Obama’s promise to end tax cuts for rich unravels

[Better Believe It]

Obama’s promise to end tax cuts for rich unravels
By Edward Luce in Washington
October 4, 2010

Nobody in Washington has put it quite so bluntly. But it seems almost certain now that Barack Obama will be unable to fulfil his pledge of reversing George W. Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. Last week, Democratic lawmakers returned home to prepare for next month’s midterm elections having failed in either chamber even to put the issue to a vote.

Mr. Obama’s plea went unheeded. The absence of a vote, even one that went the wrong way, deprives Democrats of a clear election talking point about Republicans holding middle-class tax cuts hostage to the interests of the wealthy. Republicans want to extend the tax cuts, which expire in December, for all Americans. Democrats want to exclude the top 2 per cent who earn above $250,000.

The obvious conclusion is that Ms Pelosi did not believe she could get a large enough majority of Democrats to vote the way she wanted. Last week, 47 Democrats in the House of Representatives signed a letter opposing any increase in capital or dividend taxes from the 15 per cent rate for any income group.

“It does seem extraordinary that on an issue as clear-cut as this and with majorities in both chambers the Democrats are unable to push it through,” says Dean Baker at the Centre for Economic and Policy Research, a think-tank. “My view is that the Obama administration lost the politics very early on when it oversold what the 2009 fiscal stimulus would achieve. They never regained that trust.”

Read the full article at:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4931a1f8-cfee-11df-bb9e-00144feab49a.html

[onehandle]

1. We could have passed a Democratic tax cut for 98% and kept the House.

But no.

[pnwmom]

23. Where's your evidence for this? n/t

[DiverDave]

2. I get so god damned mad

that the Democratic Representatives are just cowering in the corner and begging them to "not hurt me"

Goddamn it, we gotta kick some ass and end this "we gotta have bi-partisanship" to pass anything.
HELLO!!!, it ain't working and it NEVER will!!

I say grab them by the throat and TELL them we are going to help the American PEOPLE and not some multi-billion dollar company.


I just feel like vomiting.

[tridim]

3. Financial Times backs Conservatives

(Reuters) - The Financial Times endorsed the Conservatives on Tuesday, giving them a boost before a general election to be held on Thursday.

The paper voiced concerns over the Conservatives' hostility towards Europe and the inexperience of Conservative leader David Cameron's team but concluded the centre-right party was the fittest contender for power.

"The problems facing the UK are daunting -- more so than any the country has faced since the 1970s," the paper wrote in an editorial.

"They (the Conservatives) are not a perfect fit, but their instincts are sound. Their fiscal plans while vague, suggest they would do most to reduce the size of the state -- cutting more and taxing less than their opponents."

http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKLNE64300A20100504

Sound familiar?

[SidDithers]

4. +1...

curious choice of source indeed.

Sid

[Better Believe It]

6. They have three "conservative" corporate friendly parties they can support!

From the same article:


The FT, which has a circulation of about 400,000 in Britain, praised Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown's response to the global credit crisis, but said his party had let the state grow too large at the risk of stifling the economy.

"As a crisis manager, Gordon Brown has been a better premier than his critics claim. But after 13 years, Labour needs a spell in opposition to rejuvenate itself," the paper said.

While the FT found the Liberal Democrats' policies on civil liberties and political reform appealing, it was unconvinced by their economic proposals.

"It is on the economy that doubts creep in. Their policy is an uneasy mix of sanctimony and populism."

The newspaper, part of the Pearson media group, criticised all parties for failing to spell out in detail how they would resolve Britain's fragile public finances and warned the next government could suffer from a "winner's curse".

[tridim]

8. So you think they're a stand-up outfit. Check.

:rofl:

[Better Believe It]

26. I didn't write that. However since you're so knowledgable about British politics answer this.

Which major parties in England don't take financial contributions (bribes) from big business?

None of them.

Or like in the United States, all of them.

I'm listening.

[JuniperLea]

12. You've got to be kidding!

:rofl:

Oh boy...

[JuniperLea]

11. Does it ever sound familiar...

Spoon feed... swallow... spoon feed... swallow...

The FT piece reeks... "allow to expire" is the correct term, and Obama doesn't need to do a damn thing to allow it to expire. Have the GOTP come up with a bill to counter this planned expiration?

[Better Believe It]

27. How about having the Democrat in Congress propose a bill to keep the tax cuts for working people!

Gee! Is that really possible?

And bring it to a vote!

Whoopy!

Or can't that be passed because the Republican minority is allowed to really control Congress?

[grantcart]

31. Well for some posting criticism from the left isn't enough and they want

to post all the criticism they can find from the right.

In this way Democratic Underground can become the most efficient single site for anti-Obama rhetoric on the WWW.

[Nye Bevan]

36. How DARE they support the party that did not invade Iraq and Afghanistan (nt)

[Spazito]

5. LOL, gotta love it when crap like this is touted as being...

credible. I see that in order to 'read the full article' one has to register. No thanks, just your snips tell me all I need to know about the FT.

[JuniperLea]

16. I have a subscription for biz purposes...

You aren't missing a thing. Lather, rinse, repeat... lie, lie, misguide, misinform, incorrectly name... try to sound unbiased by supporting a "Dem idea" that either isn't going to happen, or has only been mentioned in passing. SOS... DD.

[Better Believe It]

28. So you don't read any capitalist publications or watch/listen to any corporate owned media.

You must be very knowledgable and pure!

