Complete and utter BS - Obama will not roll back the Bush tax cuts

[mymessageboardid]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081123/pl_nm/us_usa_obama_taxes

Seems now that they will just wait and let them expire in 2 years. They don't want to "burden" anyone during this economic crisis. Jesus Fucking Christ, I feel like I'm hearing Faux News talking points. What the hell is going on here? I didn't volunteer a total of 131 hours of my life in the final month of the campaign to continue Bush policies.

:grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr:


Sorry if this has been posted. I didn't see it on the first page.

[eyesroll]

1. Where are you getting "will not?"

I see a "may delay" and a "may consider."

[PeaceNikki]

17. Also curious about this.

[Radical Activist]

118. And if nothing else, in two years.

A lot of bellyaching in this OP.

[Lost-in-FL]

2. Better than more bailouts. nt

[dailykoff]

64. Those are coming. The economic "team of rivals" just hasn't finished

updating their stationery. :puke:

[ChairmanAgnostic]

3. tis healthiest to avoid all MSM outlets for the moment.

the regional GOP folks are out in farce, trying to persuade us that we are center-reich, that we did not vote for change, and that Obama needs to move to the center. AND they post rumors intended to box in Obama. Like this one.

[Truth2Tell]

4. Welcome to the Wall Street ruled world of Lawrence Summers. nt

[tabatha]

5. Do you think Obama wants to be failure?

Obama is going to do what is BEST for the country. No IFs or BUTs.

I think people are finding it hard to get out of whining mode after eight years.

[mymessageboardid]

10. So...................

You don't think that tax cuts for millionaires should be rolled back when Senator Obama comes into office, like he stated everyday during his campaign? Don't you think we need that revenue? Wasn't that supposed to pay for the tax cuts for the middle class??? So where does that money come from now??

[Window]

92. He said he'd let them expire in 2010 while campaigning.

[bobbolink]

32. Talk about whining..... snide and critical comments about other DUers is popular "whining" in these

parts.

Must be nice to feel so superior.

:crazy:

[Two Americas]

38. whining?

Is that what all we have been doing the past 8 years, in your view?

[roguevalley]

39. sorry if I find the idea of Paris Hilton getting a tax cut over my fucking

body 'whining'. If this is true, then economic justice is never going to happen.

[SammyWinstonJack]

75. Two more years of tax giveaways to the richest among us, while the rest struggle to survive.

There's some "economic justice" for ya. :eyes:

[roguevalley]

114. I just can't understand it unless those zillionaires he has around

him now are telling him one thing and meaning another. I don't know. I just know I would like to see *SOME* justice before I die for someone. Seeing people go hungry and seeing people who have no home every day makes me sick.

[SammyWinstonJack]

129. I don't understand it either, rouge.

:shrug:

[mymessageboardid]

42. "Whining" huh?

Well, it's not just bloggers and message board posters from DU that "whine" about things like this. I am a lifelong friend of the person who headed one of Senator Obama's largest Northern Virginia campaign offices. That is the person who forwarded me that link with a three paragraph rant.

[Breeze54]

48. It's best that we forget about Health Care for the many to enrichen the few?!

:wtf:

What a crock!!!

[girl gone mad]

84. since when are Bush's tax cuts what's best for the country? n/t

[BlueJazz]

6. Yep...I'm both Surprised and pissed-off about that whole deal.... Especially..

...when one of my rich clients just spent $17,400.00 on their 11 year-old son for Xmas.

Duh...I think that just Maybe they can afford to pay a little more Taxes... :mad:

[lamp_shade]

7. Off With His Head.

[Triana]

8. Um. I believe that's what Obama said he'd do in the first place - let them expire.

? He said that time and time again throughout the campaign.

Ya'll are being manipulated by the media. They're trying to turn people against Obama. Or, at the very least, they're full of horse-shit.

The lame$tream media usually is.

[mymessageboardid]

12. No, he said ROLL BACK

Reverse them, ROLL BACK. Not sit around for 2 years and "let them expire" BS. Did you ever here him say "Yes, I will let the Bush tax cuts expire in 2 years...." ???

[gblady]

15. yes....

over and over and over!

[Triana]

16. I do believe I heard him say that at least once. (ie: let them expire). n/t

[pnwmom]

29. And now he's saying "may consider." Which means he's keeping his

options open, in case the financial crisis demands this flexibility.

[cali]

99. actually, he's said repeatedly that he'd let them expire.

sorry you didn't pay attention.

[Warren Stupidity]

9. Relax. Raising taxes in a recession is a bad idea.

So it won't happen for two years. Right now the number one domestic priority of the Obama administration is to prevent this deepening economic crisis from turning into a 1930's style Great Depression. We are about to blow a 1,000,000,000,000 deficit over this shit - a keynesian intervention if there ever was one - and not raising anyone's taxes right now is part of that pile of stimulus/debt. Hopefully it will work and midterm some sort of fiscal stability will actually be possible.

