Obama: Bush Tax Cuts For The Rich Won’t Create ‘One Single Job’

Think Progress: Obama: Bush Tax Cuts For The Rich Won’t Create ‘One Single Job’

Obama has completely caved on the tax cuts, and never raised a fight from the beginning. :thumbsdown:

And I know he trusts Mitch McConnell too so we can all go to sleep now. :thumbsdown:

What happened to the Obama that was so concerned about deficits he started the Catfood Commission? :thumbsdown:

Next Congress that blame, when he is faced with vetoing a bill that includes more tax cuts for the rich the middle class tax cuts, will be: "They're making me hurt you."

Not pretty.

The Republicans have proven that they are willing to shoot the hostage to get what they want, so to speak--and the President didn't want to be known the President Who Stole Christmas from millions of unemployed folks.

passed the Middle Class Only Tax Cuts on Saturday, They did not pass, Republicans killed it. They will not vote for anything that doesn't contain cuts for the rich.

help the unemployed, and he needs to include the 99er's and help for the poor while he's at it.

Adding two years to the time it takes to recover. Change we can believe in!

It sucks for sure the whole thing is not trickle down for the rich.

I dont know about you, but I spend every dollar of tax relief I get on goods and services, it goes right back into the ecomomy, Local as much as I can.

Did you not see the CBO report on same? Bush tax cuts stifle employment, erode wages. The cancer isn't the cure.

that the rich get their tax break disgusts me.

On the other hand I think we need to have our facts straight rather than falsely assuming all 900B goes to the rich,

When it is absolutely evident that tax cuts caused the mess we are in.

The CBO report that came out in September says that ending ALL the Bush tax cuts alone would balance the budget by 2014. It is a no brainer.

Yea, if we raise everyone's taxes higher from what they've been the past 10 years, we will definately put a dent in the deficit. But as liberals have been saying for 2 years now, you really shouldn't worry too much about the deficit while unemployment is still hovering around 10%. We need to inject money into the pockets of lower and middle income people any way we possibly can. They spend it.

Its not nearly as great as taxing them and using their money to create nationwide job programs, but its passable, whereas that option is not.

I don't approve of letting the high income brackets off the hook for 2 more years. But the urgency to keep middle class incomes stable and keep as many unemployed compensated as we possibly can is far greater than making the wealthy pay up to the country that allowed them to become wealthy in the first place.

If you honestly think, after all they've done this year, that Republicans can be shamed into doing the right thing on this, then I don't think there is any getting through to you. We are just below 10% unemployment. We can't risk allowing the middle class to lose what little financial luxuries it has at the moment. This doubly important when it comes to the ones that are unemployed. If unemployment was below even just 7%, I'd be more inclined to support taking a gamble on this stuff. At the end of the day, we seem to only have 2 options. We can let everything expire and hope for the best or we can take what we can get and beat them over the head with the wealthy later. We will still be here. They will still be here. And rich people will still have money that needs taxing.

The Democratic party is turning into the repubican party.

or are they all mainly bureaucrats?

The bottom 98% rhetoric is cover for more trickle down.

What is worth more, 2 years of tax cuts (which by the way have been in effect for 10 years, they are not something new) or 2 million unemployed people and their families?

Which is it? Money or people? That's what it boils down to, are the senate and house Dems going to screw the people over some snit they're in because they didn't get it done and the President had to step in and do it for them?

The 99ers unemployment could be placed on a separate emergency bill.

Obama didn't mind going for the money rather than the people when he left the public option out his health care reform.
Twenty-two thousand people this year alone will die as a result of his omission. Don't tell me how much he cares about people.:grr:

It's a bit annoying to have every bill downed with a personal issue. Today it is unemployment extended for 13 months and tax incentives for the middle class....in exchange for letting the pubs get two more years out of their holy grail.

Wages will continue to drop and the unemployed will stay that way.

Even worse is OBAMA WILL OWN THE BUSH TAX CUTS

Have people gone so far that they now deny the name Bush on those tax cut bills?

