Obama Says He Won't Budge On Bush Tax Cuts

[MidnightVoice]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2124324.html

President Barack Obama will enter high-stakes budget negotiations firmly committed to seeing the tax rates for high-income earners rise to pre-George W. Bush levels, he assured a gathering of progressive and labor leaders on Tuesday.

"I am not going to budge," he told the group, according to an attendee who relayed material from the meeting on condition of anonymity. "I said in 2010 that I'm going to do this once, and I meant it."

The White House did not immediately return a request for comment, but two other sources who attended the meeting confirmed the quote. The administration seems to have staked out a firmer position than during the first stand-off over the Bush-era tax cuts, in November and December of 2010, leaving the impression that it won't sign off on a compromise that doesn't increase the tax burden on the wealthy as a means of paying down the deficit.

How the president plans to effect that outcome is still unclear. Top Democrats in the Senate have said they would be comfortable letting all the tax rates expire -- as they are scheduled to do -- at the end of the year, after which they will put together a tax cut bill that would re-establish the Bush-era rates for incomes below $250,000.

[Discotrish]

Patti

[YardRat]

Somebody is going to have to blink at some point. Going to be interesting to see who flinches, and how they spin it into being a positive.

[DraftBoy]

I dont understand the Democratic strategy here, we are going to let the tax cuts expire so we can then try and force the House's hand to defend a non-tax cut vote?

If they vote against the deal now, they aren't going to suddenly change because its only a tax cut the 2nd time around.

[ICRockets]

It's pretty simple. The positive is letting the tax cuts expire. There's no benefit to keeping them intact at higher incomes.

[DraftBoy]

It's pretty simple. The positive is letting the tax cuts expire. There's no benefit to keeping them intact at higher incomes.

That is not their strategy though or I would agree. Their strategy is to let them expire and then immediately purpose the same cut but for those under $250K is mind numbingly stupid.

[denverboz]

Somebody is going to have to blink at some point. Going to be interesting to see who flinches, and how they spin it into being a positive.

This is a win-win for Obama! This is what he campaigned on and was elected on, and what all polls show people favoring!!!

[DraftBoy]

This is a win-win for Obama! This is what he campaigned on and was elected on, and what all polls show people favoring!!!

And if he doesn't re-pass the tax cut what is it?

[YardRat]

This is a win-win for Obama! This is what he campaigned on and was elected on, and what all polls show people favoring!!!

I disagree. 'Lose' is part of the dynamic, depending on what the final result becomes.

In all honesty, I would expect the under $250k to stay intact, with a shell-game being played with the upper bracket so that both parties can save face.

[Gilly]

Has the dems ever met a tax hike they didn't support?

[DraftBoy]

Has the dems ever met a tax hike they didn't support?

Not really a tax hike but you know that and don't care.

[BLeonard]

I dont understand the Democratic strategy here, we are going to let the tax cuts expire so we can then try and force the House's hand to defend a non-tax cut vote?

If they vote against the deal now, they aren't going to suddenly change because its only a tax cut the 2nd time around.

If the Bush tax cuts expire, then a plan is put forth to re-establish the cuts for anyone making under $250k, the Republicans (who, by the way, are always screaming for tax cuts) would look pretty bad denying 98% of the country a tax cut that is currently agreed on by everyone.

At present time, the Repubs want to extend the tax cuts for all... Once Jan 1 hits, those cuts are a thing of the past and there is no longer any way to "protect the tax cuts for the people making over $250k per year," as the new proposed legislation won't include them.

If you look at it from that angle, it makes sense, especially if the Dems tie getting those tax cuts for those making under $250k to something like, not cutting the defense budget as much as is currently planned under the sequester.

Sure, the Repubs might reject the legislation, but then, they'll be the ones that look bad to the majority of the nation... Most of them also have to worry about re-election in 2014... Obama doesn't.

-Bill

[BLeonard]

Has the dems ever met a tax hike they didn't support?

You do realize that the Bush Era tax cuts were never meant to be permanent, right?

-Bill

[DraftBoy]

If the Bush tax cuts expire, then a plan is put forth to re-establish the cuts for anyone making under $250k, the Republicans (who, by the way, are always screaming for tax cuts) would look pretty bad denying 98% of the country a tax cut that is currently agreed on by everyone.

They will use the same logic as they are to deny this. A simply bait and switch isn't going to work.

At present time, the Repubs want to extend the tax cuts for all... Once Jan 1 hits, those cuts are a thing of the past and there is no longer any way to "protect the tax cuts for the people making over $250k per year," as the new proposed legislation won't include them.

Until they amend it, you can't really be playing this naive.

If you look at it from that angle, it makes sense, especially if the Dems tie getting those tax cuts for those making under $250k to something like, not cutting the defense budget as much as is currently planned under the sequester.

No its just spin and not even good spin.

Sure, the Repubs might reject the legislation, but then, they'll be the ones that look bad to the majority of the nation... Most of them also have to worry about re-election in 2014... Obama doesn't.

-Bill

You really don't believe the American public is this stupid do you? Well wait I believe that, so you are probably right.

[BLeonard]

They will use the same logic as they are to deny this. A simply bait and switch isn't going to work.



Until they amend it, you can't really be playing this naive.



No its just spin and not even good spin.



