Corvette Forum : DigitalCorvettes.com Corvette Forums banner

1 - 20 of 55 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,277 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Obama will not extend Bush tax cuts to wealthy.

Congressional Democrats have been waiting for signal before showdown




Just In

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39049387/ns/politics-the_new_york_times/


WASHINGTON — President Obama will rule out on Wednesday any compromise that would extend the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy beyond this year, officials said, adding a populist twist to an election-season economic package that is otherwise designed to entice support from big businesses and their Republican allies.




Mr. Obama’s opposition to allowing the high-end tax cuts to remain in place for even another year or two would be the signal many Congressional Democrats have been awaiting as they prepare for a showdown with Republicans on the issue and ends speculation that the White House might be open to an extension.




Democrats say only the president can rally wavering lawmakers who, amid the party’s weakened poll numbers, feel increasingly vulnerable to Republican attacks if they let the top rates lapse at the end of this year as scheduled.

It is not clear that Mr. Obama can prevail given his own diminished popularity, the tepid nature of the economic recovery and the divisions within his party.

But by proposing to extend the rates for the 98 percent of households with income below $250,000 for couples and $200,000 for individuals — and insisting that federal income tax rates in 2011 go back to their 2001 levels for income above those cutoffs — he intends to cast the issue as a choice between supporting the middle class or giving breaks to the wealthy.

In a speech in Cleveland on Wednesday, Mr. Obama also will make a case for the package of roughly $180 billion in expanded business tax cuts and infrastructure spending disclosed by the White House in bits and pieces over the past few days.

He would offset the cost by closing other tax breaks for multinational corporations, oil and gas companies and others.


While the speech will be centrist in its policy prescriptions other than the Bush tax cuts, Mr. Obama’s language will be partisan as he seeks to sharpen the contrasts between Republicans’ record and efforts by Democrats to create more jobs, aides said.

White House officials have strenuously avoided labeling the proposal a second stimulus plan, a phrase that has taken on negative political connotations since the original roughly $800 billion recovery plan and subsequent additions have failed to push unemployment down substantially.



But it would provide his party with an agenda for the home stretch of the midterm campaign — though one with small chance of being enacted quickly or helping the economy before Election Day if it were.



The two major pieces of the package — expanding and making permanent a popular credit for businesses’ research and experimentation expenses, and allowing them to write off the full value of new equipment purchases through 2011 — are ones that have longstanding Republican and corporate support.

The administration calculated that the package had to be attractive to Republicans and business groups if it has any chance of passage in the short time Congress will be in session before going home to campaign.






Politically, however, the president in effect is daring Republicans to oppose the plan ....

... in that way proving Democrats’ contention that they will block even their own ideas to deny Mr. Obama any victories.

And by proposing business tax breaks that, according to nonpartisan analyses, would do more to stimulate the economy than extending the Bush tax rates for the wealthy, Mr. Obama hopes to buttress Democrats’ opposition to extending those rates.

With its tilt toward business tax cuts, the package that Mr. Obama is proposing risks discouraging liberals in his party who want more spending for projects that provide jobs, especially for a construction industry still staggered by the collapse of the housing boom.

They are not likely to be satisfied by another of the president’s proposals – to provide $50 billion immediately to build roads, air traffic control systems, waterways and more, and, for the long term, to create a national infrastructure bank — another bipartisan idea — that would leverage federal money with state, local and private-sector investments to finance projects.





In any case, the administration acknowledges that its blueprint might not pass before Election Day, or even in the lameduck Congress afterward.

“This is about long-term economic growth,” Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, said on Tuesday.

“This isn’t about the next 60 days or the next 90 days.

This is about how do we get our economy fully back on track, how do we get the millions that want to work back to work, and how do we repair the economic damage that’s been going on not just over the past two years but over the past 10 years.”





Republicans’ early reactions were hostile, especially to Mr. Obama’s proposals to close corporate tax loopholes to offset any costs.

“If the offsets for this new package are other tax increases, then it’s a non-starter,” Senator Charles E. Grassley, a senior Republican from Iowa, said in a statement.

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former director of the Congressional Budget Office and an adviser to Republicans, predicted in an interview that “nothing is going to happen between now and the election,” except perhaps for passage of a separate administration package of tax cuts and lending for small businesses.

Senate Republicans had been blocking that legislation.





Nigel Gault, chief economist for IHS/Global Insight, an economics consulting firm, said he likes both the infrastructure and R&D proposals but, “they’re not going to kick-start the economy.”

He and other economists questioned why the administration is not proposing a major payroll tax cut to spur hiring.

The White House considered the idea, according to officials, but dismissed it in part because it would reduce revenues to Social Security and Medicare.





Video Inside ~ Tax Cuts vs. Stimulus


 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,914 Posts
If he does not... and the economy worsens... he will be lame for the remainder of his presidency. Peter Orzac wrote a scathing column in the NY Times, on the mistake of not extending the Tax cuts. Christina Romer said essentially the same -and that they made the wrong decision with the targeted stimulus spending on 18% of the economy.

This gets little play... and is huge. Nobody in this current administration understands economics... let alone what progresses it.

Shame.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,858 Posts
If he does not... and the economy worsens... he will be lame for the remainder of his presidency. Peter Orzac wrote a scathing column in the NY Times, on the mistake of not extending the Tax cuts. Christina Romer said essentially the same -and that they made the wrong decision with the targeted stimulus spending on 18% of the economy.

This gets little play... and is huge. Nobody in this current administration understands economics... let alone what progresses it.

Shame.


REMEMBER The Year 2008?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,410 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,914 Posts
REMEMBER The Year 2008?
Yes.. -it was right after 2007... 2007 was the start of the recession. 2007 was the year the democrats told us not to worry... their affirmative action program in home ownership... presented no danger. Freddie and Fannie and Sally Mae and NEAMIA... were the wave of a very bright future in equality.

Do you remember 2008 ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,206 Posts
This gets little play... and is huge. Nobody in this current administration understands economics... let alone what progresses it.

Shame.
What do you expect, I can not think of a single prosperous company run by a left liberal Democrate. All of the White house advisors have never had a job out side of government.There is no way any of Obama's team understand how buisness works. They just know the "man" has too much money and its not fair that the rich get richer while the poor wait for lower and lower handouts:crazy:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,253 Posts
What do you expect, I can not think of a single prosperous company run by a left liberal Democrate. All of the White house advisors have never had a job out side of government.There is no way any of Obama's team understand how buisness works. They just know the "man" has too much money and its not fair that the rich get richer while the poor wait for lower and lower handouts:crazy:
When the rich stop getting richer, everyone will be in deep doo-doo. There has never been a time when the rich sufferred and the poor and middle did better. Instead of constantly bashing the rich, we should be rooting for them. It's the best chance for the rest of us to do better.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,206 Posts
Whats really gonna be fun st watch, is when all the lefties start flopping around like a dying fish when Barry finally flip flops and starts instituting Reagonomics to save his presidency. You know it and I know it and deep down Barry knows it too. He will just have to decide that his presidency (to him) is bigger than George Sorros beliefs:lookinup:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,914 Posts
What do you expect
This is exactly what I expected. This is exactly what I/we predicted the outcome would be.

The real question is... -What did they expect would happen when you put a street activist in office that taught a little law, idealized Alinsky... and has never sold so much as a hot dog - in order to get a better understanding of economics.

Hillary would have "far and away" been the better choice.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,476 Posts
Hillary would have "far and away" been the better choice.
But......she's not BLACK enough. :laughing:

I still say.....if Obama where the inexperienced WHITE Junior Senator from IL, Hillary would have wiped her ass with him and we would now have First Man William J. Clinton.

:nuts:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,858 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,914 Posts
The purveyor of all three of those sure did.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,858 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,410 Posts
Sure wasn’t Health Care Reform, Wall Street Reform or Stimulus Packages. :D
Those were 2009 and 2010. Correct?

In 2008? :laughing:
vf's response is more than accurate...
Yes.. -it was right after 2007... 2007 was the start of the recession. 2007 was the year the democrats told us not to worry... their affirmative action program in home ownership... presented no danger. Freddie and Fannie and Sally Mae and NEAMIA... were the wave of a very bright future in equality.

Do you remember 2008 ?
Mortgage Backed Securities crashed due to an inordinate amount of foreclosures catalyzed by Barney Frank and Chris Dodd's mismanagement as chairmen of the Banking Commission.

Do you REMEMBER that?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,914 Posts
Was Obama not part of all those issues while he was a senator ? Were they not being pushed by his and the democrats, ideology. You act as though this is some new progressive thought process... brought on with Obamas inauguration.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,410 Posts
Was Obama not part of all those issues while he was a senator ? Were they not being pushed by his and the democrats, ideology. You act as though this is some new progressive thought process... brought on with Obamas inauguration.
It was, for him, apparently.
That's why revisionism works so well with his ilk. :thumbsup:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,277 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
In Ohio, Obama defends tax stance, slams GOP.

President takes aim at House GOP leader in Cleveland speech



Just In


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39056696/ns/politics-decision_2010/



President Barack Obama strongly defended his opposition to extending Bush-era tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans on Wednesday and delivered a searing attack on Republicans and their House leader for advocating "the same philosophy that led to this mess in the first place."



Obama said the struggling U.S. economy can't afford to spend $700 billion to keep lower tax rates in place for the nation's highest earners despite a call by House Minority Leader John Boehner and other GOP leaders to do just that.
Speaking in the same city where Boehner, an Ohio Republican, recently ridiculed Obama's economic stewardship, Obama said Boehner's policies amount to no more than "cut more taxes for millionaires and cut more rules for corporations."



Obama's comments came as the administration rolled out new proposals designed to re-ignite a sputtering recovery, including new tax breaks for businesses and $50 billion for U.S. roads, rails and airports.

..."Let me be clear to Mr. Boehner and everyone else.
We should not hold middle class tax cuts hostage any longer," the president said.
The administration "is ready this week to give tax cuts to every American making $250,000 or less," he said.

The sweeping series of Bush tax cuts expires at the end of this year unless Congress renews them.
Obama wants to extend the tax cuts except for individuals making over $200,000 a year or families earning over $250,000.

Obama painted Republican criticisms of the current Democratic administration as purely political.
"They're making the same calculation they made just before the inauguration: if I fail, they win," he said.




Boehner leads GOP charge

Boehner, who has endorsed a two-year freeze on all tax rates and a cut in government spending to 2008 levels, responded to the president's speech by pointing to a series of suggestions proposed by Obama's former budget chief, Peter Orszag, in a New York Times op-ed Monday.

"If the president is serious about finally focusing on jobs, a good start would be taking the advice of his recently departed budget director and freezing all tax rates, coupled with cutting federal spending to where it was before all the bailouts, government takeovers, and 'stimulus' spending sprees," he said in a statement.

Earlier Wednesday, in an interview on ABC's "Good Morning America," Boehner touted his freeze-and-cut roadmap to recovery, saying the biggest problem currently is that companies are reluctant to hire new people because of "uncertainty facing small businesses."




Wary GOP

Republican leaders are skeptical about Obama's proposals, saying they are reluctant to back more spending because the $814 billion stimulus Obama got through Congress in early 2009 has not had the desired effect.

Polls show deep public skepticism about the stimulus plan, and White House officials have proven reluctant to even use the word "stimulus" — saying repeatedly Obama's new proposals are not another stimulus program, but rather a set of proposals.

Economists said the new plans could provide a modest burst of activity in a slow-growth economy, but the risk is that they would only pull forward investments, which would do little to alter a sluggish growth trajectory and spur hiring to alleviate the 9.6 percent unemployment rate.

The White House says the eventual cost of accelerating the $200 billion in tax write-offs would be $30 billion, because businesses would eventually deduct the depreciation of their equipment, bringing the total value of the different programs to $180 billion — or more — over time.

An administration official said the $50 billion in infrastructure spending would be in the first year, with more possible, depending on discussions with Congress.

The discussion has taken on all the trappings of a heated political campaign.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs openly acknowledged Cleveland was selected as the venue for Obama's speech Wednesday because Boehner had made a speech there late last month calling on Obama to fire his economic team.




 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,914 Posts
Democrats support extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich

The lines between the two major political parties are getting increasingly blurred. After fighting against the Bush tax cuts, Democrats are now lining up to support extending them for the rich. In a July 21 interview, Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND), chair of the Senate’s budget committee, weighed in stating, “The general rule of thumb would be you'd not want to do tax changes, tax increases ... until the recovery is on more solid ground.”

This opinion is being echoed on both sides of the aisle, even though it conflicts with concerns expressed over the federal deficit. Deficit focused Republicans recently fought the extension of unemployment benefits because the $34 billion price tag was not offset with spending cuts. But now those same “leaders” are fighting for a $678 billion reduction in revenue by maintaining the Bush cuts for the top 2% of Americans.

To support their case, Republicans claim that “tax cuts pay for themselves.” Of course, nobody actually believes this — not even those who say it’s so.

In a 2005 Congressional Budget Office study looking at the impact of an across-the-board 10% tax cut, the CBO estimated that the BEST CASE return was an offset of 22% of the lost revenue over the first 5 years and 32% over the second 5 year period. Their more conservative assumptions concluded that the offset over the first 5 year period would be only 1%, and that the second period would actually experience a 5% increase in the loss.

Mark Zandi, head economist for Moody’s, provided analysis in 2009 that supports a similar conclusion. His study of the Fiscal Stimulus of 2008 showed that general tax cuts would only increase the GDP by $1.03 for every dollar cut. That increase in GDP could return no more than $0.36 in tax revenues. The bottom line is that while economists might debate whether or when tax cuts are good for the economy, they virtually all agree that cuts don’t pay for themselves.

But where tax cuts have questionable impact, the same is not true of government spending. In contrast to the weak stimulus provided by tax cuts, the Zandi study concluded that an extension of unemployment benefits would grow the GDP by $1.63 for every dollar spent, and every dollar of increased infrastructure spending would return $1.59.

Our nation is in dire economic straits. We’re currently experiencing a jobless recovery. We need jobs, and the empirical evidence is clear — tax cuts don’t create jobs; direct public investment does. If the deficit can be ignored in order to give the rich a tax break, why wouldn’t deficit spending be appropriate to actually stimulate the economy?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,410 Posts
I watched it. Another grandstanding campaign speech designed to invigorate his 'base' with no real content or plan, especially no attempt at the 'bi-partisanship' he himself claims the GOP lacks.

All filled with distortions of the truth and a helping of self-fallation as to his abilities.

All the cheerleading in the world isn't going to help significantly.
 
1 - 20 of 55 Posts
Top