Bush tax cuts: Obama seeks compromise

[Psychoclown]

A day after Republicans won control of the House of Representatives, President Obama said that he is willing to negotiate to ensure the Bush tax cuts are extended for the middle class by Jan. 1.

"How that negotiation works itself out, I think it's too early to say. But, you know, this is going to be one of my top priorities," Obama said during a press conference Wednesday.

Bush tax cuts: Obama will negotiate - Nov. 3, 2010

I've seen people around here suggesting that Obama would take a hard stand here, but apparently that's not going to happen. I'm not surprised. While both sides are talkikng about working together, Obama is the one who needs to move more towards the center if wants to be re-elected. This is an issue he can compromise on and not really betray any core left wing ideals. Afterall, the income tax system is still progressive even with cuts for the highest earners.

The article seemed to feel the likely compromise solution would be to pass a temporary extension for everyone and revisit the issue in two years. The thinking being if the economy improves, the Democrats might be able to push for letting the cuts expire in order to help reduce the deficit. And the Republicans would go for it because they want to keep all the brackets tied together as one package, and not have to face arguing solely for tax cuts for top earners without having tax cuts for the middle and working class also at stake.

 

[Deuce]

He's been talking about extending the middle-class tax cuts for ages, I'm not sure how you see this as a deviation from his views.

 

[Erod]

It forever amazes me how the government can spend out of control all they want, and then force "rich" people to pay for the mess.

Government made the mess, why shouldn't government pay for it? And does anyone actually believe the extra taxes generated will go toward the deficit anyway? Really?

Did the stimulus money create a single job? No, it bailed out banks, unions, and auto manufacturers.

 

[rcart76]

It forever amazes me how the government can spend out of control all they want, and then force "rich" people to pay for the mess.

Government made the mess, why shouldn't government pay for it? And does anyone actually believe the extra taxes generated will go toward the deficit anyway? Really?

Did the stimulus money create a single job? No, it bailed out banks, unions, and auto manufacturers.

It saved a lot of teacher's jobs

 

[Wiseone]

It forever amazes me how the government can spend out of control all they want, and then force "rich" people to pay for the mess.

Government made the mess, why shouldn't government pay for it? And does anyone actually believe the extra taxes generated will go toward the deficit anyway? Really?

Did the stimulus money create a single job? No, it bailed out banks, unions, and auto manufacturers.

You're thinking of TARP, thats the one that bailed out banks and the auto companies, no unions though. And it was a Bush policy.

Also you're right the government should pay for it, so how does the government raise funds? O ya taxes.:doh

 

[Deuce]

It forever amazes me how the government can spend out of control all they want, and then force "rich" people to pay for the mess.

Government made the mess, why shouldn't government pay for it? And does anyone actually believe the extra taxes generated will go toward the deficit anyway? Really?

Did the stimulus money create a single job? No, it bailed out banks, unions, and auto manufacturers.

Really? Didn't create a single job? Then why did so many Republicans vote against the stimulus and then proceed to accept stimulus funds for a project, proclaiming publicly that it WOULD create jobs?

CBO says it created quite a few. You should probably go show them your undeniable proof that not a single job was created. Also, those "bailed out" industries? How many of their employees would be working now if they hadn't gotten a bailout?

During a recession, somebody has to spend money if you want to get out of it. Businesses weren't spending, and individuals weren't spending. The government, unlike businesses or individual, can borrow enormous sums money at absurdly low interest rates and spend it. History shows that a few percentage points off income taxes don't make people spend during a recession, it makes them save. Saving money doesn't stimulate the economy.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

It forever amazes me how the government can spend out of control all they want, and then force "rich" people to pay for the mess.
Government made the mess, why shouldn't government pay for it? And does anyone actually believe the extra taxes generated will go toward the deficit anyway?

Why do you suppose that the tax cuts weren't made permanent when they were originally passed?

 

[Zyphlin]

The article seemed to feel the likely compromise solution would be to pass a temporary extension for everyone and revisit the issue in two years. The thinking being if the economy improves, the Democrats might be able to push for letting the cuts expire in order to help reduce the deficit. And the Republicans would go for it because they want to keep all the brackets tied together as one package, and not have to face arguing solely for tax cuts for top earners without having tax cuts for the middle and working class also at stake.

Strangely enough this specific solution...either making the middle class ones permanent and extending the top tier for 2 years, or just extending all for 2 years...was one that I Sarah Palin gave on fox when the hosts asked her what kind of things could she honestly see as a possability that Republicans and Democrats could potentially realistically compromise on.

Pretty sure it was Palin, but it may've been someone else on the show.

If Obama's position is "Extend middle class" and Republicans is "Extend all" then "Extend middle class and temporarily extend the upper class" seems to be a reasonable and logical compromise point.

 

[Psychoclown]

He's been talking about extending the middle-class tax cuts for ages, I'm not sure how you see this as a deviation from his views.

Did you read the article or what I wrote? Obama has wanted to extend cuts for everyone but the top earners. Republicans want to extend cuts for everyone. Now Obama says he'll negotiate. So that means he's willing accept some form of cuts for the top earners, likely a temporary cut and it remains to be seen if the cuts for the middle and working classes will also be termporary or made permanent. Obama accepting even a temporary extension of the cut for the top earners is a deviation from his previous views.

 

[Whovian]

Strangely enough this specific solution...either making the middle class ones permanent and extending the top tier for 2 years, or just extending all for 2 years...was one that I Sarah Palin gave on fox when the hosts asked her what kind of things could she honestly see as a possability that Republicans and Democrats could potentially realistically compromise on.

Pretty sure it was Palin, but it may've been someone else on the show.

If Obama's position is "Extend middle class" and Republicans is "Extend all" then "Extend middle class and temporarily extend the upper class" seems to be a reasonable and logical compromise point.

This........

 

[TurtleDude]

It forever amazes me how the government can spend out of control all they want, and then force "rich" people to pay for the mess.

Government made the mess, why shouldn't government pay for it? And does anyone actually believe the extra taxes generated will go toward the deficit anyway? Really?

Did the stimulus money create a single job? No, it bailed out banks, unions, and auto manufacturers.

political expediency and class warfare. Buying votes with the money of others

 

[TurtleDude]

Why do you suppose that the tax cuts weren't made permanent when they were originally passed?

because at the time the dems would have blocked the bill in the senate if they were permanent

 

[Simon W. Moon]

because at the time the dems would have blocked the bill in the senate if they were permanent

So in all that time the GOP has never had the votes? It's all the Dems doing?

 

[TurtleDude]

So in all that time the GOP has never had the votes? It's all the Dems doing?

you can have a majority in the senate and not be able to pass any bills if the other side has enough for a filibuster. why do you think Estrada never was confirmed as a judge?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Seems the GOP passed it w/o needing the help of the Dems.

We might have to look harder than saying it's a question of the Good Guys v the Bad Guys. Might have to find a more complicated narrative to explain this one.

Anyone else wanna guess as to why the tax cuts weren't already made permanent?