You really don't believe the American public is this stupid do you? Well wait I believe that, so you are probably right.

http://news.yahoo.com/dems-drive-ove...-politics.html

If the "fiscal cliff" takes effect, congressional Republicans would feel pressure to give ground in several areas to achieve their top goal: restoring tax cuts for as many people as possible. That's why Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., and other Democrats have said their party's leaders should seriously consider letting the Jan. 1 deadline pass and then negotiate with Republicans under sharply different circumstances. Some or most of any new agreements could be made retroactive to Jan. 1, they say.

If Republicans refuse to let tax cuts expire for the wealthy, Murray told ABC's "This Week," ''we will reach a point at the end of this year where all the tax cuts expire and we'll start over next year. And whatever we do will be a tax cut for whatever package we put together. That may be the way to get past this."

Murray's allies say voters would blame Republicans for refusing to yield, especially on tax rates, given that Obama won re-election. A recent Pew Research poll supports that view. More than half of the respondents said they would chiefly blame congressional Republicans if there's no compromise on the fiscal cliff; 29 percent would blame Obama.

See? I'm not the only one saying this... Keep in mind, once the 2013 Congress starts, the Dems will gain seats in both the House and the Senate, due to last week's elections... Guess who's gonna catch the blame if the Republicans left in the House and Senate are the ones voting "no" to restoring the tax cuts to 98% of the people? It would, in effect, make the Repubs look as if they only cared about getting the top 2% their cuts all along.

The longer this goes, the more cards Obama and the Dems hold. Most people couldn't tell you who ran against Obama in 2008, but I'll bet they remember who voted to deny restoring their tax cuts, should they expire...

To people like you and myself, yeah, this looks somewhat trivial... But, there are many more people who don't follow politics on a daily, weekly, monthly, or even yearly basis. Most would see the Repubs voting against a tax cut, just because it doesn't include the top 2%, as more obstruction in Congress.

-Bill

[DraftBoy]

http://news.yahoo.com/dems-drive-ove...-politics.html



See? I'm not the only one saying this... Keep in mind, once the 2013 Congress starts, the Dems will gain seats in both the House and the Senate, due to last week's elections... Guess who's gonna catch the blame if the Republicans left in the House and Senate are the ones voting "no" to restoring the tax cuts to 98% of the people? It would, in effect, make the Repubs look as if they only cared about getting the top 2% their cuts all along.

The longer this goes, the more cards Obama and the Dems hold. Most people couldn't tell you who ran against Obama in 2008, but I'll bet they remember who voted to deny restoring their tax cuts, should they expire...

To people like you and myself, yeah, this looks somewhat trivial... But, there are many more people who don't follow politics on a daily, weekly, monthly, or even yearly basis. Most would see the Repubs voting against a tax cut, just because it doesn't include the top 2%, as more obstruction in Congress.

-Bill

Yea I really think this is the stupidest way of going about this and anybody who buys into this tactic as the GOP's fault would be equally stupid. Argue they block because they favor the rich, but if the Dems let this expire fully and then try and come back and do this they are idiots and deserve as much flack as people will give the GOP for blocking this initially.

Voters will blame whoever can spin this **** show better, that's how dumb they are. If Dems can prove they are being obstructionist they win, if the GOP can prove the Dems are just duping people they win.

[mysticsoto]

Yea I really think this is the stupidest way of going about this and anybody who buys into this tactic as the GOP's fault would be equally stupid. Argue they block because they favor the rich, but if the Dems let this expire fully and then try and come back and do this they are idiots and deserve as much flack as people will give the GOP for blocking this initially.

Voters will blame whoever can spin this **** show better, that's how dumb they are. If Dems can prove they are being obstructionist they win, if the GOP can prove the Dems are just duping people they win.

You're missing the point of how it will make the Republicans look to the public. The avg Joe will already not like that the Reps didn't compromise on the issue. Then to let it expire and have its effect begin to take place...and then have the dems in the House propose to help the middle class (as their weekly paychecks drop) and have the House AGAIN deny them will set up a retaliation on 2014.

It's not a complicated Rovian-like strategy, but it will play on people's emotions for the House to continue to obstruct.

[DraftBoy]

You're missing the point of how it will make the Republicans look to the public. The avg Joe will already not like that the Reps didn't compromise on the issue. Then to let it expire and have its effect begin to take place...and then have the dems in the House propose to help the middle class (as their weekly paychecks drop) and have the House AGAIN deny them will set up a retaliation on 2014.

It's not a complicated Rovian-like strategy, but it will play on people's emotions for the House to continue to obstruct.

And don't be shocked if it back fires in the Dems face. Being cavalier enough to say we'll let the tax cuts expire to try and come back in the backdoor and pass a 2nd set to try and pin this all on Republicans? I can see that being a colossal misstep. Like I said this will come down entirely to which party spins this better and for a Democratic party that just won an election, why bother with this petty game? Little to gain, lots to lose.

[denverboz]

If an agreement is not reached, 85% of Democrats and 53% of independents say that Republicans in Congress would be more to blame. About two-thirds of Republicans (68%) say that if an agreement is not reached, President Obama would be more to blame

[Gibby]

Patti

You sure Patti? How does this square with your party's philosophy that now that Obama doesn't face election that he will issue his real evil policies. You can't have both.