Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Debate over: Obama rules out extending Bush tax cuts for richest taxpayers
Hotair ^ | 09/08/2010 | Allahpundit

Posted on 09/08/2010 9:11:14 AM PDT by SeekAndFind

Message from The One to Peter Orszag: I won.

President Obama will rule out on Wednesday 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 nature of the 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 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.

Right. This is his way of baiting the GOP into opposing him so that Democrats can go back to screaming about how Republicans are the “party of the rich.” It ain’t much, but it’s a little something that might peel off a few populist independents before the midterms. The question is, what do the Blue Dogs do? Stick with the party and spare The One an awkward veto? Or defect in the Orszagian name of temporary tax cuts for everyone to provide a little extra stimulus? If the latter, they’ll spoil the whole partisan “party of the rich” attack. Exit question: Would an Obama veto be that awkward, really? It’d prove he was serious about keeping his campaign promise not to extend the cuts for wealthy taxpayers, but I wonder if the class warfare bonanza will outweigh the horrible optics of vetoing any sort of tax cut right now.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Front Page News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: bho44; bhofascism; bush; bushtaxcuts; democrats; economy; elections; fail; hopeychangey; liberalfascism; obama; obamadepression; redistribution; rich; spreadthewealth; stealthewealth; taxcheatparty; taxcuts; taxes; taxincreases; unemployment
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-52 next last

1 posted on 09/08/2010 9:11:18 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I haven’t seen any bill that protects low and middle income from federal income tax increases when the tax cuts expire.


2 posted on 09/08/2010 9:13:05 AM PDT by avacado
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
At least Obama has taken the uncertainty factor out of the economy.

Now it's certain that it will really suck.

3 posted on 09/08/2010 9:13:29 AM PDT by AU72
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
So the ones that make over $250K/yr, aka MY CUSTOMERS, won't be so willing to use my services.

Just what the economy needs. /s

/johnny

4 posted on 09/08/2010 9:14:28 AM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Excuse me, was there an actual debate, or does debate mean WH sends up trial balloon and guages the NYTs opinion? This is a real WTF moment.


5 posted on 09/08/2010 9:14:36 AM PDT by equalitybeforethelaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Does anyone see how this benefits the homosexual community and the liberal community. Here’s why: If you make $250,001 as a married couple filing jointly and you have six children (or even say 4), you are going to pay the higher tax now. But if you are a gay person living with another gay person as your partner (no children) and each of you make $199,000 a year, you are going to pay the lower rate. This makes no sense at all.

People in this country are so foolish and do not seem to see through it at all. Obama is not only against America, he’s against families.


6 posted on 09/08/2010 9:15:47 AM PDT by Paved Paradise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Raise taxes on those making over $250K and they will simply raise their prices. The middle class will pay this which is the same thing as a tax increase.


7 posted on 09/08/2010 9:15:50 AM PDT by RC2 (Remember who we are. "I am America")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AU72

RE: At least Obama has taken the uncertainty factor out of the economy.


Not by a longshot. We still have the November 2010 elections coming...


8 posted on 09/08/2010 9:16:48 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

One of the worst things the Republican Congress didn’t do was to make those tax cuts permanent.


9 posted on 09/08/2010 9:16:58 AM PDT by AU72
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

This morning, on my local radio station, Fox News was talking about the Bush tax cut and kept saying that they were tax cuts for the rich. No bias there.


10 posted on 09/08/2010 9:17:22 AM PDT by carton253 (Ask me about The Stainless Banner - a free e-zine dedicated to the armies of the Confederacy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I forgot to add this in to my post. Another way this advances the liberal cause is because libs and Lefties are far more likely to not have children and to live together, thus receiving a better tax benefit from this. The couples who marry and file jointly and have children get ripped off. My definition of wealthy is not some couple making $250K. While they may be doing well, I don’t begrudge people doing well and they should not be penalized.


11 posted on 09/08/2010 9:18:24 AM PDT by Paved Paradise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AU72
It wasn't a Repubican Congress. It was a Democratic Senate/Republican House.

The Republicans didn't have the votes to make them permanent.

12 posted on 09/08/2010 9:18:50 AM PDT by carton253 (Ask me about The Stainless Banner - a free e-zine dedicated to the armies of the Confederacy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: AU72

Yeah but that was because of one vote, wasn’t it?


