President Obama is going to extend the top 2% tax cuts.

[coti]

For a year or two.

He's said passing the middle-class cuts is a priority, and that he's not willing to make the top 2% cuts PERMANENT.

That's what he has said to the GOP. It's his starting position in negotiation with them.


Anyone with half of a brain can make the reasonable inference that Obama is willing to temporarily extend the top 2% cuts.

And anyone trying to tell you otherwise is DECEIVING you.

[texastoast]

1. Link? n/t

[coti]

6. It's everywhere on the board, but here it is again.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20101111/cm_huffpost/781992

The Administration has been very consistent in their message, and it is exactly as I relayed it above.

[texastoast]

36. Oh, yeah

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4610751

"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."

[coti]

43. PERMANENT. nt

[texastoast]

47. Please a link

It's the DU way.

Or it used to be.

[coti]

48. The link I supplied two posts previous is the link. The one you supplied says the same.

The quote you picked out says EXACTLY what I said they said in the OP.

I don't know why you want yet another.

Read it all very carefully, look for the word "permanent."

[texastoast]

50. This "permanent"

The one where it says "temporary"?

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.

Or this one

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."

While I always question any time a "serious" reporter dilutes a story by employing word riffs like "In other words" and "seems" thereby just adding spin instead of sticking to facts, I'm not convinced by this particular piece of reporting.

This Huffington report "seems" tabloid to me. It degrades the site.

[trotsky]

2. I wish his "starting position" was the elimination of the top 2%'s tax cuts.

Then he could "compromise" by offering to extend them for a year or two.

By starting at that position instead, now he's going to have to give even more to appear like he's truly compromising.

[theaocp]

4. +1

Worst. Negotiating Tactic. Ever.

[TheWraith]

8. Uh, what do you think he's been advocating for the last two years?

Does that not count as a "starting position?" :eyes:

[AlinPA]

10. Yes, and maybe Congress may have some say in what is done.

[TheWraith]

34. Bingo. People here need some basic fucking civics lessons.

Starting with the fact that the President does not make laws up on his own.

[Nite Owl]

3. Once again he starts at the end

of the negotiation with no fight for what people actually want. This is one reason he is seen as being weak, he doesn't fight for anything, he gives in before he has to so we get less.

[Mojambo]

18. Just like with health care, he's lost before the "negotiation" begins. n/t

[PurityOfEssence]

56. Exactly

You make the enemy deploy and fight for every inch of ground. You don't let them know what you'll settle for at the very beginning. This confounding need to not piss off one's enemies is ridiculous.

The sheer spinelessness is breathtaking.

[ladjf]

5. The Wimp. nt

[Angry Dragon]

7. This man has no idea of how to fight nor negotiate

I would not want him on my debating team

[Poboy]

44. I would not want him on my debate team, or in my foxhole!

What the fuck did I vote for? Damn.

[tularetom]

Time to send the cat food commission back to the drawing board

He just made their recommendations look tame by adding another bazillion dollars to the deficit.

Is he playing a really high stakes game of chicken with the republicans? Forcing them to put up or shut up on their promise to cut spending?

Or is he just a wuss?

[AlinPA]

9. Don't you think that Congress may have something to do with the status of the tax cuts?

If you can tell me how he can extend or not extend the tax cuts alone, without Congress, I would appreciate it.

[jeff47]

26. Don't you think that the WH may have something to do with the status of the tax cuts?

After all, Obama has to sign the bill.

Pretending that it's Congress's fault is how we got HCR from a massively popular program into a weak, incrementalist program the public is not fond of.

Perhaps we should stop pretending that the party's leader is not supposed to lead?

[AlinPA]

33. He is not a king. The congress has to change this law. All he can do is sign or veto. The OP says

Obama can't act on this without Congress.

[jeff47]

54. And Congress is not king either

They have to pass a bill that he will sign. Both the Executive and Legislative branches have to agree.

More to the point, President Obama is the _LEADER_ of our party. He is supposed to **$#$*@& _LEAD_. Not cower behind Speaker Pelosi.

[Exilednight]

39. Here's how .........

Step 1: Let all tax cuts expire.

Step 2: Make the case that Bush made them temporary.

Step 3: Explain how the tax cuts have been in place for ten years, and we all ended up with is outsourcing.

Step 4: Propose legislation giving the bottom 98% tax cuts.

Step 5: If Republicans attempt to block with cloture, then get the Senate majority leader to call session, close the doors and lock them to keep a quorum and have the Sgt at Arms keep anyone from leaving until everyone has had their say. That's right, make them actually stand up and filibuster. (this has actually been done in the past, and no rules have ever been put in place to stop it)

Step 6: Put Obama on TV every chance you get and hammer home the point that Republicans are holding up tax cuts to 98% of the population.

Eventually, Republicans will capitulate.

[AlinPA]

41. I won't argue that, but Congress definitely has a role; he can't just act on it himself. nt

[Exilednight]

45. You're right, he can't do it himself. He needs ..........

to get Harry Reid on board and Obama needs to step as leader of the party and sell the message. If Obama leads by selling the message, everyone else will do their job.

[AlinPA]

46. No problem with that, but the republicans may have different ideas.

The OP says Obama is going to extend the tax cuts which to me means that he is going to do it himself. Cheers.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[coti]

13. The link is in this thread and everywhere else. nt

[SammyWinstonJack]

12. And just how does he plan to pay for his..er..these tax cuts?

His deficit reduction commission is phony bs.

[Dr Fate]

14. I hope this true. This is what the conservative swing voters in our base have been waiting to hear.

n/t

[w4rma]

40. sarcasm? (nt)

:sarcasm:?

[gratuitous]

15. Any extension will wind up being permanent for the foreseeable future

We can't afford to give the wealthy this free ride any longer. Any extension, no matter how "temporary" will become permanent for all intents and purposes, because there will always be a reason why the overrich need a break on taxes. All the new-found "concern" over the deficit (which wasn't a concern while the Bush administration was exploding the deficit by cutting taxes and launching two foreign invasion/occupations) will vanish like so much dew on a summer morning once the tax cuts for the wealthy are in place.

And, using the time-tested tactic of giving away the game before negotiations even begin (cf. health care reform, prosecution of Bush-era crimes against humanity), the Obama administration has signaled to those who depend on the ultra affluent for their campaign funds that neither his administration nor the Democratic majorities still in place in both houses of Congress will stand in the way of emptying the last of the Treasury into the overstuffed pockets of the fatcats.

The rest of us? Well, we're going to get acquainted, up close and personal-like, with what "austerity" means. Because we won't have the money for fixing schools, or investing in infrastructure, or anything else. The wealthy need "their" money, so the rest of you lot can just do without. That's fair, isn't it?

My standing bet now is a $10 donation to DU that tax cuts for the wealthy will be extended before the end of the year. It will be sold as a "temporary" extension, but it will become permanent through the affirmative efforts of the Democrats who control Congress and the White House. They could just sit back, do nothing, and let the cuts expire, but they won't do that. And I bet $10 that that will be the case.

Any takers among those of you so sure that the Obama administration is once again playing some subtle 12-level vulcan chess game where the Republicans wind up checkmating themselves? Because so far, it's looked a lot more Wile E. Coyote than Mr. Spock.

[sad sally]

55. Might as well throw in the fact that the Admin now sez'

the war in Afghanistan will last until at least 2014, so is also a permanent extension.

[NYC Liberal]

16. Ahem:

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

[coti]

19. You're not reading carefully. The Admin is very consistently saying the same

things, as I outlined them in the OP.

[NYC Liberal]

22. I did read carefully, which is why I posted it. nt

[coti]

24. All he said was that their position isn't new, and it isn't. This is what they said last week,

too.

[apocalypsehow]

31. Ran into some inconvenient facts *again*, now did we?

:eyes:

[coti]

42. Is this Bizarro World? Can you not read clearly?

They said EXACTLY WHAT IS IN THE OP. They said it LAST WEEK, too.

I even POSTED THIS SAME THING, TRYING TO CORRECT PEOPLE that he had only ruled out the PERMANENT top 2% cuts, on SATURDAY:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=9503739


Thanks to people like YOU running interference, confusing everyone and deliberately trying to conflate temporary cuts with permanent ones, I have to post shit like this over and over and over.

On edit: And you unrecced THAT thread, too.

[struggle4progress]

17. Unrecommended, as it is debunked horseshit

[coti]

20. No, those two statements are EXACTLY what they are saying, and have been saying.

How the FUCK are you or anyone falling for this?

[struggle4progress]

21. This wedge-driving nonsense has become unimaginably tiresome

[jeff47]

25. Except for the part where it isn't.

As the supposed "debunking" was regarding permanent extension of the tax cuts, not temporary extensions. You know, the ones the WH keeps floating as a possible compromise and has been for months?

[struggle4progress]

28. As I just said: this wedge-driving has become tiresome

[jeff47]

30. And as I just said

It's a different issue.

But I'm sure if you clap louder and yell at more liberals about how tiresome they are, it will all work out great!

[struggle4progress]

32. We'll talk after you graduate from high school. Have a nice day!

:hi:

[Luminous Animal]

37. For months? September 7, 2010

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/08/us/politics/08obama.html

"President Obama on Wednesday will make clear that he opposes 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. "

September 30, 2010
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2010/09/obama-team-unveils-white-house-white-board-on-tax-cut-issue/1
The Obama administration has a new audio-visual aid to make its arguments about the George W. Bush tax cuts: The White House White Board.

Austan Goolsbee, the newly installed chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, uses illustrations to argue that a Republican plan to extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans would cost the Treasury too much money and would not stimulate the economy.

[jeff47]

53. And he made those statements, because WH officials said they're open to compromise. (nt)

[Luminous Animal]

38. Dupe - deleted

[sally cat]

23. He's already got the votes of the left. He's trying for the votes of the right for 2012.

[grahamhgreen]

27. He does not have my vote, yet.

[piratefish08]

29. or mine, if he extends tax cuts for the rich for even one week.

[The Gunslinger]

52. Not mine

[spanone]

35. they will be permanent

[deacon]

49. BS. n/t

[Imagevision]

51. Obama willing to make the top 2% tax cuts temporary, maybe temporary next year too???

[SOS]

57. How does Orszag fit into this?

Orszag was Obama's director of the White House Office of Management and Budget.
Orszag wrote an op-ed in the NYT arguing for the extension of tax cuts for the wealthy for two years.
Was this article a telegraph or a dig from a former employee?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/07/opinion/07orszag.html

[mzmolly]

58. He's also pointing out that it's fiscally irresponsible.

eom