Obama: Bush Tax Cuts For Wealthy Will Not Be Extended, Period

[kentuck]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/06/obama-bush-tax-cuts-will-_n_1574165.html

<snip>
ABOARD AIR FORCE ONE -- The White House is insisting President Barack Obama will not extend the Bush-era tax cuts for wealthier Americans – even temporarily.

Obama spokesman Jay Carney said the president has been clear in his opposition to extending tax cuts for households with annual incomes above $250,000.

Tax cuts for people of all incomes are due to expire at year's end.

Carney's stand came after former President Bill Clinton caused a political headache for the White House by suggesting in an interview that tax cuts for people of all incomes – including the rich – should be extended into 2013 to avoid economic harm and allow time for a broader fiscal deal.

.......more

[TheWraith]

1. Translation: "Oh please Republicans, don't throw me in the briar patch."

Election year fight about protecting the wealthy? Gosh, I wonder who benefits from that.

[Voice for Peace]

35. hehe cwazy wabbit

"Roast me! Hang me! Do whatever you please," said Brer Rabbit. "Only please, Brer Fox, please don't throw me into the briar patch."

[Scootaloo]

96. I can't help but wince at someone comparing Obama to Bre'r Rabbit

I mean... Really?

[gilpo]

102. Most people forget that it was so racist and focus on how it just means he's being wiley. nt

[MjolnirTime]

2. Stuff that in your craw, Bill Clinton.

[abelenkpe]

3. And Summers!

I hope the president follows through.

[Arugula Latte]

25. I second that! Suck on that, Billy Boy.

[DCKit]

103. Bill and Hill invented the DLC.

He may have had better ideas, and a better run at the pResidency, but he's still a Republican.

[kentuck]

4. of course, Repubs will not agree to extend taxcuts on those under $250,000

if Obama does not agree to extend taxcuts for millionaires and billionaires.

This is one issue where they will agree to "work with him" in a bi-partisan fashion.

What about it, Barack? Wanna make a deal?

[NV Whino]

5. Color me cynical

I'll believe it when it happens.

[byeya]

32. I don't believe him and if indeed the tax breaks are ended I will read

the fine print of the law to see if What the right hand taketh away, the left hand didn't giveth...or something like that

[Wounded Bear]

6. Supposedly, he went along the last time...

because of his promise not to raise taxes on the middle class.

In a new election, that is no longer relevant.

Stand your ground, Pres. We need you to fight for something remotely progressive.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

12. Was the justification publicly used for the first extension of the tax cuts?

Somehow I missed that. Others may have well.

Do you have a link to source in which that excuse was used?

Thanks in advance.

[HughBeaumont]

14. Yertle & Crew held long-term unemployment insurance hostage.

"Let's make a Deal" was played, The End.

Job creation, in turn, underwhelmed . . . as it ALWAYS does when you give the rich free money. Common Sense 101 . . . the job cremators are going to go where the tax is NOT. In this situation, as in the past 10 years, that is PROFIT. DUUUURRRRRRRRR.

[aquart]

37. "Job cremators"

Yes, yes, oh YES!

[demosincebirth]

34. I agree with ya whole heartedly!

[TheWraith]

52. "Remotely progressive"?

You mean like universal healthcare, ending the wars, repealing DADT, increasing funding for education, reducing the military budget, opposing DOMA, and all the other things he's already done?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

58. He's ending the wars and reducing the military budget? You must have a sense of humor.

[bvar22]

91. "Universal Health Care"?

Passing a law that requires every American to BUY Health Insurance from For Profit Corporations
is NOT really "Universal Health Care".





You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[morningfog]

98. There is no universal healthcare and the wars go on.

Please remove those form your list.

[HiPointDem]

80. in an election year it's not relevant that the Rs can demagogue a "tax hike" on "everyone"?

[Comrade_McKenzie]

7. Some good news today. I'd drink to that...

But I finished the last of my liquor after the reelection of Walker.

[leftyohiolib]

8. i will gladly give up mine if he ends theirs

[rhett o rick]

9. Go ahead and kick the ball Charlie Brown. We wont extend Bush tax cuts this time. nm

[SammyWinstonJack]

61. hehee

[cherokeeprogressive]

87. Fool me twice, shame on...

Oh hell never mind.

[rhett o rick]

89. Eh, eh, you fool me......you cant get fooled again. That's an old Tenn saying or at least

an old Texas saying. oh hell never mind.

[FreeJoe]

10. Be prepared

Obama doesn't get to write the lawsl; he just signs or vetos them. The Senate is too divided to push anything through. The Republicans control the House. They'll put out a bill that makes all of the Bush tax cuts permanent. They'll offer to compromise by making it temporary. That's the choice they'll offer - extend them all temporarily, permanently, or not at all. It'll be a game of chicken in which Obama has to be willing to let the tax cuts expire for everyone. Will he have the guts to do it?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

11. So his spokesman says he "has been clear in his opposition" to extending such tax cuts. Mere words.

Actions speak louder than words.

[lark]

53. Meaning, I'm afraid, that he will go along with Repug again

Based on all his previous actions, we have no reason to trust that he will do as he says - none whatsoever.

[Waiting For Everyman]

13. Good!

The Bush-tax-breaks windfall-wealth-for-the-wealthy that we've been putting on the national credit card has to stop flooding to the top, first and foremost, before anything else can get done. That diverted money constitutes the "bullets" the rich are firing at us, to get even more ill-gotten power and money. This is only a beginning but it would help. It's the beginning point of the vicious circle we're in.

I think he means it.

[Martin Eden]

15. That's what he should have said last time.

But he caved, and it cost the Democrats.

[kentuck]

16. In my opinion, it is why we lost the House...

I hope he doesn't make that mistake again.

[Martin Eden]

22. Yep

The Democratic base wants someone to fight for our core values, not cave to take-it-or-leave-it rightwing intransigence.

Enthusiasm drained like air from a punctured tire.

Not long after that I received a fundraising appeal from President Obama, and I replied that because of his agreement to extend the Bush tax cuts I was going to support putting forth a real Democrat to oppose him in the presidential primary.

Of course that hasn't happended and I will contribute to this president's re-election because the alternative would be catastrophic, but I'm not exactly thrilled.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

23. We had already lost the House by the time the tax cuts were extended, weren't they?

[Cali_Democrat]

24. Yes. n/t

[Wounded Bear]

26. The actual vote was after the election...

but I'm pretty sure the cave happened before it.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

31. If it did happen before the election

did people know about it- so that it made a difference?

[kentuck]

49. It was debated before the election but...

...it was not agreed upon until late November and December after the election. They had debated the unemployment insurance for the long-term unemployed etc...

[JoePhilly]

39. The Dem House and Senate PUNTED!!!!

As a candidate, Obama made 2 promises.

1) Not to raise taxes of those making under 250k. 98% of all Americans.
2) End the Bush tax cuts for those making over 250k. 2% of all Americans.

Now, without a bill on his desk that separates those 2 items, there was no way for him to keep both promises. The mistake Obama made as a candidate was in trusting the Dem Congress to PASS legislation that maintained the tax cuts for those under 250k, but not for those above.

In the fall of 2010, the Dems could have brought such legislation. They did not. They could have even created a version which extended the cuts for those making under 1 million dollars, but they did not. This would have been a winning issue for them ... but they were cowards and punted the issue for Obama to deal with in the lame duck session. The Dems lost the house in part because THEY punted ... think for a minute ... Obama did not extend the cuts until the lame duck session which was AFTER the 2010 election. Obama extending the tax cuts in December can't be the cause of the Dems losing in November.

And so back to Dec 2010, if Obama lets them all expire, he breaks a promise to the 98% making less than 250k. And something like 70% of them did not want their taxes to go up. If he did let them expire for those under 250k, the media would have spent the last 2 years calling it his "read my lips" moment.

They'd stop trying to say he is Carter, and start saying that he's actually Bush #1. He promised not to raise taxes on the middle class, then he did. Boom, he's done. He definitely loses in 2012, and the new GOP President goes on to reinstate the tax breaks permanently.