13 posted on 09/08/2010 9:18:56 AM PDT by Paved Paradise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The AnnointedIdiot merrily skipping along the idiocy road..... =.=


14 posted on 09/08/2010 9:19:03 AM PDT by cranked
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RC2

Those that run a business will do just that.

Those that are workers will just spend less on toys and fun, which means less need for workers at Best Buy or the local eatery.

One big circle of suck!


15 posted on 09/08/2010 9:19:26 AM PDT by VanDeKoik (1 million in stimulus dollars paid for this tagline!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Please, please, please stop it with this "richest taxpayer" BS. Taxes are NOT assessed in accordance to how much wealth a person holds. Taxes are applied to wealth creation - not wealth. A person making $100K per year with $20 million in the bank pays the same amount of taxes as someone making $100K per year who lives in a homeless shelter and has an accumulated debt of $500K.

If you can find me a single Democrat who is in favor of taxing wealth instead of income (e.g. John Kerry, John Corzine, Maria Cantwell, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, Hillary Clinton, etc.), please let me know.

16 posted on 09/08/2010 9:21:08 AM PDT by Hoodat (.For the weapons of our warfare are mighty in God for pulling down strongholds.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AU72

I think they could only have it temporary because they only had 51 Senate votes.....permanent budgets need 60 I believe.


17 posted on 09/08/2010 9:21:34 AM PDT by mikelets456
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Which means everyone from the bottom on up will be taxed.

Obama never had any intention of not taxing everyone.


18 posted on 09/08/2010 9:24:15 AM PDT by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote; then find me a real conservative to vote for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AU72
One of the worst things the Republican Congress didn’t do was to make those tax cuts permanent.

They tried but the Rats wouldn't do it.

19 posted on 09/08/2010 9:28:13 AM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist (Mexico is the U.S. version of Hamas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
This is his way of baiting the GOP into opposing him so that Democrats can go back to screaming about how Republicans are the “party of the rich.”


20 posted on 09/08/2010 9:29:12 AM PDT by Hoodat (.For the weapons of our warfare are mighty in God for pulling down strongholds.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: carton253
This morning, on my local radio station, Fox News was talking about the Bush tax cut and kept saying that they were tax cuts for the rich.

Exactly. Four years we've been told by the media and Dems the cuts were for "the rich." So, there's nothing for Obama to extend, right? Or will they admit they've been lying?

21 posted on 09/08/2010 9:32:32 AM PDT by colorado tanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Debate over: Obama rules out extending Bush tax cuts for richest taxpayers

In the words of one Bubba klinton - it depends on what the meaning of "is" is. In the 0bamao regime if you are working, and you have some money, you may be "rich". Any money you have is money 0bama feels HE should have, and once der Fuhrer has spoken, it is so!

22 posted on 09/08/2010 9:34:33 AM PDT by The Sons of Liberty (Psalm 109:8 Let his days be few and let another take his office. - Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freekitty

If he could find some way of having a proxy group for “only white people pay taxes”, he’d do that.

The American Spectator article summed it up really well - the only reason legislation and the tax code are so complex is so that they can treat people UNequally under the law.


23 posted on 09/08/2010 9:35:17 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a (de)humanist and a Satanist is that the latter knows who he's working for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: freekitty

Right now there is no bill for anyone. Just wait until the ordinary people realize that the 10% bracket goes to 15% and the child credit goes from $1,000 to $500. If the Dems were serious about stopping that they would have introduced a bill last year or early this year.


24 posted on 09/08/2010 9:36:08 AM PDT by Truth is a Weapon (If I weren't afraid of the feds, I would refer to Obama as our "undocumented POTUS")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Democrat definition of the rich: You have a job and PAY taxes.

Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)

LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)

25 posted on 09/08/2010 9:37:09 AM PDT by LonePalm (Commander and Chef)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
The “Blue Dogs” are a bunch of treacherous jackasses and shouldn't be given any great status. A democrat is a democrat is a democrat.
26 posted on 09/08/2010 9:37:42 AM PDT by frogjerk (I believe in unicorns, fairies and pro-life Democrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: avacado

We know this scumbag is a lying imposter, he will say anything to keep power then do what he wants like he already has..yes the debate is over, Uh_bummer sucks


27 posted on 09/08/2010 9:38:49 AM PDT by aeonspromise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: avacado

Yes, that’s the point. This is a losing proposition for democrats. If the bill that comes before him is to extend *all* of the bush tax cuts, and he vetos it, he will have in effect violated his pledge not to raise taxes on the middle class. Nobody will case what the technicalities of it all are, all they will care about is that people under $250k will see a massive tax increase. Enough democrats have peeled off the “soak the rich” version to make things very uncomfortable for them on this issue.


