Obama Tells Progressives He Won't Budge On Bush Tax Cuts

[chance1]

Let the posturing begin

The President evidently told his "base" that he's committed to raising taxes for "high income earners"

My primary problem with this approach is the absurd notion that $250K is "wealthy" and that this position ignores the fact the small businesses are grouped here

Newly elected Senator Tim Kaine - Virginia - on Morning Joe recently talked about $500K being the threshold - many other Dems with their heads not firmly planted in their asses suggested similar.

But the Pres. has come out of the gate flexing here

Which is his right - he won

But will we win ?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2124324.html

[TX-Beau]

We'll see won't we. Small businesses do not pay income taxes.

[TX-Beau]

Plus I fucking agree that Romney et all should be AT LEAST paying the same percentage I do.

[chance1]

Plus I fucking agree that Romney et all should be AT LEAST paying the same percentage I do.

i figured u for a 47% er

[bankside]

Any person earning USD 250 000 per annum is very wealthy. How is that complicated?

Incidentally, never mind the >250 000 folks, the economy was growing just fine before anyone had a tax cut.

What should have happened is Bush Tax Raises, to pay for the Bush Afghanistan Invasion, and the Bush Iraq Invasion. You can't pay for wars with tax cuts.

If he had done that, then you'd be talking about repealing the Bush Tax Raises now that the wars are winding down.

[chance1]

Any person earning USD 250 000 per annum is very wealthy. How is that complicated?

Incidentally, never mind the >250 000 folks, the economy was growing just fine before anyone had a tax cut.

What should have happened is Bush Tax Raises, to pay for the Bush Afghanistan Invasion, and the Bush Iraq Invasion. You can't pay for wars with tax cuts.

If he had done that, then you'd be talking about repealing the Bush Tax Raises now that the wars are winding down.

it's not complicated

it's an arbitrary figure that doesn't reflect real life - and isn't indexed to reflect cost of living in big cities vs. smaller ones

tim kaine and many other dems agree

in fact IMO it'll probably get raised before this is done - and that'd be a good thing

just not popular with the crazies

the cost of living is pretty high bankside - where do u live?

a family making 250k with kids and a house, etc. - isn't necessarily "rich"

a small business with earnings of 250k ........ isn't necessarily "rich"

but don't ask me

ask key democrats

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/65272.html

[bankside]

Yes I'm sure the cost of living in the Emerald City is pretty high too, what with streets paved of gold and….well…emeralds…. It does not change the fact that people are wealthy even if their cost of living is high. In fact one of the goals of wealth is often to enjoy a high cost of living.

[chance1]

Yes I'm sure the cost of living in the Emerald City is pretty high too, what with streets paved of gold and….well…emeralds…. It does not change the fact that people are wealthy even if their cost of living is high. In fact one of the goals of wealth is often to enjoy a high cost of living.

i guess u didn't read the article

and didn't answer my question

thanks for stopping by

[T-Rexx]

First of all, it is hard to imagine Obama standing firm on the tax cuts. This president always compromises with Republicans on everything. The safe money is that he will cave and give the Republicans everything they want, as he has done in the past.

Secondly, it is remarkable that John Boehner is indicating that he will not compromise with the president on the tax cuts. That was, of course, the position of Mitt Romney, who lost the election. Boehner and the Republicans lost, and yet they will nevertheless attempt to force down our throats that which (presumably) most of us do not want. Boehner's confidence that he can do this is an indication that he, too, believes the president will back down.

[JayHawk]

Obama doesn't have to stand strong for long.

January First and taxes are raised on everyone above 250K... then they push a bill cutting taxes for the rest. People already believe that republicans will be the reason taxes go up so they will get the blame and then be painted into a corner of obstructing tax cuts for Americans....

I think we are about to see fuck you Obama for a strength policy towards irrational pugs. he said he learned from trying to give them bones last time around...


we will see. I certainly hope he stands his ground.

[gewhite3]

Obama doesn't have to stand strong for long.

January First and taxes are raised on everyone above 250K... then they push a bill cutting taxes for the rest. People already believe that republicans will be the reason taxes go up so they will get the blame and then be painted into a corner of obstructing tax cuts for Americans....

I think we are about to see fuck you Obama for a strength policy towards irrational pugs. he said he learned from trying to give them bones last time around...


we will see. I certainly hope he stands his ground.

You read my mind on that one. This is EXACTLY what I hope happens.

