PDA

View Full Version : HAHAHAHA!!! Obama fold on the Bush Tax Cuts!!!



Sev
11-11-2010, 05:50 PM
Well at least this is some good news.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/1..._n_781992.html
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.

That appears to be the only way, said David Axelrod, that middle-class taxpayers can keep their tax cuts, given the legislative and political realities facing Obama in the aftermath of last week's electoral defeat.

"We have to deal with the world as we find it," Axelrod said during an unusually candid and reflective 90-minute interview in his office, steps away from the Oval Office. "The world of what it takes to get this done."

"There are concerns," he added, that Congress will continue to kick the can down the road in the future by passing temporary extensions for the wealthy time and time again. "But I don't want to trade away security for the middle class in order to make that point."

It has been widely assumed that the president would have to accept an across-the-board deal of some kind, but Axelrod's remarks were the first public confirmation of that fact -- and by a figure regarded as closer to Obama than any other White House staffer.

Also dealing "with the world as we find it," Axelrod declined repeatedly to comment on any of the controversial debt-reduction measures suggested by the chairs of the president's own commission -- even those, such as raising the Social Security retirement age, that go against Obama campaign pledges and strike at the heart of Democratic constituencies.

He said that the White House would wait until the commission made its final recommendations on Dec. 1 before adding, "the president's commitments haven't changed."

ADVERTISEMENT

By giving ground on taxes and remaining silent on budget suggestions that others, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and AFL-CIO head Richard Trumka, quickly denounced, Axelrod showed the subdued caution of an adviser to a humbled boss.

But the top Obama aide also erected some barriers against newly-emboldened Republicans and their Pentagon allies.

Axelrod said that his boss would veto repeal of his cherished health care law, though he would "work with people" who "have constructive ideas about how to strengthen" it. The veto threat was not unexpected, but it was the first time that a top administration figure had issued such a threat on the record. And in doing so, Axelrod predicted that Republicans would be making a major misstep by challenging the White House's commitment on this front.

"I'm not going to prejudge what they are going to do," Axelrod said of Republican opposition to the legislation. "But I will tell you this -- we are firm in our commitment, we are willing to work with people to improve this plan we are not going to stand for those who want to undermine it and destroy it."

"The notion of spending the next two years fighting over this, I think, is a complete misreading of what the American people want," he added. "They want us to focus on the economy. They don't want us to fight the battles of the last two years. But we are not going to stand by and go back to allowing people with preexisting conditions to be discriminated against, go back to the situation where people can be thrown off their insurance simply because they become seriously ill or you can't get on your parents' insurance after the age of 20. There are so many things that are just central."

Meanwhile, on the war in Afghanistan -- an expensive and increasingly unpopular conflict -- Axelrod pushed back hard against the notion, floated in some recent stories quoting "senior administration sources," that the deadline for beginning troop withdrawals had been pushed back from July 2011 to some time in 2014.

"If it is being sourced to senior administration officials, then someone has bad administration sources," Axelrod said. "There is no change in the president's position. There is no change in that basic commitment."

But there is just such a change on taxes.

Although the president "took the position he felt was the right position" -- favoring a continuation of the cuts only for families earning up to $250,000 -- Axelrod portrayed this "optimal" stance as unrealistic in the lame-duck Congress that begins next week.

For one, time is not on the administration's side. All of the tax cuts, enacted in 2001 and 2003, will expire at the end of this year unless Congress acts. The Republicans in effect "built in tax increases," Axelrod said. And separating out different categories of tax cuts now -- extending some without extending others -- is politically unrealistic and procedurally difficult, he added.

"We don't want that tax increase to go forward for the middle class," he said, which means the administration will have to accept them all for some unspecified period of time. "But plainly, what we can't do is permanently extend these high income taxes."

In other words, the White House won't risk being blamed for raising taxes on the middle class even though, arguably, it is the GOP's refusal to separate the categories that has put Obama in this bind. The only condition, at least initially, seems to be that the tax cuts for the wealthy not be extended "permanently."

A student of history and a onetime political reporter, Axelrod expressed curiosity and even some optimism about the tea party, suggesting that Obama could work with them on matters such as a ban on spending earmarks and on winding down the war in Afghanistan.

If so, Obama would turn the Clinton-era triangulation strategy on its head, reaching out not to the moderates in the other party but to the new breed of conservatives who could bring the ideological arc of Congress full circle.

