Republicans "have vowed to oppose" elimination of Bush tax cuts for the wealthy

[Amerigo Vespucci]

After a protracted battle on health care dominated his first year in office and led to a string of Democratic election defeats, the administration hopes its new budget will convince Americans the president is focused on fixing the economy.
Story continues below

Republicans complained about Obama's proposed tax increases and said the huge projected deficits showed he had failed to get government spending under control. But administration officials argued that Obama inherited a deficit that was already topping $1 trillion when he took office and given the severity of the downturn, the president had to spend billions of dollars stabilizing the financial system and jump-starting growth.

Obama's job proposals would push government spending in 2010 to $3.72 trillion, up 5.7 percent from last year. Obama's blueprint for the 2011 budget year, which begins Oct. 1, would increase spending further to $3.83 trillion, 3 percent higher than projected for this year.

While Obama projects that deficits from 2011 to 2020 will add $8.5 trillion to the national debt, the administration said that figure would have been $1.2 trillion higher were it not for deficit cuts the administration is proposing, including elimination of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts for families making more than $250,000 annually, something Republicans have vowed to oppose.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/01/obamas-trillion-budget-deficit_n_444031.html

[dkf]

1. Lol are they going to ask for a miracle?

That thing is gonna lapse. What a bunch of bozos they are if they think they can prevent it.

[liberal_at_heart]

2. Well if they fight it you know the dems will back down

God forbid the dems fight for anything.

[JoseCanyucee]

9. lol! painful but true! n/t

[Ardent15]

3. Americans have vowed to oppose Republicans. nt

[tridim]

4. The GOP's problem is that most of their voters aren't rich.

So good luck with that Repukes.

[belpejic]

5. Because Lloyd Blankfein EARNED his $100 million comp this year.

He worked hard! So did his friends! His success trickles down to the rest of us!

[90-percent]

Blankfein

I hear his personal ass wiper takes home $30,000 a year! Now that's trickle down you can believe in.

-90% Jimmy
:sarcastic:

[ThomWV]

6. A battle they can not win

You see, they have no ability to pass anything, only to stop passage of anything. So they can't pass a law to stop what is going to happen anyway.

[JoseCanyucee]

10. What is a nicer word than "NAIVE?"

Ok, listen, here's a "Political Warfare 202" lesson...

If you can't block something, then threaten to block something that you CAN unless the opposition gives you what you want elsewhere. As much as the truth hurts, the Republicans KNOW how to fight. Let's not pretend otherwise. And, you know, if it were REALLY all about the Republicans blocking, then the Dems would be bribing the Republicans... but the Dems have been bribing the Dems... hello?!!? ;)

[gratuitous]

7. Interesting turn of phrase

Both the headline and the story talk about "elimination" of tax cuts for the overrich. A more accurate description would be the expiration of those tax cuts. When Congress first enacted them, they were under old pay-as-you-go rules, and in order for the cuts not to create a gaping hole in the budget, they were scheduled to expire after 10 years, because they couldn't be sustained. Since those benighted times, however, the Republicans repealed the law that said that tax cuts had to be offset by concomitant budget cuts. In other words, they could shovel the Treasury directly into the pockets of their fatcat friends, and never have to worry about pissing off anyone by cutting the boutique farm subsidy or the deductibility of second, third and fourth home mortgages.

Now, the tax cuts are going to expire, and the Republicans have at last a plan and program they can endorse, one which has definite numbers and details, unlike their proposals for the budget, health care, defense cuts, and so on and so forth. Suddenly they're mathematical geniuses, parsing down to the penny the horrible situation faced by people who clear a quarter million a year.

Interesting, innit?

[JoseCanyucee]

11. lol not only interesting, but funny the way you put it. n/t

[rox63]

8. They can oppose all they want

But no legislation is needed to let them expire. So there's not a whole lot they can do about it.

[HughBeaumont]

12. "Fiscal Conservatism" at work . . .

. . . If we don't tax anyone (least of all the wealthy), logically explain to me WHERE the money comes from to, you know, run the country.

They really think Magic Debt Fairies are just going to ZAP this $12T (most of which was rung up by their party) away, don't they?

[Joanne98]

13. Extending the Bush taxcuts for the rich will add trillions to the debt.

[L0oniX]

14. ...because that would mean that they will have to pay more and ...

that includes just about everyone in the congress and senate and the administration.

[euphoria12leo]

16. That's just too bad.

I heard some in Hollywood say they didn't expect tax cuts anyway and didn't need them.
"All the rich do is piss off the poor and middle class": Roseanne Barr

So the congress, senate and the administration can deal with it the same way. Think
like the rich in Hollywood.

[LatteLibertine]

15. Surprise!

The financial sector alone gave 35mil to our buddy McSame from 1989-2009.

http://ow.ly/UyZe

[11 Bravo]

17. I believethe Dems have the hammer this time.

As I understand it, the cuts are slated to expire. The Democrats don't have to pass any piece of legislation to allow that to happen, and the Repubs can shove their 41 vote filibuster up their collective, doughy, asses. They would have to actually ENACT legislation to keep their fat cat subsidies. 41 votes can KEEP things from happening, but they can't PASS shit!

[rucky]

18. Does this even need to go up for a vote?

I thought it just sunset.

[EmeraldCityGrl]

19. and why did those slimy repugs not make them permanent

in 2001...

"The answer is that President Bush and a complicit Congress didn’t want to show the magnitude of the deficits that would result from their tax cuts. To hide those deficits as they were pushing them through they used a variety of accounting tricks. One of those tricks was attaching expiration dates so that, on paper, there wouldn’t be any long-term costs. This made the long-term deficit picture look fairly rosy on paper even as it doomed Bush’s successor and the current Congress to cleaning up the mess."

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/12/bush_cuts_expire.html

F*ck us...nooooooooo...f*ck you