How very odd.

From here on out they will be referred to the 'Obama/Bush' tax cuts for the rich.

...that is what it will be

Democrats aren't going to use that language to describe the Bush tax cuts. Actually the wingers probably won't either. It's just not true.

Wishful thinking

85% of Democrats support the President. 15% don't.

I think you have some bad or outdated polling there.


What do you think of the fact that 67% of Americans don't want the tax cuts for the rich to be extended?

try and keep up.

and the economy was in about the same shape, recovering form the S&L collapse.

Aren't they worthy of his consideration,too? If not, then I'd have to conclude it's not about the middle class at all.

Evidently they didn't think they were worth crap either, same as the ones now. The President believes in the people.

But I ring their chimes anyway. Like today Kirk sent out a poll about an omnibus spending bill. I voted yes and it takes you directly to the page where he says NO. What a bum.

The Lame Duck Congress’s Last Gasp:
A Massive Omnibus Spending Bill?

Dear Friends,

Normally, Congress adopts a budget and enacts roughly a dozen separate appropriations bills to fund government agencies from the FBI and FAA to the FDA. This year, Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid failed to enact a budget or pass one appropriations bill. Now, in the final days of the post-election “Lame Duck” Congress, Senate leaders may put forth a massive “Omnibus” Appropriation bill, stretching across hundreds of pages and spending hundreds of billions.

You or I have not been allowed to see this bill. Its authors will ask the Congress to trust them, arguing such legislation is needed to guide the Executive Branch.

TELL ME WHAT YOU THINK
Should the Senate pass an Omnibus Appropriations bill to fund the government?

* Yes Yes
* No No
* Don't Know Don't Know

I will let you know where I stand when I hear from you on this issue.

Please feel free to forward this email along to other interested constituents. As always, do not hesitate to contact me at (312) 886-3506 or via my website at kirk.senate.gov should issues of concern to you come before the Congress.

Very truly yours,
Mark Kirk
U.S. Senate

Very truly yours my dying ass. He's a slimy pub but I wrote him back and gave him hell for being deceitful with his poll. Asked him why he bothered since he's already made up his mind.

not a literal lifeline.

Whereas Obama LITERALLY has cut the lifelines off over 22,000 people who will die by not going with the public option.

Obama only cares about the rich. His tax cut bill will make the tax cut permanent for the republicans - the republicans will never backdown from these tax cuts and it is criminal.

:grr:

And he IS pushing for them. Andyone who thinks otherwise is deluded.

-Laelth

The Republicans voted against it.

If they had the votes in the Senate to do middle class only cuts, that is the policy we would have.

Why should they go along with anything the Democratic congress pushes? Just go off to the side with Obama and you get everything you want for a few paltry trade offs, democracy and change be damned.

Republicans have proven they can control everything even in the minority due to the spinelessness of our Senate leaders and the completely monolithic nature of the GOP bloc.

He's not pushing the tax cuts. He's pushing a UI extension package that unfortunately happens to include the fucking tax cuts, which he still clearly opposes. Why is this so hard for you people to fucking understand? Governing is not a black and white issue and rigid ideologues rarely make good leaders.

might as well flush that money down the toilet.

Obama says his deal with Republicans has "the potential to create millions of jobs"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9733981

I'm pretty sure you knew that.

It is a stupid deal, which Obama admits.

That he doesn't understand two basic points:

1. There is a VAST difference between the two words compromising and negotiating. If you notice he always says the word compromise, because he never negotiates. When you compromise you always lose, when you negotiate sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. We want the president to negotiate, not compromise.

2. The democrats are not all like him. He obviously has no core set of principles that can't be compromised away. The problem is that he thinks the democrats are all this way. We have core principles that we won't compromise on. One of those is no tax cuts for the rich!

"When you compromise you always lose, when you negotiate sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. We want the president to negotiate, not compromise."

