White House: No Veto Will be Needed Over Bush Tax Cuts

[mike r]

Source: CBS News

The White House says it is confident Congress can find the votes this year to pass legislation extending the Bush tax cuts that does not include an extension of those cuts for the wealthiest Americans, something Republicans are calling for.

They are so confident, in fact, that White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said today there is no need for the president to consider vetoing any potential bill that would give in to the Republicans' preferences.

The Bush tax cuts are set to expire at the end of the year, and Mr. Obama has strongly urged Congress to extend them for all Americans, except for individuals making more than $200,000 or households making more than $250,000. Allowing the tax cuts to expire for the wealthiest 2 or 3 percent of Americans would save the country $700 billion, the president argues. Republicans, meanwhile, are calling for a temporary expansion of all the tax cuts. Mr. Obama has blasted the GOP for holding the middle class tax cut extension "hostage."

In spite of his strong language, Mr. Obama this week danced around the question of whether he would veto a bill from Congress that would temporarily expand all of the tax cuts.

Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20015994-503544.html

[Mass]

1. Very confident. The apparently need 5 GOP to vote with them, given that

Nelson (NE), Bayh, Conrad, and Lieberman said they opposed it.

[doc03]

2. The tax cuts for everyone will be extended

that's how much confidence I have in spineless Democrats. Obama will not veto the extension either, the Republicans always get what they want it wouldn't matter if we had 70 votes in the Senate.

[indepat]

12. I agree, but these remarks sound too much like mine and I've already been crucified on this board

today for the crimes of heresy, stupidity, and ignorance. ;)

[geckosfeet]

3. That's how this needs to be framed - passing tax cuts for those under $250k.

The tax cuts for those over $250k should silently disappear - but that is all you hear about. The fact is that Obama is proposing extending tax cuts for people making under $250k. That should be the focus.

[No Elephants]

4. Here we go again. He will, he won't, he insists, it's a sliver. I've learned to wait

until something actually happens. Kabuki is not worth agita. (sp?)

[depakid]

6. Clever bit of backtracking on Gibb's part though

covering for his boss' failure to give a straight answer on the matter.

[w4rma]

5. Very good. (nt)

[Zorra]

7. Awesome. This will be great for us in the midterms:

(If my facts, math, or logic are skewed please correct me; I'm hoping I stuffed the big picture into a nutshell here)

Congress is targeted to adjourn on Oct. 8. And the Bu*h tax cuts are set to expire at the end of the year. Congress does not convene again until early January. Therefore, the President must be confident that Congress will pass legislation extending the Bush tax cuts that do not include an extension of those cuts for the wealthiest Americans prior to Oct. 8 or thereabouts.

It is my understanding that Dems already passed special budget rules that would allow the Senate to extend the middle class tax cuts by a simple- majority vote in the 100-member Senate, but that extending the cuts for the upper-income brackets would require 60 votes.

So it appears that this legislation will to come to a vote prior to October 8, and all we need is 50 Democratic/Independent Senators plus VP Biden to pass legislation extending the tax cuts for the middle class while allowing the tax cuts for the super-wealthy to expire.

The main thing that can go wrong here is nine DINO Senators plus Lieberman (is my math correct?) voting with republicans and refusing to allow a middle class tax cut without the tax cut for the wealthy. In this case, Democrats would be forced to compromise and temporarily extend the tax cuts which would include the tax cut extension for the wealthy in order not to look bad in the eyes of your average middle class voter.

If we can't get 50 votes, then the President has the option of vetoing the legislation, thereby allowing the Bu*h tax cuts to expire as they exist today. However, in this case the President would be faced with a Catch-22. If he vetoes the legislation, the tax cuts for the middle class will expire as well as those for the wealthy, and this would make Dems look bad in the eyes of the middle class voter that does not understand the legislative process. If he does not veto the the legislation, it will cost the country a fortune in revenue and will totally piss off "professional left" liberals like myself that don't give a rat's ass about the beer money we might have to do without if we lose the extra bucks from the tax cut, and who would rather see the government pick up the revenue from the expiring cuts that will be taken out of the pockets of people that don't need it because they would only use it to buy themselves a new yacht and a lear jet to pollute the hell out of the environment with.

I really hope the President's confidence is validated by the Senate because Democratic legislators and the President will be eyeball deep in the sewer whirlpool if the Senate can't come up with 50 votes.

If the Senate comes through, the midterms may be Christmas come early for us Democrats.

[sofa king]

10. A lot of us have dropped below the poverty line....

...And don't give a damn about the middle class tax cuts, either.

Still more of us remain single, and never really got a middle-class tax cut. Some of us are gay, and can't benefit from the cuts extended to married couples.

The Bush tax cuts were bullshit. The only people who got a break were the people who didn't need one.

The rest of us carried their asses, and now we're expected to generate some interest in the law's extension or expiration, as if it applies to the millions of us who are poor, single, unprivileged, unrepresented, and destined to get the shaft whatever the outcome.

Fuck you guys and your tax cuts. I get my tax cuts from dumpsters.

[karynnj]

13. Everyone except people with too little income in 2001 to pay taxes got a tax cut

Here is a comparison of the 2001 and 2009 SINGLE rates:

2009 tax tables -
Single:
# 10% on income between $0 and $8,350
# 15% on the income between $8,350 and $33,950; plus $835
# 25% on the income between $33,950 and $82,250; plus $4,675
# 28% on the income between $82,250 and $171,550; plus $16,750
# 33% on the income between $171,550 and $372,950; plus $41,754
# 35% on the income over $372,950; plus $108,216
http://taxes.about.com/od/2009taxes/qt/2009_tax_rates.htm

The comparable 2001 single rates, that we would return to are:

15% on income between $0 and $27,050
27.5% on income between $27,050 and $65,550, plus $4,057.50
30.5% on income between $65,550 and $136,750, plus $14,645
35.5% on income between $136,750 and $297,350, plus $36,361
39% on income over $297,350
http://www.unclefed.com/TaxHelpArchives/2001/Pub17/taxrateschedule.html

[OnyxCollie]

8. No one could have anticipated they wouldn't find the votes.

[Flying Squirrel]

9. In spite of his strong language, Mr. Obama this week danced

around the question of whether he would veto a bill from Congress that would temporarily expand all of the tax cuts.

----------

Because, why?

[Zorra]

11. Post # 7 may explain why. nt