[Oregone]

36. Raising the corporate tax rate in a recession to obscene amounts can stimulate economic growth

It is a false meme that is will cause a significant and hampering burden

[Warren Stupidity]

43. That is a separate issue

this was not a discussion of the merits of corporate tax policy, it was about the merits of raising individual income tax rates on anybody right now. But why exactly would raising corporate tax rates be a good thing going into a recession?

[Oregone]

101. It discourages the businesses from generating profits (which is a good thing)

Yes, this sounds counter-intuitive, but that is because "Trickle-Down" philosophy has re-written the logic of economics as we know it.

Corporations' main function is to generate wealth for their shareholders. Their primary method of doing so *now* is to create profits (earnings that are not utilized for business function). With such profits, they distribute to their shareholders via dividends and repurchase outstanding shares (thus raising the price of the remaining shares). For example, 57% of earnings in 2007 for Exxon were used for dividends and repurchase (this is from profits), whereas only 6% or so was utilized for research and infrastructure development (which is not profit, but rather, business investment which is not taxed).

When the corporate tax rate is low, businesses have less incentive to invest internally into their own business, because private shareholder wealth can be generated most easily by sending earnings directly to shareholders. By raising price points, cutting labor, creating inferior products, and other cost-cutting methods, shareholders stand to gain a lot of wealth in the short term from corporations they have a stake in, as long as those measure create short-term profits.

But, if a corporate tax rate suggests that $9 out of $10 dollars go to the government, it becomes almost pointless to generate a profit. Instead, a business can spend all these earnings to hire and pay workers more, invest in better health-care/retirement, develop better products, strengthen infrastructure, advertise/brand, attain other assets/subsidiaries, research and improve efficiency, etc. So, if Exxon spent that 57% of the earnings as additional business investment (instead of boosting private wealth), they would have strengthened their business, and hence, naturally raised share prices. In fact, being that they only spent 6% of the earnings on research/infrastructure, it could be asserted that 63% of earnings on such would have created a hyper state of growth, and shares would of split countless times for the shareholders. And the bright lining at the end of the tunnel is that when shareholders sell, they only get hit with a tiny capital gains tax of 15% (so in the long term, it is infinitely better for the shareholders for earnings to be invested into their business than taxed and then put into their bank accounts each year).

Further, being that they have such outrageous amounts of profits, we can definitely tell it is because they are price gouging and manipulating the market. But, if the corporate tax rate discouraged profits, then this activity would be all but useless (prices would be based on sound models related to the cost of development and marketing, as well as capital needed for future expansion). Therefore, the economy wouldn't sputter and fall in the face of massive and unwarranted inflationary forces.

"Trickle-Down" economics has suggested that if the tax rate on these corporations is low, then when their earnings are sent to the private sector, those magnanimous individuals will reinvest in and create jobs and wealth galore. Sometimes this does certainly happen, but often it does not. The rich are rich for a reason, and if there is anything they are good at, it is saving the precious money they got when their daddies died. But, it is a theoretical *belief*, based not on sound reasoning, that company earnings are best used by private individuals (which may not even be used at all, or to benefit the company directly that earns them).

A high corporate tax rate combats this *belief*. Instead, it *forces* corporations to invest internally into workers, research, advertising, and development. It forces them because if they do not spend it, the government gets it. But because of such spending, it can create a state of hyper-growth among the corporations, as well as inject earnings back into the economy that would normally be stored in private coffers (but this raises share prices for the shareholders naturally!). In the end, it would drastically reduce the government's revenue from this source, but it would create a robust economy of well-paid workers and innovated/updated companies that continually generate wealth for everyone. This is what America used to be, and what it needs to become again.

[w4rma]

102. That is a very good explanation. Thank you, Oregone. (nt)

[Two Americas]

60. so say the Republicans

There is never a good time to tax the wealthiest 1% in their view.

There is no evidence that giving the wealthiest few break after break stimulates the economy or creates prosperity.

Taxing the producers - the workers - hurts the economy. Taxing the parasites does not.

Of course the word "economy" means different things to different people. When the Republicans talk about "the economy" they mean how the few are doing, the investment class. When we talk about the economy, we mean how the working people are doing. we think that the economy should serve the people, not the other way around. We agree with Abraham Lincoln that Labor is the source of all wealth.

"It is not needed nor fitting here that a general argument should be made in favor of popular institutions, but there is one point, with its connections, not so hackneyed as most others, to which I ask a brief attention. It is the effort to place capital on an equal footing with, if not above, labor in the structure of government. It is assumed that labor is available only in connection with capital; that nobody labors unless somebody else, owning capital, somehow by the use of it induces him to labor."

"Now there is no such relation between capital and labor as assumed, nor is there any such thing as a free man being fixed for life in the condition of a hired laborer. Both these assumptions are false, and all inferences from them are groundless."

"Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."

"No men living are more worthy to be trusted than those who toil up from poverty; none less inclined to take or touch aught which they have not honestly earned. Let them beware of surrendering a political power which they already possess, and which if surrendered will surely be used to close the door of advancement against such as they and to fix new disabilities and burdens upon them till all of liberty shall be lost."