Given what we know about today's congress, it is unlikely that they will be able to reach a deal on those tax cuts before the election. In other words, they will again PUNT this issue into the lame duck session. But this time, Obama does not have to worry about re-election. Win or lose, he can let them all expire because the media can't calling it his "read my lips" moment has zero impact.

My suspicion is that the GOP understands this. And during the lame duck we'll see a new deal, keep all tax cuts for those making under 1 million a year, end them for those above that level. At the 1 million dollar level, the GOP can't claim its protecting "small business", but it can claim a partial victory.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

47. Thank you so much!!!

Again, Obama held the exact same position as Bill Clinton is pitching right now. And I notice the same folks in this thread who are bashing the president are giving Clinton a pass. It's so transparent.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

57. You are right, of course, that is why we lost the House.

That, and not closing Gitmo, not prosecuting war criminals, ... and having surrogates give excuses.

[Enrique]

30. he did

this is playing out the same way it did last time. Obama supposedly was firm on $250,000 but apparently no one believed him because all these Democrats started throwing around all these higher numbers, including Orzsag's arguing that they all be extended.

This time it's starting earlier than it did last time, first with Pelosi's $1,000,000 threshhold and now with Clinton playing Orzsag's role.

[wilsonbooks]

17. Does this sound familiar?

Seems like politicians play the public for fools. I wonder why?

[SammyWinstonJack]

65. Because they can? And it works?

Seems like politicians play the public for fools. I wonder why?

[Marr]

18. 'I will not vote for a bill that doesn't include a public option'.

I'll believe this when I see it.

[badtoworse]

19. This sounds familiar. Haven't we heard this before?

[AtomicKitten]

20. I hope that is so.

Bill Clinton has advocated for another extension of the Bush tax cuts and also for approval of the Keystone Pipeline. His mixed bag surrogacy is a huge headache for Democrats.

[snooper2]

21. Man this thread got them out in droves quick

[Dawgs]

28. "Them"? You mean Democrats that were against the tax cuts in 2010? n/t

[Marr]

56. People who give a shit about actual policy, rather than just

swooning for politicians. I guess.

[frylock]

84. must be talking about the GDIs that believed obama the first time he said this

[cherokeeprogressive]

88. By "them", do you mean people who've heard those very words before?

[Zalatix]

27. So who's going to support Obama and get out and protest?

You know, like the Tea Party protested when they waged war to OPPOSE Obama?

[Blue_In_AK]

29. I don't believe it.

I hope I'm wrong, but I've been on a roll lately.

[kentuck]

33. Well, it's true he hasn't heard from Tim Geithner yet...

Larry Summers and Bill Clinton gave their opinion this morning. He tends to listen to his "experts".

[davidwparker]

36. Even if my taxes go up so that the idle rich pay more, MAKE IT HAPPEN. n/t

[Flatulo]

38. Assuming he's reelected, BO's lame duck status gives him a lot of insulation.

I can see this happening.

Either that or we become the next Greece. Actually our debt to GDP ratio is already greater than 1.

We have to start paying our bills and shoring up Medicare. Also lift the income cap on SS.

This is all no-brainer stuff.

[daaron]

40. There's Our President!!! nt

[Dont call me Shirley]

41. Bill, THE TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH ARE CAUSING THE ECONOMIC PROBLEM!

[theaocp]

42. End the tax cuts for ALL Americans!

Myself included! This is patently fucking ludicrous, so stop playing games and bite the goddamn bullet! I think he'll make a deal to "gain" something else and cry about "what could he do" or some other such nonsense. I really hope I'm wrong.

[Xyzse]

43. This is how I feel.

Thing is, even with the supposed slow down it will cause, I keep thinking that people will adjust immediately.
Yes, there will be a slow down due to people probably saving a bit more and spending less, but that is the case any way even if we did get more money in the short term or we keep on this road we're in.

So, I think we might as well bite the bullet, then the debate will have to change to asking for a tax cut rather than trying to extend it.

[theaocp]

45. It's interesting how there's little talk

about the extension of unemployment insurance that helped get the tax cuts extended last time around. I said it at the time: that was the unfortunate situation the Republicans put us in and Obama blinked. You don't negotiate with these conservative fuckwads. They play dirty.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

51. Exactly. I see a lot of Obama bashing, but NOTHING about the extension of unemployment

Nothing about DADT. Nothing about START.

