President Proposes Permanent Tax Cuts For Middle Class

[bigtree]

Remarks of President Barack Obama
Weekly Address
The White House
November 6, 2010

This week, Americans across the country cast their votes and made their voices heard. And your message was clear.

You’re rightly frustrated with the pace of our economic recovery. So am I.

You’re fed up with partisan politics and want results. I do too.

So I congratulate all of this week’s winners – Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. But now, the campaign season is over. And it’s time to focus on our shared responsibilities to work together and deliver those results: speeding up our economic recovery, creating jobs, and strengthening the middle class so that the American Dream feels like it’s back within reach.

That’s why I’ve asked to sit down soon with leaders of both parties so that we can have an extended discussion about what we can do together to move this country forward.

And over the next few weeks, we’re going to have a chance to work together in the brief upcoming session of Congress.

Here’s why this lame duck session is so important. Early in the last decade, President Bush and Congress enacted a series of tax cuts that were designed to expire at the end of this year.

What that means is, if Congress doesn’t act by New Year’s Eve, middle-class families will see their taxes go up starting on New Year’s Day.

But the last thing we should do is raise taxes on middle-class families. For the past decade, they saw their costs rise, their incomes fall, and too many jobs go overseas. They’re the ones bearing the brunt of the recession. They’re the ones having trouble making ends meet. They are the ones who need relief right now.

So something’s got to be done. And I believe there’s room for us to compromise and get it done together.

Let’s start where we agree. All of us want certainty for middle-class Americans. None of us want them to wake up on January 1st with a higher tax bill. That’s why I believe we should permanently extend the Bush tax cuts for all families making less than $250,000 a year. That’s 98 percent of the American people.

We also agree on the need to start cutting spending and bringing down our deficit. That’s going to require everyone to make some tough choices. In fact, if Congress were to implement my proposal to freeze non-security discretionary spending for three years, it would bring this spending down to its lowest level as share of the economy in 50 years.

But at a time when we are going to ask folks across the board to make such difficult sacrifices, I don’t see how we can afford to borrow an additional $700 billion from other countries to make all the Bush tax cuts permanent, even for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. We’d be digging ourselves into an even deeper fiscal hole and passing the burden on to our children.

I recognize that both parties are going to have to work together and compromise to get something done here. But I want to make my priorities clear from the start. One: middle class families need permanent tax relief. And two: I believe we can’t afford to borrow and spend another $700 billion on permanent tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires.

There are new public servants in Washington, but we still face the same challenges. And you made it clear that it’s time for results. This a great opportunity to show everyone that we got the message and that we’re willing, in this post-election season, to come together and do what’s best for the country we all love.

Thanks.


read: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/11/06/weekly-address-president-obama-calls-compromise-and-explains-his-priorit

So, this is the 'capitulation folks are criticizing the President for? I read here that the President is OPPOSED to making tax cuts for wealthy Americans permanent. All I've seen of the 'compromise' he's talking about is an agreement that those Bush cuts for the wealthy be extended for a year or two. Is that compromise really something for Democrats to wail and gnash our teeth about? I sure don't think so.

I think the President is on spot leading with the proposal to make middle class tax cuts permanent. Most Americans don't realize that this president already lowered middle class taxes by historic levels. Demanding that they're made permanent, while insisting the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy sunset in the near future, is a strong and smart opening to the upcoming tax debate in Congress. I think he framed it perfectly.

[Naturyl]

1. Unrec, this entire speech is crap.

"Let’s start where we agree. All of us want certainty for middle-class Americans."

Yeah yeah... that's all we want or care about. Right. Nobody is interested in "certainty" for poor, unemployed, working class, or other non-existent, unimportant Americans who do not matter. Nor do we have any interest in the entire range of other progressive issues, like civil rights, environment, etc.

All we really want is "certainty for middle-class Americans." No "certainty" for anybody else (aka "the undeserving" of the "meritocracy") or the rest of the world.

Yes yes, I know, "that's not what Obama means here." Save it. If that's not what he means, then maybe he ought to stop saying it over and over.

Have fun with your tax cuts, muddle class. You being able to get the Range Rover instead of the Explorer is all that matters in America.

[bigtree]

2. that would be a fine rant

. . . except that he didn't say that's 'all we want'. In fact, he hasn't asserted ANY of what you imply - ever.

[kelly1mm]

8. I think that Naturyl has a point. The President and fellow Democrats

rarely even mention the poor and throw an occasional bone to the "working poor", as if the non-working poor are not worthy of consideration. Look at the C4C program and the 1st time home buyer program. Both were not necessarily bad in and of themselves. However, what effect would those multiple billions of dollars done in changing the lives of the poor?

I am not against the middle class tax cuts. I am however frustrated about what I consider a lack of attention to poverty issues by both major political parties.

[mzmolly]

9. You guys do realize that the poor don't pay income tax,

right? He's talking about TAXES.

[DireStrike]

10. And hence don't give a crap about tax cuts

But they would like social programs, better jobs, and a host of other things that could be provided, but will be ever harder to fund with more and more tax cuts.

