Is the WH open to extending rich-tax cuts in 2011-2012?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

This is a typical sort of DU kerfuffle. The Huffington Post runs a true story with an overly dramatic headline.

The WH claims to "deny" the story, but doesn't deny the truth of it.

And the back and forth is on, largely indifferent to the real question being asked:


If it lands on his desk, will the President sign a bill extending the Bush tax cuts on income over $250,000 beyond their current expiration date?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

1. For the record, I do not consider signing such a bill the end of the world

I am not outraged that the WH will likely end up signing whatever makes it through congress. Not in favor, but not fainting either.

The OP is more about the nature of spin and argument than about policy.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

3. For the record, I consider it the height of irresponsibility.

I think there is an 80% chance that we'll get at least a two year extension.

[BzaDem]

7. What would be really irresponsible is if they all expire, we take a 310 billion/year hit to the

economy just for the middle class portion alone, Obama loses re-election because of the economy, and President Palin not only makes them all permanent but lowers the rich tax cuts even more.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

14. Direct quote: "...just for the middle class..."

"What would be really irresponsible is if they all expire, we take a 310 billion/year hit to the economy just for the middle class portion alone, Obama loses re-election because of the economy, and President Palin not only makes them all permanent but lowers the rich tax cuts even more."



Yep. Just them.

[BzaDem]

19. Not sure what your point is. Obama can't extend just the middle class portion. It's either all or

nothing.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

31. Wrong.

They(tax cuts) can be comprised of none, some, most or all.

[NorthCarolina]

2. Push a new middle class tax cut through the lame duck congress

and let the Bush tax cuts expire for everyone.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

4. Do the "no" voters here realize what they are saying?

Voting no in this poll is saying that Obama would veto (or pocket veto) any bill that extended the $250K+ cuts for any duration.

That is an absurd thing to imagine happening.

[BzaDem]

5. Yes. If the middle class tax cuts expire, that is a 3.1 trillion hit on the economy

(or approximately 310 billion per year). That would not bode well for his re-election. And much worse taxation policy would ensue if he doesn't get re-elected.

My guess is he'll support an extension until 2013 (or possibly until 2014) and then let them all expire when the economy is in better shape (since Republicans would never agree to extending the middle class tax cuts alone).

[Marr]

13. "Let them all expire when the economy is in better shape".

I've noticed something about Obama's most diehard supporters. They always speak about the economy like it's a force of nature, separated from policy. Like the storm will clear on it's own if we just wait it out. Except when it won't.

For instance, here you say that he has to "compromise" because if the tax cuts on the middle class expire, it'll harm the economy. Then you suggest it's not a big deal if he extends the cuts for the wealthy, because surely this big mean storm will clear up in a bit anyway.

Extending the tax cuts on the wealthy will exacerbate our economic problems. Things are not going to magically improve if we just continue Bush policies and wait it out.

What's more, those tax cuts on the wealthy are a big part of the argument for cutting Social Security and many other programs that, if cut, will do very deep harm to the economy. The "we can't afford anything!" crowd made sure to make that true, by cutting their wealthy friends' taxes to the bone. So there's damage even beyond that described in the arithmetic.

[BzaDem]

17. I would love it if the tax cuts for the wealthy would expire. We don't have 60 votes in the Senate.

Given that, Obama is going to let them all survive until the economy is growing again at a reasonable rate, and then let them all expire.

Your argument about how raising taxes is somehow beneficial for the economy is complete fantasy economics, and not even the most diehard liberal economist would say otherwise. We need to raise taxes (especially on the wealthy), but not for economics reasons.

Your only argument for dropping the middle class tax cuts now is that "Bush did it." Well, Bush didn't launch a nuclear missile at the Sun. Does that mean we should, since that is the opposite of what Bush did? Your argument is just as much crap as its conclusion.

[Marr]

20. We need to raise taxes, but not for economic reasons?

What are you talking about? Taxes are a fundamental part of economic policy.

We don't need 60 votes in the Senate to get rid of the tax cuts on the rich, and pretending our only options are continuing the Bush policy or raising taxes on everyone is dishonest. If Obama truly wanted to do what he claims he wants to do, he could simply allow the Bush Tax Cuts to expire, and introduce Obama Tax Cuts, directed exactly where he wants them.

If the GOP put up a fight against middle class tax cuts, they'd be cutting their own throat, and the longer the fight lasts, the better-- politically speaking. They'd have to get out there daily and tell their constituents that they're not getting tax cuts because Obama won't let them lower taxes on Wall Street. Even the current Democratic leadership could win this argument, if they wanted to. They do not.

[BzaDem]

21. " We don't need 60 votes in the Senate to get rid of the tax cuts on the rich"

We need 60 votes to allow the middle class rates to be extended.