[BostonPirate]

Boehner was offered a deal of 800 billion in revenue increases and he turned it down last year. Earlier this year the president offered a bill that raised revenue to 1.2 trillion, Fifty percent more, before the election and made it a central theme of his campaign.

Today He offered Boehner a deal of 1.6 trillion in revenue hikes.

Now two things are clear here....

one? It would have served Boehners cause to have taken the first offer. Now Boehner has to argue against double of what he almost had, and his backis against a wall held there by the Majority of Americans who voted in this election.

Two? Obama goes Up not down with every offer, and if Boehner and the repubs don't grab that 1,2 trillion deal waiting for a vote that the senate passed and the president promised to sign, they are going to have to agree to higher tax rates in a grand bargain.

Obama isn't going anywhere on this one, and no matter what happens, no matter what choice the GOP makes, it will be hated for doing it.

I heard a saying..... Elections having repercussions... something like that

[palbert]

It is impossible to negotiate from an inflexible position -- how does one do that? -- and maintain credibility.

[BostonPirate]

It is impossible to negotiate from an inflexible position -- how does one do that? -- and maintain credibility.

They can revive any past bill that has not been voted on. He is not being inflexible, he is letting the GOP know that they can do better than the 1.6 trillion if they just take one vote on one bill currently waiting on the speakers desk.

IF they want the cheaper deal, it's best they hurry that one through before the new congress convenes, and the bill dies.

[Jack Springer]

I still think the republicans should give him the tax increase he wants for people making over $250,000/year -- and call his bluff -- include nothing else in the bill.

Obama has sold the tax increase to the "rich" as solving all the economic problems of the USA. He even pushed it several times in his press conference today.

I hope that the House would pass it today and Obama sign immediately. Let the prosperity begin.

[ReadyWithReadyWit]

it's not complicated

it's an arbitrary figure that doesn't reflect real life - and isn't indexed to reflect cost of living in big cities vs. smaller ones

tim kaine and many other dems agree

in fact IMO it'll probably get raised before this is done - and that'd be a good thing

just not popular with the crazies

the cost of living is pretty high bankside - where do u live?

a family making 250k with kids and a house, etc. - isn't necessarily "rich"

a small business with earnings of 250k ........ isn't necessarily "rich"

but don't ask me

ask key democrats

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/65272.html

I think you raise a lot of interesting points. On small business, I tend to agree... that seems like a pretty rough cutoff if no incentives are added to promote small business growth.

I tend to disagree on family income though... I think that households making $250k are indeed necessarily rich. While I understand that "rich" is an ill-defined term, I think it is pretty safe to say that a household making more than 98% of other households is indeed "rich" by any reasonable stretch of the imagination... not "yacht rich"... but certainly not struggling to pay the bills. I find it a little amusing that everyone considers themselves part of the "middle class" regardless of income.



Cost of living considerations is a tricky topic. The reason being that places like NY, SF, and DC are not just randomly more expensive... they are more expensive because people actually want to live there and are paying a surcharge to do so... they are intrinsically "getting something" out of paying more. So... in a way... it is their choice... they could certainly choose to move to Houston (and secede apparently), for example, if they wanted to. I do somewhat catch your drift about tax policy exacerbating this surcharge, but:
1.) Even indexing for some of the highest costs of living, a household making $250k is still better off than roughly 90% of the population.
2.) You really expect the gov't to reach this level of sophistication?

Finally, I want to reiterate a point I've made elsewhere... the tax code is progressive... something that Chuck Schumer, this article and peeps in generally love to ignore:

“In the eyes of many, it is hard to ask more of households making $250,000 or $300,000 a year...”

Well... actually can we guess how much taxes would increase for households making $250k? That's right... zero. And for $300k... that's right... they would only increase on the last $50k. The ironic thing is that I would imagine a lot of House members have salaries lingering in the "rich" but not "yacht rich" category...

[rareboy]

Obama is right in that a tax increase on the rich would help cover the deficits this country is facing. This is proven. Lets make capital gains tax the same as income tax. Tax capital gains at a level of 25-30%. The snarky attitude isn't winning points here, Jack.

Oh god.

And the 2nd 4 year term hasn't even started.

[gewhite3]

Obama has sold the tax increase to the "rich" as solving all the economic problems of the USA.

No, he didn't. You're delusional.

[Benvolio]

No, he didn't. You're delusional.

The House has approved a bill to extend the Bush tax cuts. The Dems have two choices. 1. Pass and sign the extension bill, or 2. Be soley responsible for the largest middle class tax increase in memory.

- - - Updated - - -

No, he didn't. You're delusional.