:)

[Spazito]

40. Nah, I am good at recognizing crap when I see it though...

and I sure as heck don't post it on DU as if it has any credibility but each to their own I guess.

[Hawkowl]

7. Obama is the WEAKEST

Obama is the weakest president in the last 80 years. He gives a good speech, but he simply can't get anything of substance accomplished. Nature abhors a vacuum so it will be interesting to see who steps in to fill the presidential power vacuum. Congress? The military? Wall Street?

[tridim]

9. Your vacuum sucks.

So does your post.

[JuniperLea]

13. What exactly does he have to do in order to allow a piece of legislation to expire?

Please, use small words.

:eyes:

[Hawkowl]

20. Duh!

WTF does that have to do with weakness? Oh, that's right, inaction is the definition of weakness. If you can't muster enough support to pass tax cuts on 85% of the population, while letting the tax on billionaires and millionaires simply snap back to Clinton levels, you ARE EPIC WEAK.

Small enough for you? I can dumb it down as much as you need.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kweli4Real]

18. No, he is not ...

unless your concept of "weakest" is passing largely beneficial healthcare/health insurance reforms, passing largely positive financial reforms, creating the a cabinent-level(?) Consumer Protection Agency, and ... well ... accomplishing or is working on just about everything that he promised. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

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

[gratuitous]

10. At least half the story is missing

Because after all, the tax cuts enacted in 2001 are set to expire at the end of the year unless Congress takes affirmative action on them. If Congress does nothing, the cuts expire, and the wealthy will have to face the horror of paying an additional three cents in taxes for every dollar they "earn" above $250,000. For example, someone pulling down a cool million in pay in 2011 will have to pay an additional $22,500 in federal taxes on their additional $750,000 in income.

Only in the United States does that seem grossly unfair, and then only in the popular media. But it's far too difficult to explain to the average low-information voter, so even trying is out of the question. Better we spend that time on why President Obama is a secret Muslim out to grab your guns. That's so much easier to detail, because facts aren't required.

[JuniperLea]

14. +1

Had to be said! I'm shocked at the number of low information voters there are... seriously.

[MadHound]

15. Then let all the tax cuts expire, it would be for the best anyway

Tax cuts, no matter who they're for, are the weakest form of economic stimulus going. Take one trillion of that money that's saved, put it towards a WPA style jobs creation program, one of the strongest forms of economic stimulation. Yes, we'll all lose a few hundred a year in higher taxes, but a strong economy will more than make up for that loss.

[Better Believe It]

19. They won't spend that trillion for WPA jobs. The administration opposes WPA gov't created jobs and

won't repeal Ronald Reagan's executive order prohibiting direct government job creation programs along the lines of FDR's WPA and CCC.

[blindpig]

17. ....

A pitcher is worth a thousand words....

[leveymg]

21. The battle was lost by October 2009, when lobbyists sank the proposed tax on corp. foreign earnings

On October 15, 2009, the Wall Street Journal reported the Obama Administration had decided to shelve the plan to raise $200 billion in taxes on U.S. businesses with overseas operations by ending most deferral of foreign tax credits. From a WSJ editorial that day, “In Praise of Lobbyists“:

The idea that raising corporate taxes would promote job creation never made sense, and the sure threat of higher taxes is one factor depressing business investment and slowing any recovery. So it’s good news that the Administration seems to have set this job-killer aside, at least for now. Administration sources are saying they may return to this bad idea as part of their tax increase, er, tax reform proposals in a year or two.

That editorial followed an in-depth examination of the issue by the Journal, “Business Fends Off Tax Hit.”

A contingent of Silicon Valley chief executives, for example, traveled to Washington in late September to speak out against the proposal to change how the federal government taxes overseas profits. They came away from meetings with key congressmen relieved.

The end result of this is that CEOs of global hedge funds and U.S.-based multinational corporations will continue to pay an effective tax rate that is half that of their secretaries.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

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

[TBF]

29. Maybe you should alert & let the mods figure it out ... nt

[Better Believe It]

30. You're being put on ignore for your constant personal attacks on liberals/progressives ....

that you disagree with.

In addition to Dean Baker, I assume you think anyone to the left of Senator Nelson and "blue dog" Democrats should not be quoted on Democratic Underground.

Bye, bye.

[flamingdem]

35. We certainly don't come to DU to read right wing British trash! nt

[spanone]

32. it ain't over till it's over

[JamesA1102]

33. Article is BS

the tax cuts expire automatically.

[flamingdem]

42. Exactly! I can't believe people don't know this yet! nt

[flamingdem]

34. This article is BS offering no cogent analysis PLUS it's a conservative rag so.. nt

[Better Believe It]

38. Well, I'd like to read your cogent analysis of why a bill to keep the middle class tax cuts is not

being introducted in Congress since the FT must be obviously wrong when they suggest that Congresswoman Pelosi doesn't have the votes.

I'm listening.

You have the floor.

[flamingdem]

39. They'll do it later nt

[Better Believe It]

43. After more Republicans have been elected to Congress?

mmmmmmm .........

[flamingdem]

44. The tax cuts for the wealthy will lapse nt

[B Calm]

37. Without a vote, it ends. If they vote to extend, he might be able to veto. . .

[Rex]

41. No bigE, I never believed they would be cut. Nothing against the POTUS

I just know how these things always end.