"and introduce Obama Tax Cuts"

Obama is not a member of Congress. He cannot introduce bills, vote on them, or command their passage. Such a bill will not get 60 votes unless it extends all the rates.

"If the GOP put up a fight against middle class tax cuts, they'd be cutting their own throat, and the longer the fight lasts, the better-- politically speaking."

Bullshit. Most Americans don't even know who controls Congress (let alone know about the filibuster). They blame everything on the President. The longer the fight last, the more pissed people get, the more the economy sinks, and the higher chance we get of a Republican President in 2012.

"What are you talking about? Taxes are a fundamental part of economic policy."

So? That doesn't mean raising taxes on the middle class (those most likely to spend it) isn't bad for the economy, or that raising taxes on the rich is good for the economy. We need to raise taxes on the rich because we need to pay down our long term debt (not because it is somehow good for the economy).

[Marr]

22. Oh, give me a break with the "Obama can't introduce bills".

Yes, I know-- I took civics in third grade. But the Bush Tax Cuts were called the Bush Tax Cuts for a reason. He pushed for them, and used his bully pulpit to sell the idea, even if he didn't personally introduce the bill.

I'm not going to bother with the point-by-point, because frankly, that argument sums up your others. They're paper-thin, semantics-based excuses for giving a politician a pass.

[BzaDem]

24. "He pushed for them, and used his bully pulpit to sell the idea"

Bullshit. He did not get them passed because of the bully pulpit. He got them passed because they passed a budget, which enabled them to use budget reconciliation.

In fact, the WHOLE REASON we are even having this discussion is because they couldn't make them permanent through budget reconciliation. If he didn't need to use reconciliation, he would have passed them under regular order and made them permanent back in 2001.

We can't use budget reconciliation, since there is no budget. We have to get 60 votes.

The fact that so many people think Presidents magically pass bills with the "bully pulpit" really shows how awful our middle and high school civics education program is. I actually feel sorry for people who are so ignorant about how bills are actually passed.

[Marr]

30. I wish you'd stop building strawmen to knock down.

I never said the bully pulpit is some sort of legal mechanism, as you imply.

Do you seriously think that presidents have no influence upon the legislation that is brought to their desks? You actually think that the things GW Bush signed into law, for instance, simply originated out of thin air in the Congress, and the WH had no role in pushing an agenda beyond signing a few documents?

[de novo]

27. What about the further hit on our deficit?

When we drag out these deficits and add to them, it opens the door for conversations about cuts to social programs. We need all the tax cuts to expire.

[quinnox]

6. Its a done deal IMHO

The president and his spokespeople can continue to play word games but I would bet in the end he signs a bill giving his stamp of approval to the Bush tax cuts.

That will be a sad day indeed for the Democratic party.

[Romulox]

8. Yep. The President makes deals in the back room, comes on TV to sell a fait accompli. nt

[bigwillq]

9. Yes (nt)

[Marr]

10. They said as much. What's with the people voting "no"?

There's a point where support becomes denial.

[Kablooie]

11. They should just drop ALL the tax cuts.

Hell, so many of us middle class have minuscule taxes this year anyway because we have minuscule incomes.

[Hannah Bell]

15. yes. call the pubs' bluff, rescind all the tax cuts, then introduce new middle

class tax cuts & force the pubs to go on record voting them down -- or not.

that would be a good strategy. unlike the present one.

[Kablooie]

12. They should just drop ALL the tax cuts.

Hell, so many of us middle class have minuscule taxes this year anyway because we have minuscule incomes.

[Imagevision]

16. Huffington Post states continuation of Bush tax cuts, including those for the wealthiest taxpayers.

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama's top adviser suggested to The Huffington Post late Wednesday that the administration is ready to accept an across-the-board, temporary continuation of steep Bush-era tax cuts, including those for the wealthiest taxpayers.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/10/white-house-gives-in-on-bush-tax-cuts_n_781992.html

Well, Obama did ok the equal pay for woman too... didn't he?

[ipaint]

18. Of course they will. There is plenty of excess in the food stamp

budget or public housing or school lunch programs to make up for the billions we lose letting tax cuts continue for the obscene hoarders at the top of the food chain.

After all it will be social programs that pay for it so the comfy middle class won't have to worry their beautiful minds about suffering at all themselves.

You betcha.

[LWolf]

23. The WH is open to doing anything republicans and neoliberals want. nt

[de novo]

25. Of course the WH is open to it.

They are terrified at fighting repugs head on, so they fold like a cheap suit.

And, in 2012, when the tax cuts are supposed expire again, they'll be extended, again. Possibly permanently.

This will be yet another disappointment from President Obama.

[ibegurpard]

26. the only question is how the groupies are going to spin it for us

[myrna minx]

28. He's as much as said so, but he says a lot of things, so who bloody knows.

[struggle4progress]

29. Lots of DUers seem to think they have ESP