Obama May Delay Reversing Tax Cuts

Source: Time

(AP / WASHINGTON) — Democrat Barack Obama says he would delay rescinding President Bush's tax cuts on wealthy Americans if he becomes the next president and the economy is in a recession, suggesting such an increase would further hurt the economy.

Nevertheless, Obama has no plans to extend the Bush tax cuts beyond their expiration date, as Republican John McCain advocates. Instead, Obama wants to push for his promised tax cuts for the middle class, he said in a broadcast interview aired Sunday.

"Even if we're still in a recession, I'm going to go through with my tax cuts," Obama said. "That's my priority."

What about increasing taxes on the wealthy?

"I think we've got to take a look and see where the economy is. I mean, the economy is weak right now," Obama said on "This Week" on ABC. "The news with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, I think, along with the unemployment numbers, indicates that we're fragile."

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1839372,00.html?xid=rss-topstories

First O'Reilly and now this? These interviews are killing Obama. He needs to get back on message and avoid mistakes like this.

mccain/Palin will make them last forever if they could.

When will our side understand its all about soundbytes and bumperstickers. The majority of Amerikan people cant handle "explainations". They love soundbytes.

How hard is it to stay on message and keep talking about the things that got you nominated. I just don't understand how he is getting derailed like this.

and just follow the braindead media to the latest sound bite.

I am missing those daily stump speeches too and I should ignore the TIME story, as well, would be your advice, right? I shall not question anything, good advice.

Some of you are just geared up to read everything as an excuse to panic. Newsflash: He's actually said this before a few months ago.

Umm, no, but maybe panicking rings true for some. I suppose what is it, 20,000 people per month who have been having their homes taken from them are panicking, or maybe the Iraqis whose country is occupied even after a swift war by an overwhelming opponent are panicking. I am concerned. The message right now needs to be clear, no confusion. This article muddies the campaign. Yes, I am concerned. I will always have time to care.

The US economy if he imposed taxes upon the very wealthy during a recession. They voted in lock-step against Clinton's Budget and it took a tie breaking vote from Vice President Al Gore to pass that budget. America went on to experience the "Greatest Economic Expansion in History".. What the hell is wrong with Obama? Who is he listening to?

Is he just over-analyzing or is he trying to move more toward the fabled "center."

at least he'd be moving left. Everytime I start feeling better about him he takes another step to the right.

repeatedly and had alot of fun doing so.
Maybe all of you should have been nicer to him.

Knowing how somebody operates and being vindictive are two different things. The other thing you might consider is that this is just a internet discussion forum and not a government executive office. Which in street talk probably means that Bill Clinton isn't shaking in his boots because some people here at DU have a distaste for him :shrug:

Very appropriate reminder.

Bake

That right there should have been his response to Liely... Exactly quoted verbatim.... Where has our candidate gone?

Leaving aside the multitude of experts he's brought on to help him formulate the means for ending the war in Iraq, the sum total of his advisors follows:

Michael Froman - Citigroup bank exec., pro-free trade & "business-friendly", former Pres. Clinton advisor
Austan Goolsbee - professor of business at U. of Chicago and generally accepted to be his closest campaign advisor
David Cutler - Pres. Clinton health economist, opposes single-payer
David Blumenthal - Director, Institute for Health Policy, Harvard Medical School
Jeffrey Liebman - Economist, Harvard professor and member of Clinton White House Council of Economic Advisers. Research has focused on role of earned income tax credit in moving people from welfare to work
Dan Tarullo - International trade expert, Georgetown law professor and former Bill Clinton economic adviser i.e. GATT & NAFTA proponent
Eric Holder - Clinton deputy attorney general
Cass Sunstein - University of Chicago law professor
Laurence Tribe - Harvard law professor
Cassandra Butts - Senior policy adviser to House Democratic leader Richard Gephardt

<http://www.chicagotribune.com/services/newspaper/printedition/monday/chi-obama_mon_nusep17,0,3844054.story?page=3>

And more recently Jason Furman, whom he brought on to head his economics team. "Furman, 37, is linked closely to Robert Rubin, a Wall Street insider and Clinton economics aide who eventually became Treasury secretary." <http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jun/11/nation/na-furman11>

Furman is best known for writing a detailed paper describing Wal-mart as a positive influence on the U.S. economy and role model for other businesses because it increased worker productivity and lowered retail prices: <http://www.americanprogress.org/kf/walmart_progressive.pdf>

Furman's take on those who believe it is essential to reform the trade agreements? From the same LA Times article cited above, "'I hope the lesson that Democratic candidates take from this is not to bash trade and call for protectionism, but instead to call for a robust safety net,' Furman told an NPR interviewer last year." Which smacks of the same straw man characterization corporatists usually use to discredit those who oppose corporate sovereignty over natural monopolies, etc.--that progressives want to seal the U.S. up in a box and stop all trade. The quote also indicates a complete indifference to the distinction between creating productive jobs and expanding the dole.

Note the total dearth of labor economists, economic development experts, experts in "green" economics, environmental advisors, anyone to educate him on the opposition viewpoint to the current trade agreements. His economics advisors take their cues from international financiers who regard progressives as losers. The saddest development was the AFL-CIO's endorsement of Obama without even the precondition that he add a single progressive economist to his team.

A stratospheric tax rate for the uber-rich didn't seem to hurt for most of the 20th century.

In fact, one could argue that it supported the economy in times of trouble.

I just don't get where this is coming from.

to the wealthy do nothing for the rest of us....hasn't that been proven? I've had enough news for today. Time to go to the grocery store and get raped by inflation...again.

tax cut imaginable - albeit in sheep's clothing; considering they will surely be privatised again "for a song" once viable again.

Well... no.... in view of the missing billions in Iraq and all the rest of the tax-dollar hemorrhage of this regime, perhaps not.

What major DLC player is on the inside of Obama's campaign now?

I have been trying to figure this out too.

Why not just say "hey, Republicans are right about everything, but vote for me anyway".

Read my lips Obama, tax increases on the wealthy are always a good idea, ESPECIALLY following huge tax cuts for the wealthy THAT NEVER SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE. How fu$%ing hard is it to understand that and explain that to the American people?

If fu$%ing tax cuts are such a priority, let's start right now. Give me back the $50 that I donated to your campaign you dumb fu$%.

Is there another principled stand that he can reverse himself on? When are we going to hear that Obama supports shooting wolves from planes? I'm disgusted. And this is coming from a Democrat who takes the Koolaid I.V.

And doing a damn fine job of it.

now that Palin is on the ticket how bad would he have to get before you wouldn't vote for him? I know I'll still be voting for him (unless he starts speaking in tongues and publishes a list of books to ban). The advantage we have is that we're voting with low expectations so at least we won't be crushed when nothing much changes during an Obama presidency because Republican Lite is still Republican.

the problem is as was posted in #4 "its all about soundbytes and bumperstickers". Once again we are going to hear about the flip flops. The undecided are the ones that he needs to be courting and being called a flip flopper isn't going to help him with that demographic.

n/t

the RW will frame it that I was talking about, their noise machine will twist it into being a big flip flop and hammer Obama to death with it.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

thought I was in a parallel universe for a minute there.

If it is supposedly so "game changing" for the Repukes, why the heck doesn't Obama try it, for a change, instead of ALIENATING the base???

Nationalize Freddie and Fannie, and the Health Care and Energy sectors, while you're at it. Prosecute Republican criminals, end the war in Iraq and making the US job market compete with the Third World.

I'm sure we can think of lots of other stuff that would get us all "fired up"--how 'bout it!

See my sig line.

I mean I'm sure we'll all try, but for many of us it just takes the wind out of our sails, and sends us back to working for our Congressional candidate instead.

n/t

Why do we keep falling for this divisive, demoralization crap?!

clarification. I agree we need to guard against divisiveness, but I also will hold that we need to be honest and point out when something is wrong for America. No one is saying Obama isn't our candidate. Speaking for myself, I for one want clarification. I am pounding the pavement working to get him elected, just came back from a door-to-door and have been helping canvas, voter reg, attend local public events to campaign for our candidate and my other locals and I sense something very wrong here. Help us out, if you understand or see something different. At the very least this is horribly off message. Is it because of shoddy reporting or is there another reason. I want to know. One thing that helps me connect with Democratis, independent, and even Republican voters is the economy and fair taxes.

Republicans think tax cuts are always good and are the best way to end or soften a recession. And Obama agrees with them, even though it's a crock of sh*t.

Republicans think tax increases are always bad and will make a recession worse or create a recession. And Obama agrees with them, even though it's a crock of sh*t.

He said "Ich bin ein supply sider". He said, "I am not sure what I believe in and I cannot stand up for any policy position against Republican noise machine attacks."

would help during a recession even though every time that's been tried it's made things worse, by denying our country the money it needs to fund job stimulus programs. He just endorsed the worst irrational rationalization neocons have always used to funnel money to their main financial supporters and widen the gap between the ultra-wealthy and the rest of us. Is that enough analysis for you?

They're just more of the same from the U of Chicago.

I cannot figure out why Obama keeps them on. Could it be because he thinks they're right?

They are tipsy on globalization and general Wall Street kool-aid, IMHO.

I do not have as harsh an opinion on the rest of his team, although I certainly hope someone is in charge of keeping track of them all.

about everything. Of course there are less than 2 months left, so I'm trying to do all I can to get him elected. Call me crazy.

However, I have never liked his economic advisers. It's the most important reason why I supported Edwards in the primaries.

who half these people are..

from the same article and the new chief economist which I posted.

come from the Tribune? What economists would your prefer he have?

I mean it's a waste of time since the Obama team is not taking direction from me, but if you want some names, private message me, and I'll give you a half-dozen extremely qualified people with a more Democratic point of view.

same source which you derided me for posting? And how do you know that your half-dozen extremely qualified people are not advising Obama?

in the article, look at the facts (the people named). I know who is and who isn't on Obama's team, because I've been paying attention (reading anything I've come across that mentions an Obama advisor). Access to a Presidential candidate in election season is extremely limited. Even credentialed people don't get through with unsolicited advice.

Sorry if it sounded like I was deriding you. What I meant to say was that the Chicago Tribune is not a Democratic Party sympathizer, and their take on who is or isn't mainstream or wonderful can't be accepted at face value, but their list of the candidates and their backgrounds can.

This country needs Obama now given the alternative. Don't let the fact that he isn't perfect stop you from supporting him, or from looking forward to better political times ahead. The vast majority of Democrats know that our work doesn't end with Obama's election. Improving the conditions and policies in our enormous, diverse country is an ongoing effort that will continue as long as there is a U.S. It also takes a while to learn which news sources can be relied on for useful info on which subjects. For instance, during the early days of Nicaragua's Sandanista government, the NY Times refused to report much on the activities of the "contras" (counter-revolutionaries) and the illegal U.S. funding of them. It wasn't until the Iran-Contra affair was coming to light some years later that real reporting on them by the NYT began. Does that mean I won't read anything in the NYT? Not at all. But I know that they're likely to be incomplete, even inaccurate on highly contraversial issues that the U.S. gov't feels are a source of embarrassment. So I check around for other sources that I can depend upon by doing my best to look at where they are getting their info, and what is fact and what is opinion, like in the Chicago Tribune article we were discussing. Just because some reporter writes it, doesn't mean his opinion is more valuable than other people's, especially if his/her world view hasn't been consistent with your experience. On the other hand facts like names, places, and dates are fact-checked in newspapers and usually accurate.

I don't know who half of these people are...but here's another source that might be more to your liking?

http://econ4obama.blogspot.com/2008/06/obama-economic-advisors-and-economic.html

Tuesday, June 3, 2008
The List: Obama's Economists

Economic policy advisors:
Jason Furman (director of economy policy) source bio
Austan Goolsbee (senior economic policy advisor), University of Chicago tax policy expert source Wikipedia website
Karen Kornbluh (policy director) source bio Wikipedia
David Cutler, Harvard health policy expert source Wikipedia website
Jeff Liebman, Harvard welfare expert source Wikipedia website
Michael Froman, Citigroup executive source bio
Daniel Tarullo, Georgetown law professor source bio
David Romer, Berkeley macroeconomist source website
Christina Romer, Berkeley economic historian source website
Richard Thaler, University of Chicago behavioral finance expert source Wikipedia

Robert Rubin, former Treasury Secretary source Wikipedia bio
Larry Summers, former Treasury Secretary source Wikipedia bio
Alan Blinder, former Vice-chairman of the Federal Reserve source Wikipedia bio website
Jared Bernstein, Economic Policy Institute labor economist source bio
James Galbraith, University of Texas macroeconomist source Wikipedia website

Paul Volcker, Chairman of the Federal Reserve 1979-1987 source Wikipedia
Laura Tyson, Berkeley international economist, Bill Clinton economic adviser source Wikipedia
Robert Reich, Berkeley public policy professor, former Secretary of Labor source Wikipedia weblog
Peter Henry, Stanford international economist source website
Gene Sperling, former White House economic adviser source Wikipedia

Other prominent economists who support Obama:
Brad Delong, Berkeley macroeconomist source Wikipedia website weblog
Joseph Stiglitz, 2001 Nobel laureate source Wikipedia
Edmund Phelps, 2006 Nobel laureate source Wikipedia
Ray Fair, Yale macroeconomist source Wikipedia
Dan McFadden, 2000 Nobel laureate source website
Robert Solow, 1987 Nobel laureate source Wikipedia

However, seeing the massive debt and deficits you have combined with the inequality of wealth,
the only solution is to raise taxes. I do not understand what Obama is doing.
The people are angry and want change. Americans are willing for the first time in a generation, consider support from government backed programs and all Obama is going is keeping a finger in the wind.
What the H**L is he doing?????????? If he does not give the people are clear reason to vote, he will lose and we will all be stuck with George McCain fro another 4 years. :-(

The whole comment started with Georgie trying to play cutsie gotcha interviewing. After Obama had specifically told Stephanopoulos that multiple independent parties have rated his tax plan as lowering taxes MORE than John McSame, Stephanopoulos followed up with the question, 'How can you have a tax increase during a recession?'. Obama didnt fall for George saying tax 'increase' instead of 'decrease'. Obama then went on to say his plan was still going ahead, because it was a tax decreasing plan that would stimulate the economy...

I have been busting my butt out there going door-to-door and telling my fellow Americans that Obama has a sensible tax plan that includes restoring fair taxes on the $250,000+/yr crowd. The economy isn't just about the Fannies, it's about fair trade policies, progressive taxation, and restoring America as a place where things are made not just where we import AND fighting the Republican's dream that America become a service economy, in service to the corporations and ultra-rich. I am done serving the top 2/3 of 1 percent. What the hell is wrong with Obama saying something this stupid. I must be the stupid one. I consider that possible but for now I am pissed.

Where did you read that Obama would not lower the taxes on those making less than $250,000?

with this article?

Americans that Obama has a sensible tax plan that will restore fair taxes. What in this article makes you believe he won't?

upon the situation at the time.

so he 'might' leave some tax cuts in place depending on what the economic picture is at the time. BUT

By shouting "Me too" to everything his opponent says!

won't be elected.

Don't worry, Obama, you're not going to have to worry about making that decision.

I haven't heard Obama propose anything other than letting the Bush tax package expire and seek to replace it with his. Tempest, meet teapot.

Some people here need to get a grip, instead of pushing the PANIC button.

At times like this, I seriously consider what my vote will mean, if anything. It will mean "change"? This does not calculate into "change" for me and I think Obama is slipping. Sorry. Would like for him to be the saviour, but apparently, he is inclined to be the standard beltway politician. Sorry, really, I am sorry.

wealthy sounds familiar.

I realize he may only be talking about a delay but our economy is not suffering because the ultra-wealthy need their oligarch tax cut.

Obama, once he gets in, will evaluate the state of the economy in Summer 2009.

* IF * the US is (still) in a recession at that point, he * MAY * consider delaying the overturn of those Bush tax cuts on the wealthy that were enacted in 2001 and 2003.

* IF * he does this, he will just let them expire in 2010/2011 as normal. Bush and McCain want to make them permanent. Obama DOES NOT.

So, regardless of whatever action President Obama takes with them, THEY WILL NO LONGER EXIST BY THE END OF 2011, IN HIS FIRST TERM.

Hear that? Once again:

THE TAX CUTS FOR THE WEALTHY WILL NO LONGER EXIST BY THE END OF OBAMA'S FIRST TERM, REGARDLESS OF THE STATE OF THE U.S. ECONOMY.


Now, separate from the above is his promise to enact tax cuts for those making less than $100,000 per year. You know, the 95% of Americans. Those will still take effect in his first term, and likely his first year.

Hear that? Once again:

OBAMA'S TAX CUTS FOR THE 95% OF AMERICANS MAKING LESS THAN $100,000 WILL STILL OCCUR, REGARDLESS OF THE STATE OF THE U.S. ECONOMY.


So, tell me, where has the flip-flop occured? Where has he suddenly become a Republican? Where has he become "just another politician" ?

seems to indicate there is wiggle room on that. I want to believe everything you are saying but this article is in no way as clear as you have been and even if I am wrong about what Obama meant, I insist that there is plenty of opportunity for progressive types to misread or misunderstand his tax policy and how it relates to the economy after reading this TIME article. It seems to say that he will consider the economy before letting the Bush cuts end - you don't see that?

The idea that he is trying to sound flexible about his policies is compelling, but this article leaves me confused and more skeptical about taxes. Yes, average people have been given a promise of a tax cut, I understand that.

all the fun. I feel like I'm at a birthday party watching all the kids bashing the pinata.

I wasn't responding to you.

I took offense that people were jumping on Obama not criticizing the message in the article. I am interested in what the community has to say about this article. If it was not your intention to foster discussion then nevermind. The pinata comment was slightly offensive and ignorant even if a lil funny.

Obama is often the pinata around here. Sorry if you are so offended, but that is not my problem.

Complaining about how that might be the case helps no one. Maybe you can separate attacks on a message from attacks on a person. I admit I have not been reading the forums here recently so cannot speak to the piling on Obama comment. I would like to make sure that anyone who reads this realizes that is is ok to question Obama's policies even in a harsh way as long as it leans progressive but to attack the person is way out of line. Honestly, your initial comment was not entirely offensive to me it just seemed to be reducing the issue to some less importance than it deserved. Peace to you.

I thought we were talking about the general atmosphere accusation that people were pummeling Obama. As I understand it you were not, I repeat not, attacking anyone personally.

He's just trying to appeal to the center, and not seem unreasonable, or like his mind is made up, no matter what. He also said he was open to drilling for oil, but do you really think he has any intention of doing that at all.

But, I agree, he, like most intellectuals, have a hard time "speaking in soundbytes". That is a business skill, not an educational skill, which explains why Repugs are so good at it.

I don't take kindly to being lied to. The message of change is not more of the same. Stick to the message. Tax cuts for the Rich are a problem, this is a resounding cry from middle and lower income Americans it was John Edwards entire campaign. How can Obama possibly launch any of his programs if he has no funding sources? This will be used against him in the debates. He has basically given the Thugs ammo. I agree with above Posters. Stick to the message stay on point. Wasn't it bad enough to listen to the tortured response that the SURGE WORKED BEYOND OUR WILDEST DREAMS... Who's dreams? My nightmares? The surge did not work it created a vaccumn in violence if the Iraqis fail to get their act together the surge will be seen in history as useless... I shouldn't have to be even explaining any of this on this forum. Obama better get back on message or he is going to lose a lot of supporters and not just from the middle either...

he got into office and then saying something like "You know what, I have decided not to give any of you all tax cuts, suckers!!!!" but in this case he is not lying he is just letting us know that theres a chance he might have to hold off, thats all, no more, no less.
You want to get all upset and go vote for McCain now though thats fine, dont let the door hit you on the way out of DU though.

in this community. The poster may have been questioning the change message. When did anyone who is upset with this story mention they would rather vote for McCain? Obama is 1000X better than McCain.

The question is not whether Obama will win, the question is what kind of America do we want to be. Don't push people to leave DU because they question the economic policies or integrity of this campaign. I want Obama to win as much as anyone and am willing to bet have worked harder than most here to get him elected. There is a problem here with his economic policy with regard to fair taxation. Maybe it is better to wait until after he is elected, but what makes you think he will listen to us then if he won't now with regard to this question.

Hit the doors and make new allies to get him elected, don't get all insulated and worshippy of Obama and kick people out of our community. This campaign is about us. Obama says so and I choose to believe him.

Further my simple poitn is that you take a principled stand... then stick to principle. Its disheartening when our candidate feels like he has to bend to the ideas of the past. A poster said it best earlier Obama could simply have said I will return us to the tax policies and prosperity of the 90's under Clinton... That would have sufficed... Don't bend your principles, tax cuts for the rich is part of the problem and 1 of the top Changes required.

is to explain to them that the reason Bush's tax cuts to the ultra-wealthy haven't worked is that this policy has never been helpful. The money doesn't get spent in ways that stimulate the economy when demand (that's the ordinary person's ability to buy things) is low, as the last 60 years have shown. Restoring fair taxation on them gives the country enough money to use for job creation that does, in fact, help the country recover from recession.

the mainstream economists advising Obama will admit it doesn't work. Considering the enormous costs we are facing even if we get out of Iraq as soon as we can, and the desperate need to replenish the Social Security trust fund, I have a hard time understanding how refusing to tax the ultra-wealthy as they had been in the past, would be good for the economy and the country. This is the most problematic area between Obama and his base. It screams about the lack of progressive economists among his advisors.
'

When it slams us into a Depression the likes of which hasn't been seen since the 30's and then as Americans are dying on the streets for lack of food and shelter... Well maybe then REAL CHANGE will COME ... I was so fired up now I am just getting a sinking feeling.

We have a fragile economy, fragile constitution, fragile healthcare system, fragile justice department, fragile schools, fragile jobs, fragile environment, fragile take-your-pick. Whenever anyone mentions our fragility they need to shout loudly and clearly REPUBLICANS DID THIS. They had opportunity to help and instead enriched themselves.

It is a reasessment because Obama can not see the future. Regardless, the 95% will still get their taxes cut based on his tax plan.

Sorry Freepers, your wrong....again.

know how to go on the offensive against simplistic false memes about "raising taxes" during a recession. Someone needs to school him up good about fairness in taxation and the ridiculousness of trickle down........maybe Robert Reich.

that he may need to check what is left before he can do anything - so sometimes leaving things alone first and then making changes is the right thing

Quite the contrary.

If we can do this without raising taxes - great! With the problems of today is one actually sells a second home = rental property you are lumbered with capital gains. Maybe we could even attract investment by lowering capital gains tax. The USA could be a tax haven for investors!

That's what is coming next. Jesus effin Rice. Have the dems learned nothing? Next thing you know, Bob Shrum will be named campaign manager.

The timing of when and how the rich rebalance/shift their investments to match any new tax policy can have significant affects on global markets and on peoples retirement/pension accounts. This january may not be the time to have a few trillion moved out of DJI.