The House has approved a bill to extend the Bush tax cuts. The Dems have two choices. 1. Pass and sign the extension bill, or 2. Be soley responsible for the largest middle class tax increase in memory.

[BostonPirate]

The House has approved a bill to extend the Bush tax cuts. The Dems have two choices. 1. Pass and sign the extension bill, or 2. Be soley responsible for the largest middle class tax increase in memory.

Apparently you are having a hard time understanding what the repercussions of an election mean.

You have been consistently incorrect. Why continue to make statements on your personal wishes and likes? Everytime you are proven wrong it looks worse for you.

Can't you just ignore the pundits and consider something with your own internal critical thinking?

[Jack Springer]

Obama is right in that a tax increase on the rich would help cover the deficits this country is facing. This is proven. Lets make capital gains tax the same as income tax. Tax capital gains at a level of 25-30%. The snarky attitude isn't winning points here, Jack.

It's not snarky. I want people to see how little the tax hike would actually be.

- - - Updated - - -

No, he didn't. You're delusional.

You don't listen to your dear leader.

[gewhite3]

OK, fine. If he said what you claim, post a link. He never said that it was the answer to ALL of our economic problems. I think you're hearing what you want to hear, like I said, delusional.

[TX-Beau]

I suppose that we are going to have to take on the whackjob right's HORROR OF HORRORS!!

SOMETIMES tax hikes are NECESSARY!!!

ARRRRRRRGGHHHHHHHH!

Especially when trying to pay for republican wars, republican deficits and the HUGE FUCKING GRAFT profiting their republican friends. Those idiots wanted to spend, they did, now there's nothing left but to pay the bill. and yes that includes the rich.

All you suckers on the right bought their lies as they did it, you still apparently want to live in their bubble, so sorry sucks for you, time to pay the piper, WHINE all you want. Revenues must go up, and no "loopholes," won't fucking cut it.

SUCK IT THE FUCK UP!

[maxpowr9]

This is kind of why I hope the "suicide pact" (I'm sick of the phrase "fiscal cliff") actually happens. I have no complaints in paying more taxes.

[TX-Beau]

We need to be paying more taxes, and then we need to make sure we don't elect idiots who do this again.

I see no problem going back to the tax structure under Clinton, remember that, no Apocalypse and SURPLUSES!

[JayHawk]

I agree maxpwr... fuck it drive the Republican Miss Daisies right off the cliff... the American people have already determined who is to blame... the party that lost and will still try to obstruction as a ploy....

[chance1]

Yeah the govt. is just so good at allocating funds to the right places

[BostonPirate]

I think what people here are not remembering about the tax bill is that one hundred percent of all americans get the bush rates on their first 250,000 earned, no matter how much you earn after that.

We also need to remember that the proposition is just for one year, not ten, like the bush tax cuts. New tax rates will have to be renegotiated next year.

[TX-Beau]

Yeah the govt. is just so good at allocating funds to the right places

The Pub government turned out to be VERY good at allocating funds to the right, so glad YOU agree!!

[maxpowr9]

I agree maxpwr... fuck it drive the Republican Miss Daisies right off the cliff... the American people have already determined who is to blame... the party that lost and will still try to obstruction as a ploy....

If you actually look at the brokered deal, "fiscal cliff" is a misnomer. A cliff implies an edge which it is not, only the tax part is. The spending cuts actually have a rollout (or gradual for laymen) effect. The cuts get deeper the longer they go on but are light at the top.

[BostonPirate]

If you actually look at the brokered deal, "fiscal cliff" is a misnomer. A cliff implies an edge which it is not, only the tax part is. The spending cuts actually have a rollout (or gradual for laymen) effect. The cuts get deeper the longer they go on but are light at the top.

we're good for six months with no major effects, but that's pushing it.

If the taxes go up across the board that will take about a one percent bite out of GDP, and that would translate to about two percentage points higher in unemployment... that's the vulgar numbers off the top of my head.

The CBO estimates by the end of the year, if no new tax plan is passed and sequestration is not stopped, that the GDP would drop by four percent, and unemployment would go above 9 percent again.

[JayHawk]

If you actually look at the brokered deal, "fiscal cliff" is a misnomer. A cliff implies an edge which it is not, only the tax part is. The spending cuts actually have a rollout (or gradual for laymen) effect. The cuts get deeper the longer they go on but are light at the top.

we're good for six months with no major effects, but that's pushing it.

