Try as he might, Obama can't shake Bush tax cuts

[Lasher]

WASHINGTON (AP) — Time and again during his presidential campaign, Barack Obama was unequivocal: "We are going to roll back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans."

But when the chips were down, now-President Obama blinked and backed away.

Twice in less than nine months, Obama has shelved his pledge in deadline-pressing negotiations with congressional Republicans. Obama insists he still is determined to find new revenue by making taxpayers who make more than $200,000 and big corporations pay more, but frustrated liberals say he has already missed key opportunities.

Inaction on taxes and his willingness to consider structural changes to Medicare and Social Security, long-cherished Democratic programs, have strained relations with some Democratic lawmakers and liberal backers who complain Obama has been too willing to backtrack from his positions. The increasingly urgent twists and turns over raising the government's debt ceiling placed Obama's concessions in sharp relief.

"It's his wanting to be the reasonable guy and thinking this is the way to appeal to independent votes," said Lawrence Mishel, president of the labor-leaning Economic Policy Institute. "I think he's engaged in a fool's game that ultimately won't win him independent voters and will actually just hurt people and the economy."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hccp9e_OyE4nRsVaDobKUshbr9-Q?docId=2b57c3bc932149359959be8518a5803e

[pnwmom]

1. He doesn't have to do anything to make them go away.

They'll go away automatically in a year and a half.

[Lasher]

2. As you know, they should have expired in December last year.

But Obama extended them. What makes you think they won't be extended again?

[pnwmom]

3. He will have been reelected, presumably, and he will have more

bargaining power -- especially if we throw the teabaggers out of the House and increase our majority in the Senate.

[Lasher]

4. That is no meaningful difference.

Remember, he extended the Bush tax cuts with Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress. And all he had to do at the time, as you pointed out, was nothing. He couldn't even manage that. He said during the campaign he would let the tax cuts expire. He didn't. Now he's saying he'll let them expire in a year and a half. Do you believe that just because he says so?

A leopard can't change his spots. Obama will still be Obama a year and a half from now.

[pnwmom]

7. He extended the cuts because it was the only way to get an extension

on the long term unemployment benefits. Do people really not remember this? Do YOU really not remember this?

If the economy improves during the next year and a half, he wouldn't be faced with that trade-off again. If not, then he might have to face it. But why blame him? It's the Republicans who oppose unemployment benefits and every other social welfare program, not Obama. And he has no choice but to negotiate with them since they control the House and can filibuster the Senate.

[Lasher]

13. With Obama, there will always be an excuse to capitulate.

If not the same tradeoff, then there will be another. And since you asked, not only do I remember what happened in December, I will never forget it.

Why blame him? Because he's supposed to be on our side and he's president. I understand we need to negotiate with the elected opposition but we're talking about much more than that.

[green917]

21. I disagree whole heartedly!

It's the Republicans who oppose unemployment benefits and every other social welfare program, not Obama.

You may be correct regarding unemployment benefits (although I wouldn't be surprised if the President would bargain those away also) but, as for "every other social welfare program", the facts, according to Rep. John Conyers (a man whose word I happen to trust), are not on your side:

"We've got to educate the American people at the same time we educate the President of the United States. The Republicans, Speaker Boehner or Majority Leader Cantor DID NOT call for Social Security cuts in the budget deal. THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES CALLED FOR THAT," declared US Representative John Conyers in a press conference held by members of the House "Out of Poverty' Caucus on 07/27/11."

You can make excuses all you want but, time and time again, President Obama has made a promise to the American people only to break it.

"We will end this war!"
"I will close Guantanamo Bay!"
"We will roll back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans!"
I could go on and on and on and on.

Face it, President Obama has sold us out!

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

23. It wasn't the only way to let the Bush tax cuts expire

Everybody keeps saying Obama only had two choices -- capitulate to the Right or end unemployment for thousands of people. He could have chosen to let the tax cuts expire -- "You're the ones who made them temporary, Repugs" -- ignored all the yelling and screaming by the Right and put his and Congress's time and energy into solving the unemployment problem.