Abraham Lincoln
First Annual Message to Congress
December 3, 1861

[cliffordu]

11. I love shared fauxrage.

[Hugin]

13. Looks like they've had "The Talk".

It's mandatory for any incoming Administration which threatens the Status-Quo. (No matter the calls for real change)

[Triana]

14. He won't roll them back. He'll let them expire in 2010. n/t

[mymessageboardid]

19. So where does the money

for the middle class tax cuts come from during the next 2 years? I thought that money was to come from rolling back the Bush tax cuts for the rich?

[sandnsea]

22. He'll implement them in 2010, instead of 2009

That's what he said all along. Some of those tax cuts were also related to health care and education. AND, he has also said that cutting the deficit isn't going to be his priority right now, so he may pass some middle class assistance that isn't dependent on taxes.

[Pastiche423]

105. Links please!

I may not have listened to Obama as much as others during the campaign, but I know for a FACT he said he would rollback the wealthy's tax cuts as a top prioity, time and time again.

[Zuiderelle]

18. It makes PERFECT sense. They will expire in 2 years and then Obama doesn't have to take the blame

for cutting them intentionally, nor waste the effort to do so.

[Two Americas]

51. we have had enough of that, haven't we?

Haven't we had enough of this basing decisions on fear of what the Republicans might do or say?

Does anyone here seriously think that the public would not support an immediate roll back of the massive subsidies of the wealthiest few?

There is something morally bankrupt about playing games about what we are doing, the persistent implication being that if the public really knew what we were doing they would turn on us, so therefore we must hide and misled the public about our motives and goals. This is particularly odd given that the public is now with us.

The Republicans have been beating on two themes. First, that the public is conservative. Secondly, that helping out and subsidizing the wealthiest few will create prosperity that will then somehow trickle down to the rest of us, the other 99% of the population.

If those two ideas are true, and I see many posts the last few days agreeing with those two ideas, then what was the point? What do we stand for if we are going to embrace - roll over for and cave in to would be more accurate - these two foundational premises with the right wingers?

The public has now utterly rejected the whole corrupt and rotting mess of Reaganomics and the free market deregulated privatized trickle down idiocy. Is that not what we have all been working for, hoping for? Why would we now take up and speak for the discredited positions and ideas of the Republicans? Why would we fight for moving to the right, for restoring, reviving and legitimatizing the ideas and concepts of the opposition while the public is moving away from them?

[Zuiderelle]

57. It's not fear, it's politics. It's easier to let it expire than roll it back.

Perhaps it's part of a larger goal to fund his new health care plan beginning two years from now. Who the hell knows at this point. It's pointless to make accusations about him without knowing the facts.

[Two Americas]

70. no accusations

I am not criticizing Obama. I believe he is an outstanding politician and could become an extraordinary leader. I am questioning the approach that many people here are taking.

It is not "his health care plan" it is the people's needs we should be worrying about. He can and will do that which he is able to do. Wealthy and powerful insiders are moving in and influencing the administration, of course, as we sit here. We do him no favors to say "whatever you want to do oh fearless leader, we will support you." That corrupts and undermines representative democracy and will sabotage the Obama administration.

We must raise our voices. That is the way to "support" a politician in a representative democracy. FDR invited people to pressure him, to force him to act. He knew that pressure from the public was not disloyal or destructive, but rather was the wind in the sails of any successful leadership, without which he could do nothing.

For a representative democracy to work, for self government to work, we must give the politicians something to represent. That is not disloyalty, it is not whining nor is it hand-wringing, it is performing our moral obligation and civic duty.

[Zuiderelle]

72. I was referring to the OP which was criticizing and accusatory.

I think questioning makes sense... dramatically saying "Jesus Fucking Christ, I feel like I'm hearing Faux News talking points. What the hell is going on here? I didn't volunteer a total of 131 hours of my life in the final month of the campaign to continue Bush policies" is much more than just questioning. It's overreacting and criticizing, and comparing Obama to Bush.

Yeah, let's raise our voices, but let's not have a conniption fit. :)

[Two Americas]

79. we tolerate that

We tolerate people's style of expressing themselves, we support a free and open discussion. We err on the side of addressing the message, not speculating on and critiquing the messenger.

[mymessageboardid]

82. Well, sorrrrrrrrrrrrrrry

Yes, when I drop everything in my life for almost 5 weeks based on things being said that are important to me....only to have them "rolled back on" after the election - I can be criticizing and accusatory.

[Zuiderelle]

87. My partner volunteered full-time for Obama for over two months.

We have concerns about some of Obama's choices, and of course we were nearly devastated by the Prop 8 vote, which succeeded in some small part because of Obama's voice two days before the election saying "I do not believe in gay marriage" used in robo-calls in support of Prop 8.

We can all be disappointed, but it serves little purpose to cry and insinuate that Obama will be just like Bush.

[Two Americas]

90. that's good

We are not enemies here.