If the taxes go up across the board that will take about a one percent bite out of GDP, and that would translate to about two percentage points higher in unemployment... that's the vulgar numbers off the top of my head.

The CBO estimates by the end of the year, if no new tax plan is passed and sequestration is not stopped, that the GDP would drop by four percent, and unemployment would go above 9 percent again.

I agree with both but another portion people seem to constantly leave out yet republicans have no problem holding hostage are the unemployment benefits currently funded. There is a hard shut off of benefits that currently assist 2 million people. That is a lot of suffer and that is a cliff. One day there the next day gone. The other portion of the cliff is the across the boards mandatory cuts to every program. That is significant because like Romney's intended defense spending a cut like that has no sense or thought associated. It is a cliff .

SO it is more than just taxes. But our congress is so fucking dysfunctional I have worked my entire career from October to at least January with no budget to work off of so i know at least defense knows how to spread things so to keep the ball rolling. I guarantee the unemployment benefits will be held hostage by the soulless right.

[Kulindahr]

We'll see won't we. Small businesses do not pay income taxes.

Um, they don't pay personal income taxes.

Plus I fucking agree that Romney et all should be AT LEAST paying the same percentage I do.

Absolutely. We need a minimum rate law for everyone above the median income.

Obama has sold the tax increase to the "rich" as solving all the economic problems of the USA. He even pushed it several times in his press conference today.

Citation, or this goes down as another lie.

[Kulindahr]

I think you raise a lot of interesting points. On small business, I tend to agree... that seems like a pretty rough cutoff if no incentives are added to promote small business growth.

If your business is big enough to pay you a salary of $250k, I don't see how it can be "small".

The thing is, only 3% of "small businesses" are even affected by the proposal, and 99% of those are "small" only by a quirk of law.

I suppose that we are going to have to take on the whackjob right's HORROR OF HORRORS!!

SOMETIMES tax hikes are NECESSARY!!!

Yep -- just ask Ronald Reagan.

[Kulindahr]

To those who think an income of $250k doesn't make you rich: it definitely does.

According to the federal government, $9600/yr is sufficient to live on. For a family of four, call it $40k. So after taxes and living expenses, the family has around $150 to do something else with.

In ten years, they could have a house paid for, serious medical savings accounts, and hefty accounts for two college educations.


Of course, some might want to argue with the federal government....

[Rickrock]

I have always made under $40,000 per year. I have heard of people making less. I realize that there could be people more qualified than I, but I consider anyone making over $125,000 to be rich. If two people in a household made that, it would be $250,000. I know that whatever you make never seems like enough, but I have a hard time coming up with sympathy for people making more than I do. I know that the cost of liviing is higher on the east and west coasts, but that is at least partially because people are willing and able to pay that. If they weren't willing or able to pay that, costs wouldn't be so high. We can't go backwords and reduce costs without hurting someone, but until I am there, I have only luke warm sympathy for them. We need to raise taxes. As far as small businesses are concerned, I would expect them to have some kind of business write-offs on their tax bills.

[TX-Beau]

I wouldn't. small business which are NOT the problem need to pay thier share as well AS DO huge corporations.

No one likes taxes. But it's time to stop listening to the whiny baby selfish tantrum throwing man-children on the right about them also.

[opinterph]

We'll see won't we. Small businesses do not pay income taxes.

Maybe that depends on how you look at it.

http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-...S-Corporations

If your business is big enough to pay you a salary of $250k, I don't see how it can be "small".

All things are relative.

As far as small businesses are concerned, I would expect them to have some kind of business write-offs on their tax bills.

Absolutely. Cost of Goods Sold (COGS) and various other allowable expenses are subtracted from Gross Revenue before determining Taxable Income.

[chance1]

I think what people here are not remembering about the tax bill is that one hundred percent of all americans get the bush rates on their first 250,000 earned, no matter how much you earn after that.

We also need to remember that the proposition is just for one year, not ten, like the bush tax cuts. New tax rates will have to be renegotiated next year.

i think readywithreadywit already said that - look up

[ReadyWithReadyWit]

If your business is big enough to pay you a salary of $250k, I don't see how it can be "small".

The thing is, only 3% of "small businesses" are even affected by the proposal, and 99% of those are "small" only by a quirk of law.

Yeah... you raise a good point. This is true... I actually posted something similar elsewhere. So... I guess I will expand my case to include "medium business" as well ... in essence... any business that is still in the "rapidly growing phase"... and is actually pressed to hire people should be incentivized to do so if unemployment is indeed a serious concern. So...I guess I'm saying I wouldn't be as opposed to raising the tax cutoff somewhat for business (or, better yet, directly incentivizing hiring... especially full time employees) as I would be for individuals/households.