Can the White House work with them? "It is a fascinating time in our history," he said, "and I don't think anybody really knows. I mean I have watched carefully some of these folks on television. I don't think this is nearly as predictable as people think."

President Obama, in fact, has called every new Republican senator-elect and many of the incoming GOP House members -- "well over 100 calls" in all, said Axelrod.

That's how a shellacked president spends his plane time on a trip to Asia.

LWW
11-11-2010, 06:03 PM
Those are forever after to be referred to as the Obama tax cuts ... and our resident leftists will soon inform us that they were for them the entire time.

LWW

cushioncrawler
11-11-2010, 06:42 PM
The usofa iz a deadDuck.
I probly hav sayd in the past that theusofa system stinx.
But it iznt really systems that matter -- what matters iz pipple -- stupid pipple can stuffUp any system.

In theusofa thems stupid pipple are firstly the Krappynomicysts.
The talk iz about reducing spending -- if so theusofa iz a deadDuck.

I hav explained on here many times that stimulus (ie for jobs) can only be achieved by virtue of nonfunded gov spending -- ie by a real gov deficit.

Gov spending and gov deficits offset by borrowing and selling bonds etc are faux-deficits -- not much good at all (ie nearnuff zero stimulus).
Alltho i am happy to be korrekted here if say some of thems bonds are bort by say China -- ie outside money kan stimulate (in the short term).

So, the usofa iz a deadDuck -- dont hope for any good luck, taint none.
Thems border fences will kum in handy for stopping pipple from leeving the usofa.
mac.

Sev
11-11-2010, 06:52 PM
Hey Mac.
When we go down were not going alone.

cushioncrawler
11-11-2010, 07:15 PM
Yes, the whole west (and now east too) follow krappynomix dogma.
The UK haz allready taken poizon -- they will die first.
And now theusofa iz going to drink Cool Aid from the same drum.
Yes, we will all be dragged down.
I heard that the 30's usofa depression didnt really affekt hillbillys etc -- their lives went on az uzual -- mainly koz they grew most of their own food.

We hav 13 acres, and we can soon get some chickens and a veggy garden, i love eggs and potatos (and might havta try horse meat).
We hav our own water, and our own sewerage, and wood heating and wood cooking (and our own trees -- we dont even need to touch the 1,000,000 trees in the bush behind us).
But we are on the electricity grid -- we shood hav got solar cells.
I might havta get a generator and stock up with petrol.
mac.

cushioncrawler
11-11-2010, 07:26 PM
The family in the car iz happy koz dog iz delicious.
http://i993.photobucket.com/albums/af52/dopper0189/unemployment-line-great-depression_.jpg

cushioncrawler
11-11-2010, 07:37 PM
Which one iz the professor of krappynomix ?????
Which one iz the CEO ????????

http://i682.photobucket.com/albums/vv190/tominmo1/hillbilly.jpg

Gayle in MD
11-11-2010, 09:38 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Which one iz the professor of krappynomix ?????
Which one iz the CEO ????????

http://i682.photobucket.com/albums/vv190/tominmo1/hillbilly.jpg
</div></div>

OMG, and we have people who don't believe that man came from animals!

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

Qtec
11-12-2010, 02:18 AM
For me personally, this will be the last straw.
He ran on HC reform and let the GOP walk all over him, in the cause of bipartisanship. Now you have a HC bill that doesn't do enough.
Too big to fail?
How did that turn out. Again he let the GOP walk all over him, in the cause of bipartisanship and the problem is still there.

Now he wants to give millionaires an extra 50 grand a yr and will have to borrow the money to do it.



The GOP made a deal when Bush wanted a SECOND round of tax cuts- that he had to borrow the money for- that the tax cuts would expire next year. <span style='font-size: 17pt'>That was the deal. Now they ignore that fact and call it a tax increase.</span>

If he had the balls he would say to the GOP "ok, you don't want to compromise? You want everyone's rates to go back? Fine!"

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>Then let the GOP explain to 95% of the tax payers that they are going to pay more because the GOP is holding out for the millionaires and the billionairs.......the elite.</span>



Q

Gayle in MD
11-12-2010, 08:36 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">For me personally, this will be the last straw.
He ran on HC reform and let the GOP walk all over him, in the cause of bipartisanship. Now you have a HC bill that doesn't do enough.
Too big to fail?
How did that turn out. Again he let the GOP walk all over him, in the cause of bipartisanship and the problem is still there.