These things happen in Congress and Republicans blocked everything. I'm still not sure what the Obama haters expected Obama to do! He can't MAKE Congress do anything!!!

[peace frog]

44. I'll believe it when I see it

While it would be a pleasant and welcome surprise, I've stopped playing Charlie Brown to Obama's Lucy-with-the-football.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

46. I find it interesting that the same people in this thread who are trashing Obama

Are the same ones who give Bill Clinton a break. The reason why Obama/the Democrats extended the Bush tax cuts initially is the SAME, EXACT reason that President Clinton gave the other day for why the tax cuts should be extended...

CLINTON: [W]hat I think we need to do is to— find some way to avoid the fiscal cliff, to avoid doing anything that would contract the economy now, and then deal with what’s necessary in the long-term debt reduction plan as soon as they can, which presumably will be after the election.

BARTIROMO: So does that mean extending the tax cuts?

CLINTON: Well, I think what it means is they will have extend—they will probably have to put everything off until early next year That’s probably the best thing to do right now. But the Republicans don’t want to do that unless he agrees to extend the tax cuts permanently, including for upper income people.

And I don’t think the president should do that. That’s going to—that’s what they’re fighting about. I don’t have any problem with extending all of it now, including the current spending level….The real issue is not whether they should be extended for another few months. The real issue is whether the price the Republican House will put on that extension is the permanent extension of the tax cuts, which I think is an error.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/06/bill_clinton_bush_tax_cuts.php

What Bill Clinton is explaining above is Obama's *EXACT* reason for why he extended the tax cuts at the end of 2010.

[Initech]

48. Good. They don't deserve the breaks anymore.

[SammyWinstonJack]

68. They never did deserve them.

[Courtesy Flush]

50. Election year liberalism.

[rhett o rick]

54. It seems we have a short memory. He didnt want to extend the tax cuts last time either, but

the Repukes, apparently made him a deal he couldnt refuse. Why would we think they wont again?

[JoePhilly]

55. See post #39

[great white snark]

67. Aw, let them have their uninformed "and this time I mean it" jabs.

You know, "crumbs" as they call it.

[JoePhilly]

69. They are running out of such jabs ...

It used to be DADT ... remember that ... "Obama will NEVER do it" ... then he did. And Iraq .. "he's never going to end that!" ... then he did. He's going to defend DOMA and never openly support gay marriage ... then he did ... he was propping up Mubarack, until he wasn't.

The list of manufactured outrages is shrinking.

[kentuck]

71. What do you think he will do, JoePhilly?

Will he let them expire or does it depend on whether or not he wins re-election?

[JoePhilly]

72. See my post #39, which was a direct response to your post #16

[kentuck]

73. It's a bit contradictory...

I read that you think he will keep the tax breaks for everyone making $1 million and less?

<snip>
"But this time, Obama does not have to worry about re-election. Win or lose, he can let them all expire because the media can't calling it his "read my lips" moment has zero impact.

My suspicion is that the GOP understands this. And during the lame duck we'll see a new deal, keep all tax cuts for those making under 1 million a year, end them for those above that level. At the 1 million dollar level, the GOP can't claim its protecting "small business", but it can claim a partial victory. "

[JoePhilly]

74. Not really.

Many Americans think that a small business owner makes more than 250k, but less than 1 million.

Obama won't be the one clamoring to make that deal, but the GOP probably will. The bump to 1 million should get the needed blue dog votes ... AND ... Obama may be able to get a few other elements in the deal. The big money in the Bush tax cuts exists above the 10 million mark.

Obama has the winning card if we reach the lame duck. The GOP may be willing to give up some other things. And so, I can see him uping the cap to 1M, but also getting something else in return. Obama always maintains the fall back of doing nothing and letting them all expire, win or lose. If that happens, the GOP has a lot of work to reinstate any of it.

And ... I'm a little surprised you don't debate the other key points I made as to why Obama allowed the full set to be extended back in 2010.

[kentuck]

76. To be honest...

It sounds like a Republican argument.

If we keep the rate at $1 million dollars or less, this will only keep the debt very high with huge deficits and will continue to give Republicans an excuse to continue cutting government programs. This is naively falling into their trap, in my opinion. Can you not see that they are using the huge debt and deficit to cut pensions and programs in Wisconsin and other states? It is the perfect excuse for them. That is why they want the taxcuts extended because it will permit them to continue cutting government. Maybe you think that is OK?

[JoePhilly]

78. Again, no.

The taxes to be collected between 250k and 1 million is rounding error. Actually, the big money kicks in above 5 to 10 million.

And so, the deficit is not really effected by the money between 250k and even 5 million. Try to recall that it is the money ABOVE those amounts that gets taxed at a higher rate.

If you make say 270k, you'd pay 3% more on the 20k above the 250k. Which is not very much. And even if you go up to 1 million, its still small potatoes.

The GOP is going to scream about the debit no matter what. The entire reason they ran it up was to use it as an argument to kill Social Security and Medicare. Its why they want to invade Iran and Syria ... to spend even more. Even if all the tax cuts expired, they'd still be screaming.

Bottom line: Letting all the cuts expire really does little to stop their screaming over this.

And no, I don't think them using that argument as a way to cut government is OK ... I'm actually not sure why you would accuse me of that? Did I attack YOU? Question your motives?

I am discussing politics with you. Maybe that's not the discussion you want to have. Which is fine, just say so. I described in some detail why I think Obama extended the cuts back in 2010 ... in a direct response to you. You have yet to respond on that part of my post in any way.

I also described how I think it will play out POLITICALLY going forward through the rest of the year. Feel free to disagree and describe WHY ... and yes, please, you should also feel free to question my motives. After all, I may be a GOP operative trying to trick you.

[kentuck]

81. "Maybe you think that is OK? "

That is an honest question, not an attack.

Believe me, I am not worried about being "tricked". It is my opinion that we should take the President at his word and that he will let the taxcuts expire but I do not think his advisers or the Republicans will go along with his plan. I think to let all the taxcuts expire for those $1 million and above would do very little to decrease the debt or the deficit, but, would instead, continue to give the Republicans an issue where they can cut pensions and programs, and win elections, just like they did in Wisconsin last night. I think that would be a tragic mistake for our Party and our country. Just my opinion.

[Dawgs]

85. Woohoo!! Does this mean we're eventually going to get a public option?

Or the legalization of marijuana?

Or the end to the Afghan war sooner rather than later?

Or all of the other things that a real progressive would do?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

59. He didn't want to extend the tax cuts last time? Yea, that's what he said.

It must be true. After all, we heard him say so himself.

[Javaman]

60. They won't be extended until the are.

sure, he probably believes this. And he's certainly hoping we believe this.

But the reality is: the will be extended when they are. Right now, they won't be.

Understand?

[penndragon69]

62. But tax cuts magicly pay for themselves, don't they ????

[kentuck]

66. Yes, if you cut a lot of spending...

...and that is the bottom line effect if these taxcuts are extended once again. More cuts will have to be made because of the huge debt and deficit caused primarily by the taxcuts. History will not look kindly upon such an act.

[frylock]

63. i've seen this movie..

forgive me if i don't get all rubbery until it actually happens.

[Eatacig]

64. Elect Democrats

If Obama is serious about this, all we need to do is elect Democrats and January they can extend them just for the middle income

[The Wizard]

70. Past is prologue

We can expect a replay. He's fearful of the right wing media monopoly. McConnell, Boner and Cantor hold the cards, a House majority and a Senate filibuster. Obama is powerless against them unless he governs like Bush using presidential fiat.

[JoePhilly]

75. On DU, if past is prologue ...

Lots of DU folks who attack Obama will be proved wrong. He was never going to end DADT. He was going to prop up Mubarack. He was going to gut and cut Social Security. He'd never endorse gay marriage. He'd never get us out of Iraq.

What I tend to see here on DU at times is that if Obama has YET to do something, then clearly he never plans to do it, and never wanted to do it. Until he does. Then, that issue falls off the outrage radar.