[evanrick]

They have already done polls showing that Americans will blame the GOP if a deal is not reached. Not hard to figure out why.


Not my words, America spoke on election day but some clearly are willfully ignorant.

[Benvolio]

The Constitution says all revenue bills must originate in the House, and the voters elected a Republican House. Clearly a mandate not to raise taxes.

[BostonPirate]

i think readywithreadywit already said that - look up

Then when you post, don't pretend that everyone is not getting a tax cut bellow the number chosen.

Keep pretending its not there, and I will keep repeating that it is.

getting bored yet?

[MisterB]

They have already done polls showing that Americans will blame the GOP if a deal is not reached. Not hard to figure out why.


Not my words, America spoke on election day but some clearly are willfully ignorant.

This is the reality that the Repubs and a few here just won't accept. It would be sad if it weren't so funny....Bless Their Hearts!

[BostonPirate]

They have already done polls showing that Americans will blame the GOP if a deal is not reached. Not hard to figure out why.


Not my words, America spoke on election day but some clearly are willfully ignorant.

See below. I heard a discussion yesterday that the problem the GOP is having right now, Isn't so much changing direction and keeping their elected officials in on the tax hike.... the problem they are having is that they have to retrain the GOP voters. These people are now stuck, mentally entrenched, so to speak.

see example below:

The Constitution says all revenue bills must originate in the House, and the voters elected a Republican House. Clearly a mandate not to raise taxes.

The GOP had it's ass handed to it in any imagineable way possible. IF the House had not recently been gerrymandered, they would have lost that as well.

HOOOray for the team. You get the house on technical manipulation that the general voters don't follow.

The House has the responsibility to produce a bill that will get the senate's majority vote, and the president's signature. The point of legislation is not to make bills that doomed to fail, it is to create a bill that can pass all the OTHER parts of the government.

If they can't do this, then they will be tossed out in the midterm elections.

The GOP is going to be obedient on this one, because Obama finally seems to have found the Bully Pulpit, and he is willing now to call congressmen out by name for unnaceptable behavior.

Obama, as we recently found out, won by a landslide by all acounts, and has the full endorsement of the People of the nation to get these parasites in the House to work for a paycheck and produce bills that will get through the process.

If you can't manage the process of legislation, then you need to not be in charge of legislating.

Thanks for once again stepping up and hanging the economy around the GOP house of reps necks. It's served you so well

[Kulindahr]

Yeah... you raise a good point. This is true... I actually posted something similar elsewhere. So... I guess I will expand my case to include "medium business" as well ... in essence... any business that is still in the "rapidly growing phase"... and is actually pressed to hire people should be incentivized to do so if unemployment is indeed a serious concern. So...I guess I'm saying I wouldn't be as opposed to raising the tax cutoff somewhat for business (or, better yet, directly incentivizing hiring... especially full time employees) as I would be for individuals/households.

I presume you remember that my position on purely domestic businesses is that they shouldn't have to pay more than a couple of percent in federal taxes, and those solely within a single state should pay none.

I'd even go for allowing a certain amount to be put into a reserve account each year, tax free.

[Kulindahr]

The House has the responsibility to produce a bill that will get the senate's majority vote, and the president's signature. The point of legislation is not to make bills that doomed to fail, it is to create a bill that can pass all the OTHER parts of the government.
. . . .
If you can't manage the process of legislation, then you need to not be in charge of legislating.

That's a good point. The responsibility of Congress is to actually legislate, not to merely pile up binders full of bills.

[Benvolio]

No, clearly the framers of the Consttution intended that the House would lead on revenue, not the Senate or the President. It is not the duty of the House to follow the Senate nor to rubber stamp profligate spending.

[jackoroe]

The House has the responsibility to produce a bill that will get the senate's majority vote, and the president's signature. The point of legislation is not to make bills that doomed to fail, it is to create a bill that can pass all the OTHER parts of the government.

They have no such obligation. The objective of our legislative system is not to facilitate legislation but to prevent it in keeping with the founders intent of limited government. Think about all the ways legislation can be derailed. That's not by accident.

[BostonPirate]

That's a good point. The responsibility of Congress is to actually legislate, not to merely pile up binders full of bills.

right

Legislators legislate. When they convince their minions that their job as legislators is to NOT legislate then you KNOW how pathetic both they, and the rank and file GOP members of the party of Mud are.