piece of legislation that extends tax cuts for 98% of population, and make republicans vote against it.  Do you want to extend tax cuts for middle class?  Or hold them hostage unless the rich can keep their tax cuts?  Do you really care about the deficit like you are all campaigning on?  Do you really care about the middle class, or only if it comes at the price of helping the rich?

    The polls are in the dems favor to do something like this and Boehner was tripping over himself searching for the right response.  All a few weeks away from election day.

    Wow, just wow.  Political malpractice is not a strong enough word to describe what they are doing.

    Its not as easy as you make it out to be (none / 0) (#6)
    by BTAL on Mon Sep 27, 2010 at 11:09:46 AM EST
    Due to the 44-46 Dem house members who signed up to extend all the cuts, a normal house vote would have triggered a motion to recommit and most and/or all those 44-46 Ds would have joined the Rs.

    Trying to bring a middle class only bill to the floor under suspension calendar requires 2/3 majority to pass - again the D votes are not there.


    I don't care if it passes or not (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by ruffian on Mon Sep 27, 2010 at 11:57:30 AM EST
    For the pre-election period, some Dems could make a point of sticking up for the middle class. Those that don't can suffer the consequences at the polls. By giving them cover the Dem leadership, and I use the term loosely, sacrifices the whole issue.

    What Atrios said (none / 0) (#41)
    by ruffian on Tue Sep 28, 2010 at 10:29:57 AM EST
    Find an idea that's simple, popular, and easy to sell. Spend six weeks talking about nothing else on the teevee. Then dare the Republicans to vote against it. If it doesn't pass, a few more people actually know that Republicans don't like puppies and apple pie.

    Then the conservadem blue dogs would've outed... (none / 0) (#21)
    by rhbrandon on Mon Sep 27, 2010 at 01:28:40 PM EST

    Still a win for truth and the American way.

    Still would've been, I should say...


    Dems are terrified (none / 0) (#19)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Sep 27, 2010 at 01:25:57 PM EST
    of GOP ads out there waiting to smash them for "raising taxes on small businesses."  They figure better not to vote at all and blame it on the Republicans.  And then there are their big contributors, those $2,000 limit folks, who are pressuring them not to let the Bush cuts expire for wealthy folks.

    Seems to me (none / 0) (#22)
    by lilburro on Mon Sep 27, 2010 at 01:29:42 PM EST
    they could easily counter by saying the GOP has held up progress on a small business jobs' bill all year.  And that the cuts actually AREN'T going to affect most (actually small) businesses.  

    Yeah, but then they'd (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Sep 27, 2010 at 01:39:26 PM EST
    have to come out from under their desks and actually stand up.

    He must think they'll make him Minority Leader and (none / 0) (#4)
    by steviez314 on Mon Sep 27, 2010 at 11:07:08 AM EST
    then Speaker if Dems ever retake the House.

    Slightly OT, but Bill Maher... (none / 0) (#5)
    by Dadler on Mon Sep 27, 2010 at 11:09:14 AM EST
    In his defense, on Bill's show this past Friday (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by StephenAG on Mon Sep 27, 2010 at 12:15:55 PM EST
    Both he and Seth MacFarland acknowledged that they were both wealthy AND didn't mind paying a little extra in taxes. This was during the actual "New Rules" sequence.

    He was complaining about (none / 0) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 27, 2010 at 12:27:53 PM EST
    getting to be richer on his show (so did Bill Clinton) when Bush gave him his tax cuts :)

    Yes, he always says that when they talk about it. (none / 0) (#30)
    by ruffian on Mon Sep 27, 2010 at 02:38:52 PM EST
    When they put the printed final new-rules monologue on-line it does not show it.

    Anyway, I don't see why he should have to say it at all. I think most people figure he makes more than $250k a year. And why does it matter anyway?


    Dadler, listen to (none / 0) (#33)
    by Zorba on Mon Sep 27, 2010 at 03:23:14 PM EST
    the first fifteen minutes of NPR's "This American Life" from last Saturday.  It was all about the whining of three Wall Street guys who absolutely think that the sun shines out of their a$$e$, that they deserve every (bloated) penny that they receive, that they're so-o-o-o-o smart, and that the bail-out was totally irrelevant to the money that they make- it's all about their "smarts."

    Hey Henny, it is not specious if it (none / 0) (#7)
    by ruffian on Mon Sep 27, 2010 at 11:51:59 AM EST
    gains some political points. If some dems think voting with the rich helps them in their district, fine, let them vote no. But get the rest of you on record voting with the middle class, no matter what the Senate does. It is even the winning position in the polls. How hard is this to figure out?

