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.
I haven’t seen any bill that protects low and middle income from federal income tax increases when the tax cuts expire.
Now it's certain that it will really suck.
Just what the economy needs. /s
/johnny
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.
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.
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.
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...
One of the worst things the Republican Congress didn’t do was to make those tax cuts permanent.
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.
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.
The Republicans didn't have the votes to make them permanent.
Yeah but that was because of one vote, wasn’t it?
The AnnointedIdiot merrily skipping along the idiocy road..... =.=
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!
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.
I think they could only have it temporary because they only had 51 Senate votes.....permanent budgets need 60 I believe.
Which means everyone from the bottom on up will be taxed.
Obama never had any intention of not taxing everyone.
They tried but the Rats wouldn't do it.
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.