But really, no one is crying and insinuating that Obama will be just like Bush, are they? They may be raising alarms, they may be warning of the danger of squandering the mandate from the public and the historic opportunity we have to rout the extreme right wingers. Those fears are legitimate. We need to listen to them - or at the very least tolerate them - no matter how uncomfortable they make us feel, no?

I can understand and support the need to feel hopeful and not give in to despair. Is there a way to reconcile that with the need others have to approach this differently, and not see each other as enemies?

Some of us feel that the social issues will sooner and more easily be advanced in a context of left wing economics, and that pressuring the administration in that direction by raising our voices is essential and constructive. Some of us feel that a kid glove approach is not really supporting the administration, but rather it is putting the political fortunes of politicians above the desperate needs of the people and the very reasons that we worked so hard to elect these politicians.

[Zuiderelle]

93. I was responding to someone else, and yes, he did pretty much say that in his OP.

[Two Americas]

96. yes I jumped in

I appreciated and respected your post, and wanted to express solidarity and offer support to you.

[mymessageboardid]

98. Yes

If he allows Bush's tax cuts for the top 1% to remain intact for the next two years, yes he is just like Bush in that regard.....duh.

"His aides' comments suggest Obama may be wary of imposing any additional tax burden at a time of deep crisis" - yikes, we can't have millionaires burdened now, can we?? :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: Cindy will have to wear outfits that only cost $325,000, not $335,000.

[Donnachaidh]

117. it's *politics*? Then where EXACTLY is the CHANGE? n/t

[DireStrike]

94. If Obama doesn't roll them back now

How is he going to pay for his ambitious campaign promises?

Just tell everybody to wait around for a few years so he can lead THEN?

[sandnsea]

20. This is what he always said

Sorry you didn't hear it. He's going to start from scratch with a new tax plan in 2010.

[mymessageboardid]

24. So why didn't Axelrod say that???

David Axelrod, the Obama campaign strategist who was chosen to be a senior White House adviser, was asked if the tax cuts could be allowed to expire on schedule after tax year 2010 rather than being rolled back by legislation earlier. "Those considerations will be made," he said on "Fox News Sunday."

---------------

So why didn't Axelrod say something like "What are you talking about? We always said we would just let them expire in 2 years...." if that was their intention all along, which we know it was NOT!! They said they would ROLL BACK these damn Bush tax cuts. :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr:

God I am so f-ing mad right now. :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr:

[sandnsea]

30. Maybe he didn't want to have the argument

I've got no idea why he didn't say that. But you need to go read some of Obama's remarks. He did say he would let the tax cuts expire, at the very least beginning when the economy took such a nose dive which was quite a long time ago now.

[Breeze54]

31. Obama Says He’d Roll Back Tax Cuts for the Wealthiest - NYT - May 14, 2007

Obama Says He’d Roll Back Tax Cuts for the Wealthiest

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/14/us/politics/14talk.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

WASHINGTON, May 13 —

If elected president, Senator Barack Obama said Sunday, he would seek to repeal President Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and use the money to pay for health care, but he did not suggest he would raise other taxes to pay for expanded services.

Published: May 14, 2007

"Obama, said he supported “rolling back the Bush tax cuts on the top 1 percent of people who don’t need it.”

[Hugin]

35. Pretty well dispels the...

"Raising taxes not good during a recession" meme I see tossed around in this thread.

This is all about the 1%-ers.

[Breeze54]

44. I know! What? We have the top 1% of the wealthy in the USA posting in DU?

:P

And I guess that blows anyone getting any health care before 2010.

"Hey, Grandma, you know that operation the Dr. said you needed? Forgehtabouitit!"

[Two Americas]

77. yes, we do

There is a small but very domineering and aggressive faction of people within the Democratic party at all levels who are in fact promoting the agenda of the upper 1%. One would think that they represented half of the sentiment within the party, and here, judging by their effectiveness at dominating and controlling the discussion, but as we can see here, with every poll on every issue, they are no more than 10% of the membership. This is a microcosm of the general public, where we can easily see that on all true political issues, those dealing with power and economics, 70% or more of the general public is far to the Left from what we hear here or among the party insiders.

Does anyone here seriously believe that the public would not overwhelmingly support single payer universal health care?

Does anyone here seriously believe that the public supports coddling and subsidizing of Wall Street and the financial industry?

Does anyone here seriously believe that the public would not support protections for workers and our right to organize?

Does anyone here seriously believe that the public would not support public education, the rebuilding of the public infrastructure, the protection of public resources?

If the political Left is no threat and of no consequence - if we are whiners, purists, fringe, radical, Kucinich, discredited and unimportant - then why are the few, the conservatives among us fighting so relentlessly and aggressively against us?

Here is FDR -

For too many of us the political equality we once had won was meaningless in the face of economic inequality. A small group had concentrated into their own hands an almost complete control over other people's property, other people's money, other people's labor - other people's lives. For too many of us life was no longer free; liberty no longer real; men could no longer follow the pursuit of happiness.

Against economic tyranny such as this, the American citizen could appeal only to the organized power of government. The collapse of 1929 showed up the despotism for what it was. The election of 1932 was the people's mandate to end it. Under that mandate it is being ended.

The royalists of the economic order have conceded that political freedom was the business of the government, but they have maintained that economic slavery was nobody's business. They granted that the government could protect the citizen in his right to vote, but they denied that the government could do anything to protect the citizen in his right to work and his right to live.

Today we stand committed to the proposition that freedom is no half-and-half affair. If the average citizen is guaranteed equal opportunity in the polling place, he must have equal opportunity in the market place.

These economic royalists complain that we seek to overthrow the institutions of America. What they really complain of is that we seek to take away their power. Our allegiance to American institutions requires the overthrow of this kind of power. In vain they seek to hide behind the flag and the Constitution. In their blindness they forget what the flag and the Constitution stand for. Now, as always, they stand for democracy, not tyranny; for freedom, not subjection; and against a dictatorship by mob rule and the over-privileged alike.

The brave and clear platform adopted by this convention, to which I heartily subscribe, sets forth that government in a modern civilization has certain inescapable obligations to its citizens, among which are protection of the family and the home, the establishment of a democracy of opportunity, and aid to those overtaken by disaster.

But the resolute enemy within our gates is ever ready to beat down our words unless in greater courage we will fight for them.

[fla nocount]

120. Nice post! Now, duck and cover...incoming. n/t

[Two Americas]

131. lol

No worry. We have much more firepower at our command, and the high ground now. "We have not yet begun to fight!" The conservative talking points have become so transparent and weak lately, that taking them down is like shooting fish in a barrel.

Obama's greatest strength, his greatest contribution, is that he succeeded in getting a larger number and broader range of people active in and thinking ands talking about politics. Howard Dean also shares much credit for that. This always leads to a move to the Left, and that is why the rulers fear greater participation more than they do any ideology. We obsess too much over what a politician "is" - as though we were choosing royalty to rule over us, and that is how many zealous Obama supporters are seeing this - and not enough on the effect, intended or not, the politician has on the public. We focus too much on the personality and qualities of the politician, as celebrities or gurus, and not enough on the following that forms around them. We, the activists, are dominated by a faction that is gentrified and aristocratic to the core.

When more people are involved, when a broader range of people are brought in, the political discussion inevitably and dramatically shifts to the Left. The definition of a "good" politician is one who then responds to that. This is, after all, a representative democracy not a monarchy, and we have elected a representative, not selected a prince or a become disciples of a spiritual guru.

The conservative among us are now fighting a desperate rear guard action, because they sense that things could quickly get out of hand as a new economic populism begins to form among the public. Those of us who are speaking for that are under attack as a result.

Obama may become a great leader IF the conservatives do not succeed in undermining his administration by hijacking this mandate the people have given us and moving the party to the right. That is why it is so critical that we continue to speak out, and do not allow ourselves to be bullied into silence by the ferocious campaign being waged now by the conservatives among us, a small but very aggressive, domineering and now very motivated and desperate faction within the party.

[DireStrike]

97. We do, apparently

I've seen two posts already with people are asking why they should have to pay more.

It's exasperating.

[SammyWinstonJack]

37. Guess he didn't really mean what he said.

:shrug:

[blogslut]

33. I think you may not understand what the term "roll back" means

When Obama allows the Bush tax cuts to expire, those tax rates will "roll back" to the levels they were at under the Clinton administration.

[Runcible Spoon]

65. oh what a load of bullshit!

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rollback

"rolling back" implies doing SOMETHING, not passively letting something expire. If Obama originally meant "expire" he would have used the word expire, and not said "roll back". I think you would agree that he is careful enough with his words to not mistake something so simple, even if YOU do. Nobody here wants to undermine Obama, but jesus mimicking Rovian antics such as you are attempting to change the original meaning to fit your convenient argument now is not doing him any favors either!

[blogslut]

69. So, now I'm KKKarl Rove?

LOL. Talk about bullshit.

Two can play the definition game:

http://www.answers.com/topic/rollback

n.

1. A reduction, especially in prices or wages, to a previous lower level by governmental action or direction: a price rollback; a rollback of military supplies.
2. A turning back or retreat, as from a previously held position or policy: hoped for a rollback of support for the opposition's proposed legislation.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/roll+back

Phrasal Verbs:
roll back
1. To reduce (prices or wages, for example) to a previous lower level.
2. To cause to turn back or retreat.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/roll%20back

Main Entry:
roll back
Function:
transitive verb
Date:
1942

1 : to reduce (as a commodity price) to or toward a previous level on a national scale 2 : to cause to retreat or withdraw : push back 3 : rescind <attempted to roll back antipollution standards>

Barack Obama has always said he would allow the Bush tax cuts to expire. Your selective hearing is not my concern..

[Runcible Spoon]

86. you're just proving that you can post definitions with a very poor ability to understand them

either that, or you're being intentionally disingenuous. The former is just ignorance, the latter is Rovian tactics. Take your pick.

