The Hill: "Bush rates are kept safe in debt-limit talks"

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/168711-bush-rates-are-kept-safe-in-debt-talks

"The White House, seeking an agreement to raise the nation’s $14.3 trillion debt ceiling by Aug. 2, on Monday said it would not insist that any deal include an end to former President George W. Bush’s controversial tax rates on the wealthy."

Flashback to President Obama's April 13 budget speech: "We cannot afford $1 trillion worth of tax cuts for every millionaire and billionaire in our society. And I refuse to renew them again,"

Sounded like a clear political statement to me and I believed it. How could a president expect to govern effectively against a tough opposition party after making an ultimatum like that and then backing off. I can only hope The Hill is wrong.

While most didn’t expect the Bush tax rates to be included as part of a debt-ceiling deal, it’s significant the White House made the distinction.

It could put more pressure on Republicans, who say tax increases should be off the table in the talks. There are divisions in the GOP over whether that stance should include all tax deductions and credits, and it could be politically tough for Republicans to defend some specialized tax breaks while social programs are being slashed.>>

Hardly a flip-flop.

being shocked.

Might be Cheney's schedule more than Shrub's, but it's the same as it ever was.

Why would they need a deal?

It's just being used as a ball bat hoping you don't notice.

The bill is going to be a single package.

Your statement is quite obviously false to anyone even minimally aware of what's going on, but I'm more curious as to how you arrive at such a ridiculous conclusion.

I've seen a similar pattern during the health reform process and the debate surrounding the tax cut extension bill. If you are allowed to call my conclusion "ridiculous" am I allowed to call yours "naive"?

No, no, and no?

You can call the truth whatever you want. That doesn't change reality. Anyone with even a passing familiarity with the debt limit negotiations knew that the Bush rates had nothing to do with them, and would instead be dealt with at the time of their expiration (just like in 2010). Republicans aren't even asking for an extension of the Bush rates here, because they know Obama isn't going to do anything with them until around the time they are going to expire (if he does anything at all).

I even hedged it as a courtesy to DU. Maybe you should direct your complaints to their editorial department.

The blame for that lies with you, not them. The tax cuts being safe at the moment, in this negotiation, has NOTHING to do with whether they will be safe after their scheduled expiration date.

Remember. Lots of ice helps the cherry flavored liquid go down.

:eyes:

what it actually says?

The tax cuts are set to end in 2012. Nothing in the article or the debt limit increase is going to change that. They are indeed "safe" until they expire. They are repealed after that, absent future action in 2012.

to say otherwise is incredibly misleading.

If you want to speculate that despite the article saying nothing of the kind, that they will be extending Bush's rates beyond 2012 in the 2011 debt ceiling deal, go right ahead. But it is a false statement to claim that the article supports your view in any way.

"Flashback to President Obama's April 13 budget speech: "We cannot afford $1 trillion worth of tax cuts for every millionaire and billionaire in our society. And I refuse to renew them again,"

Sounded like a clear political statement to me and I believed it. How could a president expect to govern effectively against a tough opposition party after making an ultimatum like that and then backing off. I can only hope The Hill is wrong. "

Can you give me a source that says anyone is talking about renewing the Bush tax cuts again??

I don't see anybody talking about a long term renewal of the Bush cuts as part of a compromise leading towards the debt ceiling vote. Yes, this will come up in 2012, yes Obama wants Republicans to be arguing for tax cuts for the rich during the election.

Nothing?

Wouldn't it be a better idea to keep pushing for that as a way to wring concessions out of the Republicans?

If they claim to be "serious about the deficit" then keep pointing to their support for taxcuts for the rich. How "serious" can you be when you continue to support hundreds of billions of dollars going to those who need it least? Do most households usually balance their budget by first reducing their income? Doesn't everybody know that that would be a moronic thing to do?

I could never get to the bottom of what was meant by that.