28 posted on 09/08/2010 9:40:34 AM PDT by drangundsturm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Truth is a Weapon

So true.


29 posted on 09/08/2010 9:41:59 AM PDT by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote; then find me a real conservative to vote for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: MrB

You got that right.


30 posted on 09/08/2010 9:42:28 AM PDT by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote; then find me a real conservative to vote for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Paved Paradise

It’s not just a matter of families, but tax politics is highly stereotypical. Just because I am a married man with six children in my home doesn’t mean that I really need any more tax break than someone who lives alone and is single. Likewise, I could also be the single man who makes more than the man who is married with six children, and live a luxurious life. Either way, you can see where I am going with this. Determining who deserves what tax refund is not a rule that works based on assumptions of the person’s income, married status, etc. These are stereotypical assumptions that are neither fair nor workable on a national level.


31 posted on 09/08/2010 9:53:04 AM PDT by Morpheus2009
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Obama has never used logic in his life why should he start now.


32 posted on 09/08/2010 10:00:29 AM PDT by Vaduz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

While they keep talking about taxing the rich, they plan on getting another 50-400 bucks from the rest of us. Go figure, there’s a million or more of us for every 1 rich they keep talking about taxing. You can bet they know it too. Then, there’s new ‘’fees’’ all will pay.


33 posted on 09/08/2010 10:01:11 AM PDT by Waco (From Seward to Sarah)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

So sad how woefully uneducated this country is in economics that they think a tax increase for the rich is “sticking it to ‘em”.

Most will never understand why, how they lost their job or got a pay cut, but at least “we stuck it to the man”! They’ll wonder why their own taxes went up! “I’m not rich”! But...at least we “stuck it to the man”!


34 posted on 09/08/2010 10:02:09 AM PDT by albie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Bring it on, you Kenyan piece of manure!


35 posted on 09/08/2010 10:02:38 AM PDT by fwdude (Anita Bryant was right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Morpheus2009

I understand but the tax policies tend to be punitive of married couples. Additionally, I believe that families are good for America and our society and that the tax policies actually should be more generous for families. Sorry if you are a single or a no-childer but we have to decide what we want to promote in this country and then act like we mean it. Do we support families, children, conservative values,etc. I have no problem with people who don’t have children but people with children should get more breaks. Sorry. That’s how I feel. And while I’m on the subject, I am noticing that this society is increasingly becoming very anti-child. The Duggars have gotten a lot of flack for doing what the Bible said to go out and do.


36 posted on 09/08/2010 10:12:17 AM PDT by Paved Paradise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
President Obama will rule out on Wednesday any compromise that would extend the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy

Huh. This is a first...

...watching someone drive the last nail into a coffin...

...from the INSIDE.

Not that I mind...but it's just...bizarre...

37 posted on 09/08/2010 10:23:22 AM PDT by NorCoGOP (OBAMA: Living proof that hope is not a plan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paved Paradise

The part about having children I do agree with. But the point I am making is more the fact that the U.S. taxpayer system is highly stereotypical of the individual. Trust me, I want to find myself a wife, and have children. However, if I were somehow still stuck on that path, single, and saw a married couple with multiple children, that needed that help, I would gladly provide whatever financial, or physical assistance I could, including getting some other neighborhood pals to help them move in, help a strained family crisis etc. The problem I am getting at is that the system of taxation in America needs to get overhauled, and made much more simple. Our tax system is a biased system in numerous ways, the complexity is more of the problem, IMO, than is specific parts. If one took a look at the Progressive Income tax, it is unconstitutional, and fails in the objectives of decreasing income disparity, favoring the right people (including those married with children, as you mentioned, etc.). The flat tax idea proposed by Steve Forbes sounds a whole lot better.


38 posted on 09/08/2010 10:25:17 AM PDT by Morpheus2009
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Paved Paradise

Who are the Duggars?


39 posted on 09/08/2010 10:29:00 AM PDT by Morpheus2009
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Morpheus2009

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duggars


40 posted on 09/08/2010 10:30:47 AM PDT by nascarnation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Sure it’s a bait but the GOP only has to vote for the proposed tax cuts and then blame the Rats for the expired ones when the economy continues to sink.


41 posted on 09/08/2010 10:42:52 AM PDT by tobyhill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RC2

No. Many of us have to compete internationally.

It simply means we have less money to buy things with - from business investments to a new car.

Less money to spend means fewer jobs.

Obama is an idiot.


42 posted on 09/08/2010 10:44:26 AM PDT by DB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Paved Paradise
I understand but the tax policies tend to be punitive of married couples. Additionally, I believe that families are good for America and our society and that the tax policies actually should be more generous for families. Sorry if you are a single or a no-childer but we have to decide what we want to promote in this country and then act like we mean it. Do we support families, children, conservative values,etc. I have no problem with people who don’t have children but people with children should get more breaks. Sorry. That’s how I feel. And while I’m on the subject, I am noticing that this society is increasingly becoming very anti-child. The Duggars have gotten a lot of flack for doing what the Bible said to go out and do.

The truth is income taxes are evil and were forbidden by the original constitution. We need to repeal the 16th amendment and institute a national sales tax, not to exceed 10 % and make that permanent with no changes allowed. Do away with SS by phasing it out and if you wish to keep it then the money will go into individual accounts, interest earning and untouchable by the government. In other words eliminate all existing payroll taxes and go to a sales tax of not more than 10%, permanent and unchangeable.

This would include no corporate income taxes either. In addition the EPA and other idiotic agencies would be disbanded, a few common sense rules about the environment would stay in effect but no special agency to oversee them would exist. No making laws by a bureau.

These are a few things that would even things out. Everyone would pay the same 10%(because you know they would go for the maximum), no exceptions, married, single whatever and NO Income tax flat or otherwise would be allowed ever in perpetuity.

43 posted on 09/08/2010 10:45:28 AM PDT by calex59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: AU72

That’s okay, this will be OBAMA’S WATERLOO.
Mark my words! Let me be clear! He’s circling the drain!!


44 posted on 09/08/2010 10:51:49 AM PDT by pillut48 (Whenever O says, "Let me be clear," you know what is to follow is a bunch of nuanced BS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: pillut48

“That’s okay, this will be OBAMA’S WATERLOO.”

Gee let’s see....who can most afford to donate to Republican campaigns to oust Democrats....might that be the people Obama is SCREWING THE MOST?

Payback is a real bitch. Great timing there sport.


45 posted on 09/08/2010 12:19:39 PM PDT by Gabrial (The Whitehouse Nightmare will continue as long as the Nightmare is in the Whitehouse)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Morpheus2009

The couple who are on baby #20 I believe... or at least planning baby #20. They have 19 kids and they have never taken a government handout.


46 posted on 09/08/2010 1:15:57 PM PDT by Paved Paradise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Morpheus2009

I agree.


47 posted on 09/08/2010 1:16:48 PM PDT by Paved Paradise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Paved Paradise

The couple are on baby #20 I believe.

Kudos to them for pulling that off. Well, being true to my principles, if they didn’t demand the welfare dole and managed the children well, then all the more respect from me. I wish more adults in today’s world could have the level of responsibility and willingness to make sacrifices as this couple did. Not the children, but the kind of compassion, responsibility, and support of each other while married that this couple both did and has.


48 posted on 09/08/2010 3:17:45 PM PDT by Morpheus2009
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Paved Paradise

The couple are on baby #20 I believe.

Kudos to them for pulling that off. Well, being true to my principles, if they didn’t demand the welfare dole and managed the children well, then all the more respect from me. I wish more adults in today’s world could have the level of responsibility and willingness to make sacrifices as this couple did. Not the children, but the kind of compassion, responsibility, and support of each other while married that this couple both did and has.


49 posted on 09/08/2010 3:19:48 PM PDT by Morpheus2009
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Paved Paradise

The couple are on baby #20 I believe.

Kudos to them for pulling that off. Well, being true to my principles, if they didn’t demand the welfare dole and managed the children well, then all the more respect from me. I wish more adults in today’s world could have the level of responsibility and willingness to make sacrifices as this couple did. Not the children, but the kind of compassion, responsibility, and support of each other while married that this couple both did and has.


50 posted on 09/08/2010 3:19:58 PM PDT by Morpheus2009
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-52 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson