White House Gives In On Bush Tax Cuts

[Me.]

“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."…cont…

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/10/white-house-gives-in-on-bush-tax-cuts_n_781992.html

[lame54]

1. Happy New Year - Fuck

[Canuckistanian]

2. Total capitulation is "the only way"

Resistance is futile.

[Me.]

4. It Seems We Dems Have A Weakling On Our Hands

Either that or it's the biggest bait and switch in history

[Xicano]

15. IMO He's not weak, nor is he capitulating.

He obviously lied to us because he's a corporate tool. He was caught lying about NAFTA and it would appear that wasn't all he was lying to us about.

So IMO he's a liar.

[MadHound]

3. Continue the Bush tax cuts, cut Social Security,

Are we all awake now, do we see what is going on? Yep, Obama is bipartisan alright, ready and willing to bipartisanly screw over the working and middle class.

[FSogol]

5. More BS ineundo from Huffington Post. Guess it'll give everyone something to wail about today.

Why not save the wailing until the WH says something official on the subject?

[Me.]

6. The Old Wait & See Eh?

Well we waited and we've seen him cave over and over so it does no good to get snappish with anyone because they are believing the evidence that has been laid out over the last 2 years. Thee problem doesn't lie with those on the receiving end of bad policy.

[FSogol]

7. Well, I didn't have to wait long: WH strongly denies Huffington Post story

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/11/the_morning_plum_129.html

But hey, don't let facts get in the way of your bashing of the Democratic administration.

[Radical Activist]

16. UPDATE: White House denies giving in on Bush tax cuts

It's the old, look for a direct quote and not be manipulated by a sensational headline.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/11/the_morning_plum_129.html

[Me.]

18. So Axelrod Didn't Give An Interview & Huffpo Made It Up? Right

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."

It's sop with this WH, trial balloon and then try to walk it back.

[Radical Activist]

19. Do you see quotes?

Do you see which sentences are actually in quotes and how they don't say what the article claims Axelrod said?

"The world of what it takes to get this done."
We don't even know for sure what "this" he was talking about in the quote taken out of context. Don't you ever get tired of that game?

[Me.]

23. Yes, Actually I Do

Where we get the world weary explanation of why once again they will cave, because you know, they have to play the hand they have instead of trying to be the dealer.

"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."

[ljm2002]

9. This was not an "unnamed official"...

...Huffington Post specifically said it came from David Axelrod. So it is hardly accurate to call it "innuendo", and unless Axelrod denies he said it, it is fair to take this as the Administration's position.

[FSogol]

10. Go read the WH statement on it. Huff.Post's story is pure BS. n/t

[ljm2002]

20. Would you have a link to the WH statement? n/t

[Radical Activist]

13. I'm looking for the exact quote from Axelrod that confirms the headline.

Not finding it.

[ljm2002]

22. Here's how I see it...

First, here are some excerpts from the interview:

--"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."--

and

--"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."--

So here, I believe, is the direct quote you ask for: "But I don't want to trade away security for the middle class in order to make that point". In other words, we don't want to fight them on tax cuts for the rich and risk losing tax cuts for everyone else. Seems pretty plain to me.

Now you are correct that the interviewers added their own interpretations. However I believe their interpretations are accurate based on a few things. For one thing, you will note that Axelrod is using the Republican frame of "tax increase" to describe allowing the tax cuts to expire. If they were really serious about this battle they would at least use the more accurate terminology of allowing "tax cuts" to expire. But no, they have now accepted that it is a "tax increase". For another thing, there is no attempt to call out the Republicans for their insistence on all-or-nothing regarding the Bush tax cuts. That in itself signals an unwillingness to fight for their more sane position of extending the cuts only for those whose incomes are at or under $250K.

Really, the obvious position being telegraphed here is a willingness to extend tax cuts for all. If you read it differently then please explain how you came to your conclusion.

[leeroysphitz]

11. You mean until it's too late. Got it. What good advice.

Thank you for thralling us with your fantastic and unbiased political acumen.

[ljm2002]

8. That's right!

We all know that the way to be a successful negotiator is to publicly cede your opponent's points before you ever start negotiating. Because that shows what a swell guy you are. Or something.

What it tells me is that either the President is a 90-pound political weakling, or alternatively that he has no fundamental disagreement with the Republicans when it comes to tax cuts for the rich -- which, just to remind everyone, have already been in place for nine years and have not produced any jobs.

[treestar]

12. I don't see a problem with this; don't elections have consequences?

Does the middle class want to give up its tax cuts just to spite the rich? I really doubt it. Who cares if the rich get them if the middle class can keep them? The voters who chose the Republicans as a majority or contributed to it could hardly complain.

[Me.]

17. It's Not A Matter Of Spite

WE CAN'T AFFORD the trillions that the tax cut to the upper 2% will cost. I saw a pie chart here on DU a while back and the largest part of the budget/deficit are those tax cuts, 54% IIRC. So we are going to continue doing something we can't afford? Sounds like a definition of insanity to me.

[gulliver]

14. Elections have consequences.

People keep forgetting that when they vote for Republicans (or equivalently fail to vote for Democrats), they are voting for sops to the wealthy, corporate business rigging, attacks on Social Security, big defense budgets, ill-advised wars, etc.

[wiggs]

21. Doesn't have to be all or nothing. If needed, extend tax cuts to wealthy as well as middle

class so that everyone continues to get a tax cut. But limit the tax cuts to the wealthy so that the super rich don't get tens or hundreds of thousands. Max tax cut: 5,000. Everybody gets something, everybody is happy.

This idea that we have no choice but to fully extend the cuts to everybody is ridiculous. Best not to extend tax cuts for millionaires, but if a carrot is needed you don't have to deliver a truckload.