[mzmolly]

12. This thread is about tax

cuts. I agree on the fact that things will be harder to fund. Look at the priorities in Texas:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/07/us/politics/07ttmedicaid.html?_r=1&hp

[kelly1mm]

13. Kind of making my point. He is talking about taxes - in fact he talks about

a lot! About poverty issues ..... not so much.

[mzmolly]

15. Poverty issues are human issues. He talks about poverty frequently, and he's acted on the issue.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE68L3UV20100923

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/229274/obamas-new-poverty-measurement/robert-rector

[dsc]

16. they do pay social security and medicare taxes

which are used to fund the government and thus keep income taxes artificially low.

[mzmolly]

18. True, however the Federal Earned Income Tax Credit

helps offset some, if not all of this particular tax burden.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=2505

[dsc]

20. only if they have kids

if they don't they get virtually nothing. I know this from experience. I would have gotten a grand total of $7 back one year in which I made around 10k. I didn't bother to file since it was only $7.

[mzmolly]

21. Yes. Kids are a good write off.

;)

[ben_thayer]

5. QUICK!! SOMEBODY get this person his PONY!! eom

:eyes:

[Coexist]

14. +1

[mzmolly]

27. We need a pony emoticon.

[the redcoat]

26. I'm sorry, did you somehow read

"Less than $250,000, but greater than $50,000"?

Because until he says that, there's no need to get all pissy about a phrase meant to mean the majority of Americans.

[napi21]

3. I posted a similar suggestion a few days ago. Although My suggestion

was agree to extend the cuts for the wealthy for ONLY ONE YEAR (because if he agrees to two years and doesn't get reelected those cuts become permanent!) but in exchange for extending them, include not only the elimination of the cuts for the wealthy but an INCREASE! If not an increase, then the eliminatiion of many of the tax loopholes that currently exist for wealthy individuals & corps.

I think we have to at least offer some compromises because, contrary to what the Dems did, the Pubs will base the entire 2012 election on "those obstructionist Dems!" I'm not afraid of them, but I think we have to think ahead of them and anticipate what their moves will be and squelch them before they get the chance to use them.

[jwirr]

4. Good first shot over the bow of their ship! Okay repugs tax cuts?

[Marr]

6. There is no legitimate reason to cave on this issue, but I'm certain he will.

It would be much better to let all of the tax cuts expire than to extend the middle class cuts by including those for the wealthy. The Republicans are *not* going to compromise. They've already said as much.

Obama has two choices now: pass Republican legislation or do next to nothing for the next two years and spend all his time telling the public it's the Republicans' fault. He's shown repeatedly that actually prefers Republican legislation anyway, however (as seen in Bob Dole's 'healthcare reform' replacing the agenda his supporters wanted), so I've no doubt he'll cave.

[MindandSoul]

7. How about this: Let ALL Bush tax cut expire on Dec. 31, then pass a NEW OBAMA tax cut

Starting on January 1st BUT ONLY for people making $250,000 or less a year???

Who wants to credit Bush with anymore tax cuts??? And this proposal would really put Republicans on the spot. . .They would have to vote on the OBAMA tax cut for the middle class. . .If they vote "no," it would certainly be against their "stated" policies!

And. . .there would be no vote on extending tax cuts to the very wealthy. . so they couldn't play politics with that!!!

What do you think?

[DireStrike]

11. If one were in favor of tax cuts, that would be a good idea.

[bigtree]

25. If we were in control of the House, where, by law, monetary legislation must originate

. . . that might work, then.

The Democratic controlled Senate can take up a tax bill, but it has to be by unanimous consent.

[handmade34]

19. absolutely

all tax cuts should expire... We should fight for allowing ALL tax cuts to expire. Then, the Obama Administration can offer deductions for job creation, alternative energies, energy saving, etc...

Tax me please... but let my kids and neighbors find jobs and have access to good health care..

[MindandSoul]

22. You got the right idea!

[Fgiriun]

17. Compromise.

Is that the only way this president knows to get things done? He should let the cuts expire, it wouldn't make a difference anyways since the majority of americans falsely believe Democrats already raised their taxes*. My only hope is that he is running on this 'permanent tax cut for the american middle-class' platform only to blame the stubborn republicans for the eventual increase next year.


*http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-10-29/poll-shows-voters-don-t-know-gdp-grew-with-tax-cuts.html

[bigtree]

23. The President is looking at a Congress and Senate that will pass some kind of extension

Congress isn't going to just sit still because he objects. They're bound to pass some kind of extension and Democratic legislators are likely to fall in behind them. He's not giving anything away. He's angling to achieve something big and permanent in the bargain.

[DemocracyInaction]

24. Stupid sentence structure

..as my husband pointed out the other day, Obama has got to STOP saying "republican" before saying "democrats" when he lists the parties. It may seem insignificant, but it's a sign of weakness.

[Karmadillo]

28. What would this cost and how would it impact the budget deficit? I mean,

after all, Obama has noted the need to cut spending and here he is proposing a very costly measure of extending tax cuts. How can he do both? Where will the cuts come from? Shouldn't we be told in advance?

[bigtree]

29. well, at least in the short term

. . . the spending makes good sense in this economic downturn and stagnation. Targeting it at the middle-class makes sense because they'll likely spend the money back into the economy.

Long term costs are an important issue and should be addressed when we get a specific proposal.