Did Obama say he would let the Bush tax cuts die?

[Lesleymo]

Here's what he said:

"From some on the right, I expect we'll hear a different argument -- that if we just make fewer investments in our people, extend tax cuts including those for the wealthier Americans, eliminate more regulations, maintain the status quo on health care, our deficits will go away. The problem is that's what we did for eight years. That's what helped us into this crisis. It's what helped lead to these deficits. We can't do it again."

What does it mean? Are the tax cuts gonna be on the chopping block?

[MercutioATC]

1. They don't need to be "chopped". They sunset.

They'd have to be renewed for them to continue.

[Lesleymo]

5. Right. That's what I meant.

[Lasher]

10. It's likely that Democrats will provide replacement income tax cuts for the middle class only.

In this case that means families having an annual income of $250,000 or less. But for all those with higher incomes, those tax cuts will be history. Capital gains & dividends, tax cuts, as well as the inheritance tax cuts, will also sunset. I'm hoping there will be no replacement for them but that remains to be seen.

[jtrockville]

20. Obama mentioned capital gains tax cuts on small business investment.

In the "official" discussion thread, I replied that I felt people who earn their living without working should pay taxes too. Hopefully these (if enacted) will also temporary. The proposed "small business capital gains" cuts Obama mentioned, if enacted, should be viewed in the same light as any other "stimulus": intended to jump-start the economy, but not intended to sustain it.

[Lasher]

22. That was perhaps my least favorite part of the SOTU speech.

It's highly regressive to cut capital gains taxes. In Obama's own words, that's what we did for 8 years. We need to try something else and trickle-down don't get it.

[Donnachaidh]

2. he's going to let them expire.

Which he should do. IMO.

[Juneboarder]

3. I sure hope so...

I've about lost all hope in our democracy and country.

[kenfrequed]

12. Hmm...

Care to be a bit more specific?

I think the tax cuts for the rich need to go away. As well as the capital gains tax cuts and the cut to the estate tax.


These things going away should at least make you a little happy.

[Juneboarder]

15. Change. Hope. Believe.

Three words I heard a year ago that mean nothing today. Obama is proving himself to be placing himself with the elitists and the top 1%. The speech last night was a very good speech and has lots of promises made to the general public, not the banks or top 1%.

My concern is that it's just another speech to keep us calm while they continue to pillage our country, or at least what's left of it.

Basically, I'll believe it when I see it...

[tridim]

4. They will be allowed to expire and there will be no further tax cuts for the rich.

The Repukes will call it a tax hike.

[Jakes Progress]

6. Definitely sunset them. But VETO any

that our upper class loving Congress try to pass.

[Lasher]

7. The 2001 & 2003 Bush tax cuts are set to expire at the end of this year.

They're not going to be on a Democratic chopping block. They're just going to sunset as provided by GWB and the Republican Congress when they enacted them.

[RaleighNCDUer]

14. Which they expected to happen, so that they would be able to scream

"TAX HIKE" in the '10 and '12 elections. The only reason they let Obama win, IMO.

[Lasher]

17. I guess.

But I remember they couldn't sell the tax cuts to even Congressional Republicans without sunset clauses, because they drove up deficits so bad. They had the same problem with their Medicare Part D legislation but they just lied to Congress about that untill the bill had been signed into law.

[Spike from MN]

21. Correction.

In 2001, the Dems had a majority in the Senate. Originally, it was 50-50 with Cheney giving the Republicans a narrow majority due to his tie-breaking ability. However, on June 6th of that year, Jim Jeffords switch from Republican to Independent and announced he would vote with the Dems. Thus the makeup of the Senate was now 50-49-1 with the 1 going to the Dems so, in effect, it was 51-49.

On June 7th, they passed the "Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001", aka "tax cuts for the rich." At that time, the Dems had a majority in the Senate (however slim) and could have blocked the bill. They didn't. So, while the bill is often referred to as the "Bush tax cuts", the Dems had a hand in it too. Some people tend to forget these things. I don't.

Edited to add: The phrase "some people" wasn't directed in any way at the person whose post I was responding to. I meant it in a strictly general sense. Just wanted to make that clear.

[Lasher]

23. No, that's not right. Congress passed the bill while the GOP still controlled the Senate.

The final Congressional action occurred on May 26, 2001 while Republicans still controlled the Senate.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h107-1836

Democrats regained majority control of the Senate on June 6, 2001 and George W. Bush signed the bill into law the following day.

On May 24, 2001, Senator James Jeffords of Vermont announced his switch from Republican to Independent status, effective June 6, 2001. Jeffords announced that he would caucus with the Democrats, giving the Democrats a one-seat advantage, changing control of the Senate from the Republicans back to the Democrats. Senator Thomas A. Daschle again became majority leader on June 6, 2001.

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/history/one_item_and_teasers/partydiv.htm

Republicans maintained majority control in the House throughout the 107th Congress.

I didn't take any of your message personal but thanks for the thoughtful footnote all the same.

[lame54]

8. they're a year late for being chopped

[Zenlitened]

9. Elsewhere in the speech, he said he wants the cuts to expire, yes.

Except for the ones benefitting the middle-class.

A sensible approach at this point in time, IMO.

[Warpy]

11. He'd better, they were a DISASTER

Most of Stupid's deficits came from those ruinous tax cuts on the rich and corporate, not his wars.

[Dappleganger]

16. +1

[mopinko]

18. +1 to that better.

just the propaganda value of it all. imagine the tweety- you pledged to kill these tax cuts. then you decided to just let them die. now you are putting them on life support. wasn't saner end of life decisions a part of your platform, um, sir?

i can see the greatest page on du the day anything like that happens- :scared:

[branders seine]

13. He got the full rhetorical benefit of 'promising' to let them die

without actually committing to do anything specific.

He is a master at this kind of deception, and his supporters are masters at using it to excuse his failures on purely technically grounds.

It is almost impossible to tell anything specific that he actually committed to in the speech.

[change_notfinetuning]

19. Thank God we don't have to rely on the Democratic majorities in Congress to

accomplish this extremely important event. If we did, we all know what the result would be, DINOs that so many of them are.

But I'll believe it when I see it. There's still a lot of time, and I wouldn't bet on these jokers.