[blogslut]

89. I admit. I am not an English major.

However, what I glean from these definitions is that the term "roll back" implies allowing something to return to a former state. As I have said, if Barack Obama had intended to immediately end the Bush tax cuts, he would have stated that clearly. Instead, many times, he used the phrases "allow them to expire" and "roll back".

Now, if you wish to keep comparing me to Karl Rove, knock yourself out. Just don't be surprised if I stop replying.

[AlCzervik]

21. they expire in 2010, i don't have a problem with that, renewing them i would have a problem

with.

[Breeze54]

49. I sure as hell do! Guess you don't need health care?

:shrug:

Must be nice but there are millions of Americans in dire straights that need it asap!!

[StreetKnowledge]

63. And they'll get it

The tax cuts will expire, and that'll be the end of the story for them. The new tax revenue, which will be collected as we odcme out of recession, will be used to help fund universal healthcare. With the bailouts gone by that point and the costs of the war in Iraq gone too, we'll get much better a financial situation and universal healthcare, which is a one-two punch.

And besides that, what if that happens to come around right before the 2010 mid-terms? More Republicans losses and a Dem supermajority, maybe?

Relax, dude.

[Breeze54]

76. Dude? Piss off! --- And how many can WAIT fucking TWO years to see a doctor?!

No, I won't relax at all. Fuck the 1%'s!!!:grr:

[Two Americas]

95. never

The evidence is massive and incontrovertible that if they get a foot in the door that is just the beginning. Always. We cannot start with the position we may have to eventually settle for.

If Obama is the brilliant politician that many if us think him to be, then aggressive advocacy from the Left is one of the many things that he can listen to, and is not some sort of threat to the administration.

There are many powerful insiders who now have Obama's ear and are whispering "be practical, pay no attention to those fringe lunatics, and the people will roll over. If we want to be successful we must compromise with the big money people." They are nor waiting, they are not giving him a chance, they are not being loyal. To deny that is to deny reality.

Obama needs to know that should he fight aggressively for the people - for the have-nots, for the homeless, the poor, the unemployed and the underemployed, for the left behind, the persecuted, the abused and the kicked to the curb - that we will have his back. THAT is how we support him.

[Hosnon]

23. I'm with you on this. I hope someone close to him reads DU. nt.

[liberalmuse]

25. He has indeed said this before (link).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/07/obama-recession-could-del_n_124647.html

[Sanctified]

26. So you volunteered 131 hours of your life so you can pay more taxes?

I am not an economist but logic tells me that increasing taxes during a recession/depression is not the solution.

[Breeze54]

34. Who's talking about increasing taxes? The OP is stating the facts of Obama's statements

He did say he'd roll back the bush tax cuts and he's said that many, many times.

[Sanctified]

41. He also said that before the economic meltdown.

He is not going back on his words he is just doing what is best for the people, that is why we elected him. It would be stupid for him to roll back tax cuts when the country is heading into a depression, could you imagine the news headlines.

[Breeze54]

45. BS!! HEALTH CARE is best for the people! -- Fuck the 1% !!

:grr: :grr:

[SammyWinstonJack]

47. !

:thumbsup:

[Sanctified]

58. Well luckily for poor people like me who can't afford more taxes Obama is President and not you.

I can't afford to be bumped up from the 10% to the 15% bracket, I can't afford to lose the little bit of extra I receive on the child tax credit, if Obama reverses all of Bushes tax cuts then I lose that. Yes you get your health care but I get diagnosed with malnutrition since I can barely afford to buy food as it is.

[Breeze54]

62. Awe... well, the lower 90% have been carrying your weight for 8 years now. Time to pay up! n/t

[Sanctified]

66. You do realize that the 10% bracket is for the lowest income earners which is me.

You do realize that the lowest income earners will be moved from 10% to 15%, so in essence you are telling me I have been riding on the backs of the rich and it's time to pay my share.

[mymessageboardid]

67. ?????????

Senator Obama said he would roll back the Bush tax cuts for the top 1%. Now you're saying he is going to raise tax brackets on the lower and middle class if he rolls back the Bush tax cuts for the rich??

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Breeze54]

80. You will pay NOTHING!!!! Use this Obama Tax Calculator and see!

The Tax Policy Center, an independent, non-partisan group, has estimated how taxpayers' 2009 taxes will change under the next President.


Answer a few simple questions to calculate the likely change in your tax bill in 2009:

http://alchemytoday.com/obamataxcut/

----------------

And Please read!! -->

How will Obama tax plans work in this economy?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/05/BUS013URIE.DTL&tsp=1

[Sanctified]

103. How can I pay nothing? 10% of my income gets taken right out of my check.

Is my employer ripping me off for taking that 10% since I am supposed to be paying nothing?

[Breeze54]

109. Did you read the article yet? You get tax breaks.

read it and understand.

[Two Americas]

91. lol

With you Breeze54.

[Two Americas]

54. fear

We have been caving in to fear long enough. We must stand for something and fight back some day. If not now, when we have a mandate from the people, then when?

The list of excuses for cowardice, timidity and inaction goes on and on. We now have "the numbers." We have "gotten them elected." We have the public behind us. We have the WH and both houses of Congress. We have state legislatures and governorships all over the country. We have increased representation and greater strength in almost all of the red states at the local level.

So now what are we afraid of? Headlines. "Could you imagine the news headlines?"

It is time we start making news rather than fearing it; it is time we start leading rather than following; it is time we stand on our two feet and fight, rather than trying to cleverly and cynically maneuver and manipulate events.

[MessiahRp]

123. I didn't realize Milton Friedman and his neo-conservative economic policy posted here

Sorry but the wealthy have had their run at stealing every penny they can and not paying their fair share and now they have built up huge accounts (probably off shore) while the rest of us don't have a pot to piss in nor a window to throw it out of.

Rolling taxes back to where they were during the Clinton years is not a tax hike. The fucking tax cut was not supposed to be permanent anyway.

Rp

[ProfessorGAC]

128. Not Necessarily So

41 raised them in a recession and stabilized the unemployment numbers and reduced inflation. Clinton went the next step and raised them AGAIN just after coming out of recession and expanded revenues which, due to a reduction in public borrowing, resulted in sustained economic health.

The "don't raise taxes during a recession" thing is unsupported by the data.
The Professor

[cherokeeprogressive]

27. Two things: First, Obama's a Politician with a majuscule P.

Second, what happens on the campaign trail stays on the campaign trail, unless you're John Edwards. That means you can say anything needed to get elected, and then govern as you see fit.

It's debated quite often here and Democratic politicians are usually given a pass because they're Dems and had to speak a little white lie or another to get the support of the freeps whose votes were necessary to win the election. And I voted a straight D ticket, just in case someone wonders.

[Two Americas]

46. right

The problem is that we were told over and over again by many supporters during the campaign that he was running to the right in order to get elected, and then would be moving to the Left after the election. Now we are being told the opposite - that he ran to the Left to get elected and now must move to the right for practical reasons. I think there is more truth to the second than to the first idea.

As for the "freeps whose votes were necessary to win the election," I work in the reddest areas around the country, and it is true that there has been a sea change there and that millions formerly voting Republican switched and voted Democratic. What I heard from hundreds of people, day after day as the election approached was "we need another New Deal."

Nothing wrong with Obama being a politician. I expected nothing other than that.

Not every day we see the word majuscule. :)

[pnwmom]

28. "May consider" means Obama is trying to retain his flexibility, if the

economic situation when he takes office warrants it.

No one knows how bad it's going to get in the time between now and inauguration; raising any taxes in the face of an even worse economic situation than we have right now would repeat the mistakes made by Hoover. I'm glad that Obama is taking a "wait and see" approach.

[Breeze54]

50. "...if the economic situation when he takes office warrants it." LMFAO!!!

:rofl: :rofl:

:P

[4lbs]

40. Look at how Reagan got the country out of it's recession + high inflation versus how Clinton did it.

Reagan cut taxes across the board, increased defense spending, and cut a slew of federal programs (like Medicaid, food stamps, and FDA/EPA funding) to "pay for it".

Clinton increased federal spending, didn't cut anything in the first couple of years, added to the federal deficit in the short term. Then after the economy rebounded, he was able to increase some spending on federal programs with the increase in tax monies from millions of people getting new jobs. He also was able to pay down the federal deficit until it was a surplus at the end of his 8 years.

Which one created tens of millions of new jobs while not harming needed federal programs for the lower income Americans? Clinton's approach.

Obama has already said two things in the debates:

1.) He might have to delay some things, notably the tax increase on the wealthy. He would just let them expire in late 2010 instead of overturning them in early 2009.

2.) It would realistically take about 10 years to fully pay down the federal deficit, which he felt was going to increase to about a trillion dollars in his first year.

Why would he say that? Because he plans on increasing federal deficit spending in the short term, to help fund those ambitious programs such as broader health care, alternative energy research, and increased federal funding of scientific research.

[Breeze54]

52. No, Obama said he'd repeal the 1%'s tax vacation and use it to fund health care. n/t

[Zuiderelle]

61. Exactly. He did say that he might have to delay the tax increase during the debates.

[sendero]

53. This will be the first real dissapointment...

..I've had with Obama is he fails to follow through on this.

These low taxes are not helping the country, the economy, only the rich. There is no reason not to roll the cuts back now.

Obama has got his economic work cut out for him. His jobs program sounds promising, but there is a lot more to be done to get things back on the right track. The getting rid of these tax cuts (if they worked, the economy wouldn't be foundering right now) is one of those things.

[amitta]

55. Obama wants to keep his powder dry

he learned from congress to always keep it dry FOREVER

[SammyWinstonJack]

56. .

:evilgrin:

[Breeze54]

59. He's just gearing up for Election 2012 !1!

;)

[SammyWinstonJack]

78. !

:spray:

[gravity]

68. Obama is going to repeal the tax cuts

He might wait a year because we are in a recession, because raising taxes might have more negative consequences in the short term. It is a legitimate concern given the economy, so don't freak out if he doesn't do it.

[SammyWinstonJack]

88. The tax cuts for the richest 1% helped fuel the recession. Much the opposite of what the pugs said

the tax cuts would do. Negative consequences!

So now rolling back those tax cuts will hurt the economy even more? Doesn't add up. Must be more of that fuzzy math.


Well either way, the richest among us seem poised to receive two more yrs of tax cuts. Maybe this time trickle down will work. :silly:

[ProfessorGAC]

130. Well, For One Thing. . .

. . . you're right about it fueling the recession. It did that, just as running deficits for more than a couple of years when there is no dire economic issue to be addressed is a severe drag on the economy.

But, i think that for 2009, it's a done deal anyway. The budget is complete. So, at best if we merely run until expiration, they get only one year of extra cuts.

Now understand, i don't agree that raising taxes during a recession is necessarily a negative. I think it matters as to what taxes and raised and who is going to be paying those increases.

In this case, i doubt there is any data to support that raising taxes on the extremely well-off will have negative impact on economic recovery.

So, we're agreeing, just not on the "extra 2 year" thing.
The Professor

[dailykoff]

71. Taxing the wealthy is off the table! On to Social Security "reform!"

Rock on, Wall Street! :headbang:

[ingac70]

73. Thanks for your concern.

[Breeze54]

83. How censecending can you get? The OP has every right to be upset and worried.

And to express their opinion.

But "Thanks for your concern." :eyes:

[ingac70]

107. ....

:boring:

I'll not bother to get worked up over a 11/3/08 concern troll, thank you very much.

[Breeze54]

108. Do not insinuate that because someone is new, they are a troll or disruptor.

Do not publicly accuse another member of this message board of being a disruptor, conservative, Republican, FReeper, or troll, or do not otherwise imply they are not welcome on Democratic Underground. If you think someone is a disruptor, click the "Alert" link below their post to let the moderators know.

Do not draw negative attention to the fact that someone is new, has a low post count, or recently became a member of Democratic Underground. Do not insinuate that because someone is new, they are a troll or disruptor.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html

[leftofthedial]

74. well, at least he didn't roll over and show his nuts like Kerry did

that's change you can believe in

[dailykoff]

81. And Kerry didn't prostitute himself to the Clintons and their Wall Street paymasters.

That's change I didn't vote for.

[leftofthedial]

115. don't go changing...

[no limit]

85. After seeing Obama changes positions after the primary you are shocked he's doing it now?

This is expected, it's politics as usual. Just be thankful that your 131 hours help assure that McCain wasn't in there right now.

[DiverDave]

100. Once again, we were lied to.

and dont blow smoke up my ass and say he's gonna let them expire, they will do NOTHING to help us, just wait and see!!
and the rich keep getting richer...BS indeed.

[earth mom]

104. I am so fucking livid!!! OBAMA LIED LIED LIED LIED LIED LIED LIED!!! OBAMA IS A LIAR!!!

:grr: :grr: :grr:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

127. OMG Your Post Is Serious?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[chalky]

106. So Faux News Sunday is a credible source of news?

n/t

[Truth Teller]

110. Axelrod said it on Faux - it's on video

Faux as the forum isn't the problem, it's consideration of delaying the rollback.

[Breeze54]

111. The OP article is from Reuters - and posted at Yahoo...

[laugle]

112. My prediction is: he will not raise the capital gains tax

or the small business that makes more than $250,000. IMO, both are a bad idea and would hurt many middle class folks and the current economy as well.....

I do believe he will find something or someone to tax, since the treasury needs money badly.....time will tell..............

[Truth Teller]

113. ***POLL***

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4523739&mesg_id=4523739

[dysfunctional press]

116. well- the pukes have their 2010 issue to get them started on their climb back to power...

and the more that he ultimately(i'm willing to give him a chance- he hasn't even started the actual job yet.) disappoints his base, the easier it's going to be for them.

i thin that the country needs a MAJOR course correction, and i still hold hope that Obama actually DOES realize the opportunity that has been laid at his feet to make that correction, and get the country where it needs/wants to be.

i hope he's got plenty of what it's going to take...i voted for him because i believe(d) that he does.

[mondo joe]

119. That's exactly what he said he would do and how he'd do it. NT

[EstimatedProphet]

121. Jeez, what do you want?

Obama has said his first priority is job creation. Don't you think it would be better to focus efforts onto getting people back to work than worrying about tax cuts?

[Alter Ego]

122. I think that's, um, been Obama's message from the beginning.

He was going to let the tax cuts die in 2010 and then roll out his own tax plan.

[mondo joe]

124. That's what I remember him saying. I never had any other impression. NT

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

125. Obama Knows What He's Doing. You Don't. He's Making The Right Moves And I'm Proud Of Him.

He continues to prove that he has the right head on his shoulders to be one of the greatest presidents of our lifetimes. Be mad all you want. Fact is, you're only judging based on your narrow mindedness and emotional knee jerking, whereas Obama is actually making decisions based on intellect and critical thinking.

He's doing the right thing.

[lonestarnot]

126. Is this just another Nora ODonnell lie rumor?