    Or Steny, whatever your name is (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by ruffian on Mon Sep 27, 2010 at 11:53:05 AM EST
    You're acting like a chicken-it got me confused.

    Never fear! (none / 0) (#26)
    by jbindc on Mon Sep 27, 2010 at 02:24:34 PM EST
    Donna Brazile says Obama gets it (or rather, he NOW gets it!).

    We are saved!

    The Republican Party is officially unveiling their "Pledge to America," a package of 20-some ideas for governing next year, should the voters elect them.

    Republican officials talk to the cameras in Sterling, telling Americans they understand how they feel.

    Now, enter Rep. John Boehner, who filed papers in April for a fundraising committee called, "Boehner for Speaker."

    "We get it, America," Rep. Boehner says looking directly into the cameras. "Believe me, we get it."

    No, Mr. Boehner, you don't.

    The president now knows how Americans are feeling -- thanks to the education he received from the despairing professional woman and young man.

    "My goal here is not to convince you that everything is where it needs to be," the president said, "but what I am saying is that we are moving in the right direction." Still, most of America needs to hear his plan to move things for Middle America to a breakthrough for them. The president heard them, and from the expressions on his face, I believe he gets it.

    The Republican leaders still don't "get it."

    Oh, now we have to read (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by ruffian on Mon Sep 27, 2010 at 02:30:06 PM EST
    the expressions on Obama's face to see what he 'gets'. God forbid he actually do anything policy-wise to signify such understanding.

    Is that the same Donna Brazile that said (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by MO Blue on Mon Sep 27, 2010 at 02:59:10 PM EST
    BRAZILE: Well, Lou, I have worked on a lot of Democratic campaigns, and I respect Paul. But, Paul, you're looking at the old coalition. A new Democratic coalition is younger. It is more urban, as well as suburban, and we don't have to just rely on white blue-collar voters and Hispanics. We need to look at the Democratic Party, expand the party, expand the base and not throw out the baby with the bathwater. TL

    From the looks of things, they threw out the baby and the bathwater along with the old coalition. Listen to the sound of the Democratic base shriveling due to the abuse of the new Democratic Party. Somehow I view Brazile as a part of the problem and not part of a solution.


    Rubin threw out the old coalition (none / 0) (#36)
    by Rojas on Mon Sep 27, 2010 at 08:01:51 PM EST
    shark bait.

    oh really? (none / 0) (#37)
    by cpinva on Mon Sep 27, 2010 at 08:17:36 PM EST
    Exhibit A for why the Dems will get creamed in November, Steny Hoyer

    i doubt it. as bad as the dems are, the republicans/tea partiers are arguably exponentionally worse, the "common wisdom"  notwithstanding. sure, the dems will lose a few seats in both houses, so what? given the rancid candidates the republicans are supporting, they have exactly a zero chance of regaining majority status in either house in nov.

    heck, i could be wrong. christine o'donnell might cast a spell over the entire voting population of delaware, and surprise everyone. ummmmmmmm, no. tea party republican joe miller of alaska might luck out, and be the happy recipient of a sudden plague of brain damage, among voting age citizens, and win. hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm! nope.

    notice a pattern developing here? i thought that you would.

    this isn't to suggest that the democrats should assume they'll win, and stop campaigning, just that the tea party/republican candidates are just so uniformly bad (rand paul, anyone?), that the majority of voters, who've not completely gone bonkers, will not vote for them.

    this isn't to suggest the voters aren't angry, they are. it simply means that the multiple disasters of the (very recent) bush administration/republican congress are still relatively fresh in their minds. most people don't commit suicide, and neither will the majority of voters, come nov.

    Lose a "FEW" seats, huh? (none / 0) (#38)
    by MO Blue on Mon Sep 27, 2010 at 10:23:36 PM EST
    Guess we will see come November.

    may I suggest some (none / 0) (#40)
    by NYShooter on Mon Sep 27, 2010 at 10:57:55 PM EST
    eye opening reading matter? "What's The Matter With Kansas?"

    And, "most people don't commit suicide[?]" Did we forget the mentally troubled, boy-man, GWB's re-election already?

    We are talking about a metastasizing plurality of cognitively inert, truth averse, intellect denying, absolutists who really, actually believe that Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, et al are the people to lead them in "taking their country back."  

    And if you ask them, "take it back from whom?" they look you straight in the eye and say with resounding, unflinching certainty....... "you know, Them!"

    And then, frozen in their stare, as if to say, "NOW, whose the fool?" they go back to their sausage & peppers & Coors just itching to tell their fellow Patriots about the Socialist-Marxist Traitor that just tried to trick them.

    And as Carl Sagan would say, "there's billions & billions of them out there."