Greg Sargent: WH denies giving in on tax cuts

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

The WH is pushing back hard, noting that to whatever degree it is giving in on tax cuts it had already done so last week if you listened carefully enough, so it isn't news.

"Axelrod emails: There is not one bit of news here. I simply re-stated what POTUS and Robert have been saying. Our two strong principles are that we need to extend the tax cuts for the middle class, but we can't afford a permanent extension of the tax cuts for the wealthy."

Right. Extend all the tax cuts but the rich half of the extension is not "permanent"... of course it wasn't "permanent" when Bush did it either, hence this debate.

(The WH isn't actually denying the story. The WH is really saying the story's headline was over-blown so the story wasn't a big story. And they are right about that... it was a hyped-up piece about old news. But noting it was already known is an interesting new approach to the non-denial denial.)

_______________

The Morning Plum
By Greg Sargent

UPDATE: White House denies giving in on Bush tax cuts: The White House is sharply denying the Huffington Post story I noted below claiming that David Axelrod signaled a willingness to accept a temporary extension of all the Bush tax cuts, claiming that their position remains unchanged.

Axelrod emails:

There is not one bit of news here. I simply re-stated what POTUS and Robert have been saying. Our two strong principles are that we need to extend the tax cuts for the middle class, but we can't afford a permanent extension of the tax cuts for the wealthy.

And White House comm director Dan Pfeiffer adds:

The story is overwritten. Nothing has changed from what the President said last week. We believe we need to extend the middle class tax cuts, we cannot afford to borrow 700 billion to pay for extending the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, and we are open to compromise and are looking forward to talking to the Congressional leadership next week to discuss how to move forward. Full Stop, period, end of sentence.

The question remains, though, whether the White House will hold fast to Obama's demand last week that the extension of the tax cuts for the middle class remain permanent while extending the high end ones temporarily. The main sticking point is that Republicans won't allow the two categories to be extended for different durations, because that would force them to push for just an extension of the cuts for the rich later.

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

[ellie]

1. I certainly hope so

I have given Obama the benefit of the doubt up to now, but come on. If this is true, it is insane. I also contacted the White House and told them what I thought about the idea. I suggest everyone do the same.

[greymattermom]

2. Why not 500K?

That would signal a compromise but not giving in totally. Even the 250-500 K folks who don't feel rich could go with this idea.

[ProSense]

3. It's too late.

Hundreds of cries of coward, primary him and GBCW are in process.

[rug]

Well, then, you'd better get right on it.

[Exilednight]

4. I have to wonder if Axelrod ever listens to himself. "no' we're not giving in ..............

at least not permanently, we're only giving in temporarily."

Maybe he believes that we don't pay attention.

[Segami]

6. The art of political double-talk

[no limit]

5. Lol, I love that excuse: "The fact we are giving in is not news". I guess I have to agree

I just love that the press turns this to mean he won't give in.

[ProSense]

8. The story was

clearly spin

[no limit]

10. No, it was not spin. Although I would usually take your judgement on spin since you are an expert

in that regard.

But not this time. And I will be sure to link to your thread in a couple of weeks when the Huffpo story turns out to be true. But don't worry, I won't expect a reply from you then.

[lonestarnot]

7. End them temporarily.

ROFLMAO.

[ipaint]

9. So when they temp. extend them does this mean they didn't really.

Amateur hour in the messaging department.

Temp or permanent, both are tax cuts to the richest extensions both will cost taxpayers billions and both will require slashes to social programs to fund.

Shit or get off the pot.

[Radical Activist]

11. The professional left pundits strike again!

The first thing I did when I saw that headline was look for a direct quote. There was nothing but half sentences quoted out of context and a pundits characterization of what was said. That was a clue.

Will people ever tire of being manipulated by editors and bloggers?

[ipaint]

12. Axelrods own words.

"There is not one bit of news here. I simply re-stated what POTUS and Robert have been saying. Our two strong principles are that we need to extend the tax cuts for the middle class, but we can't afford a permanent extension of the tax cuts for the wealthy."

So temp extensions to the richest americans who have already stolen massive amounts of taxpayer wealth are being considered. Where does he say no extensions, temp or permanent, are acceptable period?

Quote their own words please.

[Radical Activist]

14. Quote in Axelrod's own words

his statement that the White House is "giving in" on keeping all of Bush's tax cuts, since that was the blog headline in question. That quote never existed. You're moving the goal posts.

[Little Star]

13. Are they going to make the middle class tax cuts "permanent"?

Or is this WHOLE Axelrod email crap just more double talk?

[BzaDem]

17. They can't do it because they don't have the votes. n/t

[Denzil_DC]

15. HuffPo headline not borne out by facts

Well, there's a first!

[warrior1]

16. kr

[tjwash]

18. Too late...there's already a blood bath on the front page of DU

DU owned again by sensationalist headlines, and the click-whore huff-po

[Scurrilous]

19. Yep.

:thumbsup: