Obama Is Against a Compromise on Bush Tax Cuts

[one...two...tree 2,762]

By JACKIE CALMES

WASHINGTON — President Obama on Wednesday will make clear that he opposes any compromise that would extend the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy beyond this year, officials said, adding a populist twist to an election-season economic package that is otherwise designed to entice support from big businesses and their Republican allies.

Mr. Obama's opposition to allowing the high-end tax cuts to remain in place for even another year or two would be the signal many Congressional Democrats have been awaiting as they prepare for a showdown with Republicans on the issue and ends speculation that the White House might be open to an extension. Democrats say only the president can rally wavering lawmakers who, amid the party's weakened poll numbers, feel increasingly vulnerable to Republican attacks if they let the top rates lapse at the end of this year as scheduled.

It is not clear that Mr. Obama can prevail given his own diminished popularity, the tepid economic recovery and the divisions within his party. But by proposing to extend the rates for the 98 percent of households with income below $250,000 for couples and $200,000 for individuals — and insisting that federal income tax rates in 2011 go back to their pre-2001 levels for income above those cutoffs — he intends to cast the issue as a choice between supporting the middle class or giving breaks to the wealthy.

more...

http://www.nytimes.c...obama.html?_r=1

[The_Dude 1,142]

Raise your hand if you think he will actually follow through with this. Anyone?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

[The_Dude 1,142]

My sneaking suspicion is that this is a bluff to gain leverage on some other issue.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

My sneaking suspicion is that this is a bluff to gain leverage on some other issue.

Perhaps, but that doesn't mean he isn't serious. The Obstructionists leave no other option but to play hardball.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

There he goes again, blocking any reasonable compromise. It's either his Pelosi's way, or the highway.

[Dan J 277]

There he goes again, blocking any reasonable compromise. It's either his Pelosi's way, or the highway.

I think the Republicans have made it clear that at least for the time being, compromise is not part of their vocabulary. So why bother?

[^_^ 5,021]

Raise your hand if you think he will actually follow through with this. Anyone?

I don't see how he can.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I think the Republicans have made it clear that at least for the time being, compromise is not part of their vocabulary. So why bother?

Bill lives in a fantasy world where Republicans sh!t rainbows and Global Warming is a new beach front resort.

[DukeOfYork 28]

I think the Republicans have made it clear that at least for the time being, compromise is not part of their vocabulary. So why bother?

Interesting, given that the Democrats have refused to compromise on any measure. The pork-ridden "stimulus" plan and the "health care" plan were pushed through on party-line votes. That's not compromise.

I find it interesting that Republicans are called the "Party of No" or "Obstructionists". Saying no sometimes is necessary in order to block disastrous legislation. It's kind of like saying no to a child who begs for something that an adult knows is not good for him or her...

[Dan J 277]

Interesting, given that the Democrats have refused to compromise on any measure. The pork-ridden "stimulus" plan and the "health care" plan were pushed through on party-line votes. That's not compromise.

I find it interesting that Republicans are called the "Party of No" or "Obstructionists". Saying no sometimes is necessary in order to block disastrous legislation. It's kind of like saying no to a child who begs for something that an adult knows is not good for him or her...

There were attempts to compromise on both to get more Republicans on board. But even if a Republican wanted to, it would be basically a career ending decision as they would find themselves under the Tea Party express.

Of course, if you don't believe something is a problem in the first place, then why would you agree to a solution?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Interesting, given that the Democrats have refused to compromise on any measure. The pork-ridden "stimulus" plan and the "health care" plan were pushed through on party-line votes. That's not compromise.

I find it interesting that Republicans are called the "Party of No" or "Obstructionists". Saying no sometimes is necessary in order to block disastrous legislation. It's kind of like saying no to a child who begs for something that an adult knows is not good for him or her...

For starters, look at how many Democrats voted for Republican sponsored legislation over the last 6-8 years.

Secondly, its one thing to stand on principle but another thing (see "obstruction") to block a vote from even taking place, even on policies that at one point or another were endorsed by the Republican Party. Facts are funny things.

[DukeOfYork 28]

There were attempts to compromise on both to get more Republicans on board. But even if a Republican wanted to, it would be basically a career ending decision as they would find themselves under the Tea Party express.

Of course, if you don't believe something is a problem in the first place, then why would you agree to a solution?

Republicans recognize a problem with our health care, but the solution is not the socialization of medicine and raising taxes to unbearable levels, not to mention enacting legislation that will make it impossible for insurers to provide affordable coverage.

The Democrats did not listen to the Republican ideas of enacting tort reform and allowing insurers to sell across state lines. Both of these ideas would have helped to greatly reduce insurance premiums.

As it is, the Democrats were not able to get one single, solitary vote on the health care legislation.

[mawilson 2,133]

$250,000 for couples and $200,000 for individuals

#######, now it's $200,000?

[Heracles 417]

It's interesting to read Charles thread about billionaires basically being tigh-azzes, yet now we want to give them tax cuts, so they can apparently spend.

The reality has always remained that a country does well when the middle class do well. You can see it throughout US history, you can see it now in countries like Australia and Canada. The wealthy will always do well, tax cuts just allow them to amass even more wealth, than put it back into the economy. Whereas, the middle class will spend what they have earned.

Edited September 8, 2010 by Heracles