There are probably a dozen other solutions that didn't involve extending the Bush tax cuts. Every chart I have seen indicates that the tax cuts, combined with the two wars, are what's driving the country into debt. Letting the tax cuts expire would have moved the economy in the right direction; the choice he made has made things worse, as well as giving the Repugs incredible power over the issue.

The point I'm trying to make, I guess, is that when Obama negotiated to give the rich an extension on the tax breaks in return for a small extension of unemployment, it's like he had given them a boulder in return for a marble. He traded a substantial long term loss for a short term gain.

And yes, I have been in the position of having zero income and zero savings -- and needing medical treatment on top of that. It's terrifying. When things were darkest, however, an elderly man told me, "things change." In my case my circumstances did change, and since I was starting out from zero every change was for the better. A year later I found myself in better circumstances, reminding myself that if a year before I had been told what my life would be like in twelve months, I would have believed the advice to be crazy.

[MrTriumph]

5. A lame duck usually has LESS power, not more. Besides his credibility is zero.

x

[pnwmom]

6. In his case, he will have more, if we take the House back

and increase numbers in the Senate.

That's what he's needed all along by the way. A President can't move legislation single handedly.

[Doctor_J]

9. Lame ducks have more bargaining power?

He had a huge mandate in 2008 - as much bargaining power as he was ever going to have - and yet gave the teabaggers everything.

You need to come back to the real world, pnwmom. He's seen to be weak, unpopular, and respected by no one.

[pscot]

10. Four more years?

I'm not sure I can stand it.

[OnyxCollie]

11. We'll fix it later!

Like the Bush tax cuts, FISA would have returned to its pre-Bush status on its own, but no, Sen. Obama and the Dems just had to make sure there was blankets warrants and retroactive immunity for telecoms.

You think the Bush tax cuts will go away? You're delusional.

[onpatrol98]

17. He might not have more bargaining power, but he certainly won't have much to lose

Plus, he'll be thinking of his legacy. I'm thinking the world will see a more progressive Obama in the 2nd term.

[Donnachaidh]

24. he has no credibility with promises of future *battles*

And quite frankly, I don't think the country has the stomach or can afford a second term.

[Doctor_J]

8. First of all, the economy will be stone dead by then

Second, you're assuming that he's going to be re-elected which is no better than 50-50 (See First of all)
Third, "He didn't have to do anything to make them go away" last year. Oops. President Chamberlain flubbed that one.
Fourth, the teabaggers will again extort him to leave them alone. Will he stand up to them this time? What makes this time different?

[frylock]

20. 2008 called. they want their talking points back.

[bhikkhu]

12. Their expiration is built into the debt deal

...which, as the article states, isn't as good as an immediate roll-back, but perhaps was a part of the deal that also held off any actual spending cuts until 2013.

[Lasher]

14. And the Bush tax cuts had sunset provisions that made them expire at the end of 2010.

What makes the 2013 expiration more certain than the one in 2010?

[bhikkhu]

15. Its built into the debt deal as a revenue baseline

...as in, if they are somehow extended that will be counted as an expense, which will have to be offset by either new revenue or spending cuts balanced between defense and domestic spending. Its much more complicated and costly now, so virtually guaranteed they will expire.

[Lasher]

22. All these conditions existed when the Bush tax cuts were passed in 2001/2003

And they existed when they were extended in December. Pay/go was ruthlessly dismissed in 2001/2003. We didn't have deficits thanks to Clinton but we didn't pay down the national debt, which Junior doubled. The tax cuts were passed and extended without paying for them. Why is it that you're saying they won't be extended in December 2012? All it takes is another law, just the same as the ones that created & extended them. There's nothing complicated about that.

[raouldukelives]

16. They are the Obama tax cuts now. nt

[blkmusclmachine]

18. Deeds, not words. The WH wants the cuts. They know what they are doing.

n/t

[Lasher]

19. I share that assessment.