[The Wizard]

77. Hope you are correct(NT)

[JoePhilly]

79. Me too ... see my post #39 as to why I think Obama has a plan

on this.

I may be wrong ... but I think I see what's going on and how he is approaching this particular battle.

[kentuck]

83. From your post:

Can you interpret this sentence? Am I missing some commas?

"But this time, Obama does not have to worry about re-election. Win or lose, he can let them all expire because the media can't calling it his "read my lips" moment has zero impact."

??

[JoePhilly]

105. Don't need to interpret it. Its pretty clear.

Obama can let them all expire. But he'd rather NOT allow the cuts for those under 250k to expire if that is possible. Recall promise #1 from my earlier post.

So ... if congress does NOTHING, yes, he can let them all expire. No negative political impact to him, he can't run again anyway. But that hurts the middle class. Which is why he'd rather keep the middle tax cuts in place.

And so, if Congress sends him a bill that keeps the tax breaks for those under 250k, he'd welcome that.

Again, my prediction is that Congress will PUNT this issue into the lame duck session. Once there, the Dems and the GOP will agree to keep the middle class cuts, and end the others, probably at the 1 million mark and above.

Importantly, that 1 million dollar figure will be selected because CONGRESSIONAL Democrats will support it. The 250k number terrifies them because back home, the 250k number is used to claim that they raised taxes on small business. Basically, Obama by allowing the bump to 1M, gives those Dems some cover. But it does nothing for him.

[TransitJohn]

101. So it's a Chess Move®

Haven't heard that one in a while.

[JoePhilly]

104. What's your chess rating?

I did not mention chess, you did.

So not only have you not "heard that one in a while", you did not hear it this time either.

I'm going to guess you know how chess pieces move but little else about the game.

[Dawgs]

97. Interesting how you always ignore everything else.

Public option
Never ending war
Foreclosure crisis

And he still hasn't done ANYTHING about the tax cuts, so that one doesn't count.

Also, a couple of your examples are pretty lame. He said he was willing to cut Social Security in 2010. Nothing he has said or done has shown that he still won't do anything. And, the Iraq withdrawal was started by Bush. Hardly some big accomplishment on President Obama's part.

Many DUers were wrong about DADT and gay marriage. That's hardly always being proven wrong.

[JoePhilly]

106. Spare me.

1) Public Option was never going to pass. NEVER. I'll spot you all the blue dogs except Joe Lieberman, you know, the Senator from AETNA. He was NEVER going to vote yes, and there is no leverage to get him to do so. He campaigned AGAINST OBAMA and he is not running again. If YOU can explain how you flip Lieberman, you win (which you can't do, no one could).

2) Never ending war. You mean like ending the Iraq war. You say Bush started that. Humm, Bush adopted the timeline Obama proposed 6 months earlier. Sad to see a democrat use that right wing BS argument.

3) Foreclosure crisis. Humm ... what exactly do you expect Obama to do there? Forgive all of our mortgages? Nonsense.

4) Since Obama took office, here on DU, there is an ENDLESS stream of posts of how Obama plans to kill Social Security .... but apparently, he SUCKS at it. But you are angry at him for something that has not happened.

[ceile]

82. I'll believe it when I see it. n/t

[Dawgs]

86. Whatever. He's been center-right on every issue regarding the economy.

I would bet all I have that he eventually caves to the Republicans on this one.

[rhett o rick]

90. Bite your tongue. Center-Right is better than full fascism.

i know i shouldnt have to but

[bvar22]

92. Gosh...that sounds so familiar.

Its like I've heard all that before.
...must have been in a dream or a past life or something.



You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[Hotler]

93. I'll believe it when I see it. He doesn't have the balls.

If he had any balls, a spine, the Wall St. crooks, Bush/Cheney and the gang would be going to prison.

[woo me with science]

94. ...

[bbgrunt]

95. he means only for now. Wait until the debt limit debate starts again.

[morningfog]

99. I'll believe it when I see it. I've heard this before.

[TransitJohn]

100. The Congressional Repubs will simply tie them to Obama's pet payroll tax cuts

and voila! Crazily outmaneouvered again!