If the President had walked away with a middle class tax cut and unemployment benefits only, then a case could possibly be made. That is not what happened. He got a lot more concessions.

This isn't a situation where losing is admirable or even politically smart.


When Krugman starts out making his point in this way:



...it reinforces that the President did the right thing for the economy.


Also, welcome to DU.

You seriously think the child tax credit was them reluctantly giving us something? Preserving the credit at its current rate was mentioned in their Pledge to America as very important. It goes to white Republican middle class families. Accelerated depreciation, really? The GOP opposes that?

They're things the CBC supports.

My god, you guys are changing the meaning of words now.

There isn't the slightest chance that if they were designing this package, they would include any of the stimulus provisions.

It was started under Clinton and doubled under Bush. It was going to go back to the pre-2001 rate of $500 per qualifying child from $1000. It goes mostly to middle class white people, who tend to be Republican.

And would be included in any bill that came from them.

There has to be some core values that we never waver from, otherwise we stand for nothing. One of those core principles has always been no tax cuts for the rich. The president LOST in this negotiation because of that one single point. That is like if our country had abortion outlawed and a republican compromised that away and made it legal in order to get something else. They wouldn't stand for it, and we shouldn't either. It doesn't matter whether it is politically smart, it's the right thing to do.

Not to mention that if he had held out he could have actually won. We could have kept the tax cuts for the poor and middle class AND gotten rid of the tax cuts for the rich.

There are some issues where politics don't come into play. Everyone seems to understand this but Obama. He has no core principles that he will fight for. Everything is up for compromise.

Basically it is like this:

You need $10,000 dollars so you send a guy in to negotiate with the bankers to get you your money. He comes out of the room and says he got you $15,000 but in return you have to kill somebody for it. The answer is no, that violates my core values. I don't care that you got me more than I asked for.

Obama is telling me what a great deal he got for me, and telling me not to pay attention to what a great deal he gave the republicans.

And finally this statement is totally wrong if you are democrat:

...it reinforces that the President did the right thing for the economy

How can he have done the right thing for the economy if as a democrat you believe that giving tax cuts to the rich actually hurts our economy. Supply side economics doesn't even come close to working at our current tax rates. He basically took one step back and one step forward. At best you can say that he didn't make things worse.

Those values would include protecting low-income, middle-class and unemployed Americans.

There is nothing admirable about exposing people to suffering just to spite the rich.

This would be no different from what Republicans are doing, which is using the majority of Americans as a bargaining tool for the rich.

It's how legislation gets written and passed.

You are standing on your own idea of political purity, but in the real world, that doesn't fly very far.


And if you think Mr. Obam has no priciples, you can take that and stuff it.

The things Obama is getting in the desk will according to economist - krugman admits that....so what's your point?

I'm a low income worker, with a low-income family, and we are hurting and can't afford losing any amount of income.

Our political system is the problem, not a failure of Obama to use the "bully pulpit" whatever the hell that means.

The House finally passed the DREAM Act, and there isn't any guarantee that it will pass the Senate. The recent vote on DADT shows the dysfuntion in that chamber.

The people who care most about hurting the rich are the Republicans.

The goal of ending Bush's tax cuts is not to hurt the rich, it's to increase government revenue (so that it can be spent on, among other things, support for workers and low-income families).

That it will hurt the rich is, in itself, a bad thing. The right wing and the Republicans care about that a lot; centrists and left-wingers don't care about it nearly so much, and think it's a price worth paying, and indeed worth paying many times over, for the benefit that the money could do elsewhere (a few far-left wingers do actually think it's a good thing, and care about it in the direction you imply, but Obama certainly isn't one of them).

The argument for repealing Bush's tax cuts is that the money so raised would have helped the poor.

The two possible criticisms of Obama are 1) that the amount of good the state could have done with the extra revenue might have outweighed the good done by unemployment insurance and 2) that if he had adopted different political tactics he might have been able to get both. I don't know whether either or both of those is the case or not, though.

That guy no longer exists... :shrug: