Here we go again? Obama Refuses To Say He'd Veto Extension Of Bush Tax Cuts For Wealthy

[depakid]

President Obama on Thursday refused to commit himself to vetoing legislation that would temporarily extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, even as he and his administration have steadfastly argued that such an extension would waste hundreds of billions of dollars.

In an interview with ABC News's George Stephanopoulos, the president was asked on four occasions whether his commitment to letting the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy expire was strong enough to veto even a "short term extension." On each occasion, Obama demurred.

The exchange, for what it's worth, was flagged by a Republican congressional aide who noted how little Democrats would likely feel emboldened by the remarks. It does, indeed, seem increasingly likely that Congress punts on the issue, passing a temporary extension of all Bush tax cuts with the goal of revisiting their expiration in two years. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky) has said he would be willing to discuss this compromise. And the lack of an overt veto threat from Obama suggests that the White House isn't willing to rule it out either.

Transcript and interview here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/09/obama-refuses-to-say-hed-_n_710279.html

[elleng]

1. Yeah, here we go again; Ask a stupid question, get a non-answer.

As it should be.

[Fire1]

2. He doens't have to veto anything if it expires. Probably

why he didn't refer to it.

[RaleighNCDUer]

4. You do know the talk is about a bill EXTENDING the tax cuts, that is

supported by ALL republicans and a half-dozen blue dogs in the Senate.

That bill would come up before the expiration - and if it does reach his desk WILL HE VETO IT?

[Fire1]

8. Geitner indicated that PO intends to let the tax cuts for the

wealthiest americans expire DESPITE what those in congress are pandering.

[RaleighNCDUer]

10. So, what if they DO send a bill extending the cuts to his desk.

Will he veto it? If he does not veto it, the cuts will NOT expire.

Congress can let the cuts expire. The ball is in THEIR court. If they don't, and pass a bill extending them, the ball is in Obama's court and he MUST veto or sign.

So, which will he do?

[Fire1]

9. And thank you but I think I got the talking point the first time. n/t

[Proud Liberal Dem]

12. What about the House?

It would still need to go through the House, wouldn't it? Didn't Pelosi come out against any extension/compromises? She's still Speaker, right? Will she even allow a vote? The Republicans and Blue Dogs in the Senate might be able to get something through but if it can't get through the House, it can't even get to the President's desk. Methinks though that if a bill (somehow) makes it through Congress, Obama will still veto it. I know some people don't seem to have confidence that he will but I do.

BTW as we are (or should be) aware of, it now requires 60 votes to get anything through the Senate and Dems can filibuster too. All Republicans and 19 Democrats would need to vote to support extending the Bush tax cuts and only a SINGLE Democrat to filibuster it to death. Keep that in mind too. Which 19 Democrats would the Republicans be able to sway over to supporting extending the Bush tax cuts? Out of the 59 Democrats in the US Senate, I can think of several ones that wouldn't hesitate to filibuster such an extension to death. Getting those Bush tax cuts extended- even for another two years- is going to be virtually impossible for the Republicans unless a huge amount of Dems simply "flake out".

[RaleighNCDUer]

16. Oh, I agree - I don't think there is any possibility, much less a likelihood,

of a bill getting out of the House and even reaching the Senate. While that makes the question moot, that doesn't answer why he would not say he would veto any such bill that did reach his desk.

It would be very easy to reply "The American people do not want these cuts extended; the House and Senate are both opposed to sending me any such bill, so there will be no bill to veto. Our congress knows that in these economic times there are better uses for our tax money than improving the bottom line for the richest 5% of our people, such as..."

Dismiss the question, don't evade it, then get back to the point that needs to be made.

Why would he NOT do that?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

33. I dunno.

O.k. You got me. I haven't a clue in the world. I guess that because he did NOT say he would veto it, then I suppose that means that he's possibly open to some sort of GOP-friendly compromise or that he is just posturing and that if the Republicans send him a bill extending the Bush upper-class tax cuts, he will quake in fear of them not liking him and buckle down before them and sign it? :shrug:

Because, after all, as I keep hearing day in day out around here, he is essentially a GOP (and "bipartisanship") bootlicker eager and willing to give Wall Street and his Republican/Fox News/Tea Party "pals" (the ones who beat him over the head with a stick all day every day and call him "Socialist") shovels full of money while he, Rahm, and Gibbs go around deliberately poking progressives and middle-class people in their eyes with a stick. :eyes: :puke:

Have I got the basic idea right?

[jenmito]

3. Right-because not announcing his strategy on abc is proof that he WILL extend tax cuts for the rich.

:eyes:

[Sheepshank]

5. He also didn't say whether aliens are currently alive and well in Area 51

....I'm drawing a conclusion here....................

[jenmito]

7. Exactly. n/t

[POAS]

29. Obviously since he wouldn't address the issue

he must be involved in the cover up. No other explanation is possible, to any thinking person that is.

Of course there is a bound to be an uproar coming soon from those that would like us to shut up, but we will be heard. The truth is out there!










:sarcasm: smiley added for the sarcasm impaired.

[jenmito]

6. "President Obama on Taxes-Not Backing Down on Tax Increase for Wealthy" n/t

[Ikonoklast]

11. Concern noted.

[ClarkUSA]

13. NYT: Obama will rule out any compromise that extends Bush tax cuts for wealthy BEYOND THIS YEAR

What does that mean to you? If you still have a hard time understanding what "beyond this year" means, read The New York Times article that was on the DU homepage for days: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4531661

Any type of conspiracy theory/tea leaf word parsing is ridiculous.

Some people really find it impossible to give credit to President Obama. :eyes:

[ClarkUSA]

14. self-delete

[Fire1]

THANK YOU!!! Good grief! (face palm). n/t

[Fire1]

15. delete.

[msanthrope]

18. First rule of DU--Poutrage always obscures reading comprehension......n/t

[Political Tiger]

17. Obama firm, won't yield on tax hike for wealthiest

CLEVELAND – Politically weakened but refusing to bend, President Barack Obama insisted Wednesday that Bush-era tax cuts be cut off for the wealthiest Americans, joining battle with Republicans — and some fellow Democrats — just two months before bruising midterm elections.

Singling out House GOP leader John Boehner in his home state, Obama delivered a searing attack on Republicans for advocating "the same philosophy that led to this mess in the first place: cut more taxes for millionaires and cut more rules for corporations."

Obama rolled out a trio of new plans to help spur job growth and invigorate the sluggish national economic recovery. They would expand and permanently extend a research and development tax credit that lapsed in 2009, allow businesses to write off 100 percent of their investments in equipment and plants through 2011 and pump $50 billion into highway, rail, airport and other infrastructure projects.

.....

Obama made one of his strongest appeals yet to allow the tax cuts passed under President George W. Bush — in 2001 and 2003 — to expire at the end of the year on schedule, but just for individuals earning more than $200,000 annually or joint filers earning over $250,000. The changes would affect dividend and capital gains rates and various other tax benefits as well as income from wages and salaries.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100908/ap_on_bi_ge/us_obama

[AtomicKitten]

19. Here we go again alright -- More parsing of words to fuel the outrage.

[BlueIdaho]

20. Why do politicians hate using "yes" and "no" to answers to questions?

Its really fucking simple Mr President. Try it we will repsect you for it. At least we'll know beyond a shadow of a doubt where you stand.

[geek tragedy]

21. Presidents shouldn't threaten to veto legislation

when their own party controls Congress. It makes it look like the President has completely lost control of things.

It's up to Pelosi and Reid to get him a bill he should sign.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

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

[dionysus]

23. yes, there you go again, with your daily campain against obama.

[depakid]

24. Obama's own words- or shall we say, lack of words

which telegraph a lack or resolve.

Whether his followers like it or not, the President has dutifully earned a reputation for being overly conciliatory and "compromising" away the main, big ticket items on his (purported) agenda- like the public option.

This is yet another instance where, rather than instil confidence that he's going to (finally) make a stand, he's instead made people question where he stands.

[ClarkUSA]

25. Why should any President threaten to veto legislation when his own party controls Congress?

It's up to Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid to get him a bill that he can sign.

[depakid]

27. Last I heard, the US wasn't a parliamentary system

In this case, it's both poor public policy AND a situation where a leader with the power of the presidency would unequivocally put their foot down in order to get what they supposedly want out of Congress.

Otherwise, he loses credibility both on this- and on other issues coming down the pipe.

[ClarkUSA]

28. You don't understand much about the U.S. legislative process, do you?

Perhaps you'll acknowledge some facts? HOPE springs eternal, after all.

NYT: Obama will rule out any compromise that extends Bush tax cuts for wealthy BEYOND THIS YEAR
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=436509&mesg_id=436714

Did you bother watching Gibbs' daily press briefing before you decided to read tea leaves? Gibbs shot down any
possibility of an extension of tax cuts for the rich. He said a bill won't get to Pres. Obama's desk with an extension
of those cuts because the majority knows it's not helpful to the economy or the deficit.

Better quit digging.

[dionysus]

30. oh, he understands it. you must be used to his shtick by now.

[ClarkUSA]

31. I enjoy pointing out the obvious to the oblivious.

;)

[theothersnippywshrub]

26. This is not the hill to die on. n/t

[OhioBlue]

32. so if the ONLY comprimise that Congress comes to

is a 1 or 2 year extension of all tax cuts, what do you want him to do?

veto it and let tax rates on everyone making less than $250k go up

or sign it and extend the tax cuts for those making more than $250k?

I don't see any possible way the Dems would allow tax rates to increase on those making less than $250k in this economy. The Republican have shown no indication since the day Obama became President that they will do anything less than be obstructionists. They would allow ALL tax cuts to expire if they don't get their way.

Two women come before Solomon, both claiming to be a baby's true mother.... Solomon says to give him a sword and each woman will get half... the true mother cries out to spare the child and give it to the other woman. Solomon knows who the true mother is.