Obama Refuses To Say He'd Veto Extension Of Bush Tax Cuts For Wealthy

pgodbold

(953 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Sep-09-10 11:53 AM
Original message

Obama Refuses To Say He'd Veto Extension Of Bush Tax Cuts For Wealthy

When he pulls stuff like this it infuriates me beyond words. WTF is wrong with the man?

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.

Video and article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/09/obama-refuses-to-say-hed-_n_710279.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

lamp_shade

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Sep-09-10 11:57 AM
Response to Original message

1. Ofercrissake.... Unrec.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

BlueDemKev

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Sep-09-10 12:16 PM
Response to Original message

2. Avoided the word "veto"

Just watched the video. It sounds like he is definitively saying he will not allow an extension of the tax cuts for the wealthy, but for some reason he wouldn't use the word "veto." Not sure what his strategy was or what he's trying to protect himself from. Oh, well.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

zipplewrath

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Sep-09-10 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #2

4. He won't commit

We've seen this before. I suspect it means he realizes he may have to sign an extension, and he doesn't want to say so before the election. Afterwards he'll say he never promised/campaigned/committed to their termination. Someone will call it a BFD and it will be over.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

ladjf

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Sep-09-10 12:23 PM
Response to Original message

3. That doesn't mean that he wouldn't veto it. He might see no profit

in threatening the veto.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

SidDithers

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Sep-09-10 12:25 PM
Response to Original message

5. ...

Sid

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

EFerrari

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Sep-09-10 12:28 PM
Response to Original message

6. Threatening a veto is like daring the Republicans.

Why invite trouble, imho. I'd like him to say it outright but can see why doing that would just be a provocation.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Cal33

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Sep-09-10 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #6

7. The Neocons are going to do what they want to do - regardless.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

EFerrari

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Sep-09-10 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #7

8. Neocons & Neolibs. n/t

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

BlueDemKev

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Sep-09-10 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #7

10. Push it down the road?

It will probably be politically wiser to delay this issue and force the next Congress to deal with it. If the Republicans control Congress next year, it will be easier for Obama to pick a fight with them about extending the tax cuts for small businesses and the middle class, but NOT the cuts for the wealthy.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Ikonoklast

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Sep-09-10 01:41 PM
Response to Original message

9. In other news, most NFL coaches refuse to disclose game plans to next weeks' opponents.

Some people just...don't...get it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Scurrilous

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Sep-09-10 10:58 PM
Response to Original message

11. White House: No Veto Will be Needed Over Bush Tax Cuts

<snip>

"The White House says it is confident Congress can find the votes this year to pass legislation extending the Bush tax cuts that does not include an extension of those cuts for the wealthiest Americans, something Republicans are calling for.

They are so confident, in fact, that White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said today there is no need for the president to consider vetoing any potential bill that would give in to the Republicans' preferences."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20015994-503544.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Fri May 03rd 2024, 10:24 PM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.