Now he wants to give millionaires an extra 50 grand a yr and will have to borrow the money to do it.



The GOP made a deal when Bush wanted a SECOND round of tax cuts- that he had to borrow the money for- that the tax cuts would expire next year. <span style='font-size: 17pt'>That was the deal. Now they ignore that fact and call it a tax increase.</span>

If he had the balls he would say to the GOP "ok, you don't want to compromise? You want everyone's rates to go back? Fine!"

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>Then let the GOP explain to 95% of the tax payers that they are going to pay more because the GOP is holding out for the millionaires and the billionairs.......the elite.</span>



Q </div></div>

Systemic flaws in American election and legislation policies.

We're doomed.

None of them go into politics, and create government, Of the people, by the people, and for the people.

The wealthy pigs at the top of six or so corporations, run the country.

It's repulsive. IMO, republican control of Congress, could very likely lead us back into that Global Bush Depression, which Obama, was able to temporarily divert.

Too much money at the top, and a declining Middle Class, just like in the twenties.

G.

Deeman3
11-12-2010, 08:46 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">For me personally, this will be the last straw.
He ran on HC reform and let the GOP walk all over him, in the cause of bipartisanship. Now you have a HC bill that doesn't do enough.
Too big to fail?
How did that turn out. Again he let the GOP walk all over him, in the cause of bipartisanship and the problem is still there.

Now he wants to give millionaires an extra 50 grand a yr and will have to borrow the money to do it.



The GOP made a deal when Bush wanted a SECOND round of tax cuts- that he had to borrow the money for- that the tax cuts would expire next year. <span style='font-size: 17pt'>That was the deal. Now they ignore that fact and call it a tax increase.</span>

If he had the balls he would say to the GOP "ok, you don't want to compromise? You want everyone's rates to go back? Fine!"

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>Then let the GOP explain to 95% of the tax payers that they are going to pay more because the GOP is holding out for the millionaires and the billionairs.......the elite.</span>



Q </div></div>

<span style="color: #FF0000">We actually agree on this. If cutting taxes does not stimulate the enonomy, let them all stay in place. That would be 2.7 trillion, not just 700 billion in savings. Yes, both the Dems and Republicans would take a big political hit but if you beleive what they say, this would really help balance the budget and everyone would contribute. Now this would hit people making over 250K even harder but would send the message that they are serious about reducing the runnaway budget problems. If the tax cuts for the top 2% are abad idea, so are the ones for everyone else.

This would indicate who is really for balancing the budget and who is just playing politics. </span>

Gayle in MD
11-12-2010, 08:51 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">For me personally, this will be the last straw.
He ran on HC reform and let the GOP walk all over him, in the cause of bipartisanship. Now you have a HC bill that doesn't do enough.
Too big to fail?
How did that turn out. Again he let the GOP walk all over him, in the cause of bipartisanship and the problem is still there.

Now he wants to give millionaires an extra 50 grand a yr and will have to borrow the money to do it.



The GOP made a deal when Bush wanted a SECOND round of tax cuts- that he had to borrow the money for- that the tax cuts would expire next year. <span style='font-size: 17pt'>That was the deal. Now they ignore that fact and call it a tax increase.</span>

If he had the balls he would say to the GOP "ok, you don't want to compromise? You want everyone's rates to go back? Fine!"

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>Then let the GOP explain to 95% of the tax payers that they are going to pay more because the GOP is holding out for the millionaires and the billionairs.......the elite.</span>



Q </div></div>

<span style="color: #FF0000">We actually agree on this. If cutting taxes does not stimulate the enonomy, let them all stay in place. That would be 2.7 trillion, not just 700 billion in savings. Yes, both the Dems and Republicans would take a big political hit but if you beleive what they say, this would really help balance the budget and everyone would contribute. Now this would hit people making over 250K even harder but would send the message that they are serious about reducing the runnaway budget problems. If the tax cuts for the top 2% are abad idea, so are the ones for everyone else.

This would indicate who is really for balancing the budget and who is just playing politics. </span> </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Now this would hit people making over 250K even harder but would send the message that they are serious about reducing the runnaway budget problems. </div></div>


/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

eg8r
11-12-2010, 09:04 AM
It is funny to see the contradicting huffy post articles. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r

eg8r
11-12-2010, 09:06 AM
Why would you make the final straw one that would force Obama to lie to his voters? He said no new taxes. If he allows these cuts to expire then there will be new taxes for all.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
11-12-2010, 09:28 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why would you make the final straw one that would force Obama to lie to his voters? He said no new taxes. If he allows these cuts to expire then there will be new taxes for all.

eg8r </div></div>

He never said that, Ed. He said he was against any new taxes for those making under $250,000.00 a years.

As of yesterday, he has not made any decision on the finding of this debt reduction panel, or of any policies, thrown out there by Republicans.


Axelrod, has already admitted he mispoke, on the Presidents, position, but this thread shows up as if it never happened.

Just one more RWer, jumping up with criticisms, accusing the PResident of sayng and/or doing, something which he has not even address, yet.

IOW, another RW lie, posted as truth, on this forum.

G.

cushioncrawler
11-12-2010, 03:21 PM
Taxes karnt help a country -- ie taxes never enlarge the cake.
But taxes are good for helping to better slice the cake.
Zero tax karnt make the cake bigger.
Giving every family $1M dollars karnt make the cake bigger.
Only workers working can make the cake bigger.
Getting produktion (good produkts) to 100% iz what iz needed -- ie full employment (on good produktion).

Taxes kan only hurt a country.
With luck a country might hav a tax system that duznt hurt much.
Rome fell koz of the bad roman tax system -- Krappuss Ekonomixus.
mac.

Sev
11-12-2010, 03:44 PM
Passage of the Fair Tax solves all the tax problems. It ends class warfare. Eliminates the IRS. Eliminates the burden on industry and captures 100% of individuals in the United States.

Qtec
11-12-2010, 08:29 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It is funny to see the contradicting huffy post articles. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r </div></div>


On so called LW sites,you do see a difference of opinion..... .and then you have Fox.... ..and Beck.

Q

eg8r
11-13-2010, 01:13 AM
LOL, you crack me up.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
11-13-2010, 09:36 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Taxes karnt help a country -- ie taxes never enlarge the cake.
But taxes are good for helping to better slice the cake.
Zero tax karnt make the cake bigger.
Giving every family $1M dollars karnt make the cake bigger.
Only workers working can make the cake bigger.
Getting produktion (good produkts) to 100% iz what iz needed -- ie full employment (on good produktion).

Taxes kan only hurt a country.
With luck a country might hav a tax system that duznt hurt much.
Rome fell koz of the bad roman tax system -- Krappuss Ekonomixus.
mac. </div></div>

I don't agree on this one, friend.

We have corporations, like G.E., paid not one cent in taxes, last year.

We have corporations that pay no taxes, at all, hide their money off shore, and nevertheless, they run this country with their money, and economic power. in order to poison the earth, get a free pass from Republicans to never have to be accountable for their massive impact on pollution, our health, the planet's health, 2/3 of them paying no taxes.

Our Taxes are skewed to provide the wealthy with mega loopholes, to avoid taxes, while they are moving our jobs out of the country, WHIE they are being paid subsidies!!!! AND buy our politicians.

Republicans now are yapping about the deficit, and at the same time, they are insisting to provide an 800 billion dollar tax cut for people who don't need it, and only 3% in that bracket, provide any jobs in this country.

We had eight years of the Trickle down theory. We hemmoraged jobs, and were doing so at the rate of over 700,000 a month, by the time we finally got rid of Bush!

Trickle down is a joke. And what does this right slanted Deficit commission want to do, take it out of the hides of the people who have ablready been destroyed, and the ill, AND OUR VETERANS, and take on trillions more in debt, to further improve the life or already fabulously wealthy multi millionaires and billionaire's, hedge funders, Bankers, corporate polluters, Pharmaceutical crooks, corrupt insurance indsutry...

And we have a bunch of RW nutjobs, who think it won't impact THEIR job, or THEIR health, or THEIR children's futures.

Unbelievable!

Republicans ONLY care about the filthy rich, who are sucking the blood out of this country.

Only the Government can force corporations to do what is right!

G.

pooltchr
11-13-2010, 09:50 AM
Tell me where is sanity....
Tax the rich...feed the poor
Till there are no rich no more.

Alvin Lee

Steve