home

President Obama: No To Irresponsible Tax Cuts For The Rich

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Obama Administration
Posted on Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 01:19:35 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

In a townhall today:

“I can’t give tax cuts to the top 2 percent of Americans” and “lower the deficit at the same time,” the president said during an hour-long town-hall discussion on jobs and the economy on CNBC television from the Newseum in Washington. To give “tax relief primarily to millionaires and billionaires” would be “ an irresponsible thing for us to do,” Obama said. “Those folks are least likely to spend it.”

[. . .]Obama is challenging congressional Republicans to make only middle-class tax cuts permanent. He wants lawmakers to find agreement on initiatives to spur economic growth and hiring and on extension of Bush-era tax cuts for individuals who make less than $200,000 a year and couples earning less than $250,000.

On this issue, the President has been solid. Obviously, there is room for complaint though.

Speaking for me only

< Rimshot Open Thread | Bell Curve Sully >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    President Obama: No To Irresponsible Tax Cuts For The Rich | 59 comments (59 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Said he to once of those whining Dems (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by kmblue on Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 01:35:04 PM EST
    He told the woman who said she was disappointed that "there are a whole host of things that we have put in place that do make your life better," but he quickly cautioned, "I understand your frustration."

    If he's done so much, why doesn't she know?
    And why can't he tell her in simple language, right then and there?

    Words matter.

    I think one big reason (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by CST on Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 01:38:15 PM EST
    is that rather than make things better, what the Dems did was stem the bleeding to a degree, so that things didn't get worse, with TARP, the Stimulus, GM bailout, etc...

    It's hard to explain/justify to people how you made their lives "not worse".

    Parent

    Things did get worse though (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 01:42:51 PM EST
    I ran into Barry Moore (tea party candidate here) this morning picking up his yard signs.  A guy had cornered him and was really have at it about how come his insurance premiums have increased over 20% in a handful of months.  The guy was really angry and Barry told him he didn't who to blame for that.  It is an overall failure of our leaders.  All are complicit.  Things HAVE gotten worse.  The devastation was not contained.  P.S. Barry stinks IMO......just a conversation I overheard.

    Parent
    yea (none / 0) (#7)
    by CST on Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 01:58:51 PM EST
    there's worse and then there's WORSE though.  You know what I mean?

    That's what makes the messaging so hard.  Obviously it wasn't enough.  And it's hard to sell "something" that isn't enough.  Even when what you're running against is "nothing".

    Parent

    Very true (none / 0) (#8)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 02:00:10 PM EST
    and very well said.

    Parent
    I wholly agree wth you (none / 0) (#11)
    by glanton on Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 02:05:09 PM EST
    We didn't get what we wanted, by a long sight.  Like most progressives, I didn't expect to anyway.

    I did expect to not get what I didn't want, and for the most part that "dreaM' was fulfilled.  Talk about low expectations, yes?  Also such "achievments" are very hard to campaign on. Deservedly so.

    Parent

    I wholly agree wth you (none / 0) (#12)
    by glanton on Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 02:05:36 PM EST
    We didn't get what we wanted, by a long sight.  Like most progressives, I didn't expect to anyway.

    I did expect to not get what I didn't want, and for the most part that "dreaM' was fulfilled.  Talk about low expectations, yes?  Also such "achievments" are very hard to campaign on. Deservedly so.

    Parent

    I wholly agree wth you (none / 0) (#13)
    by glanton on Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 02:05:36 PM EST
    We didn't get what we wanted, by a long sight.  Like most progressives, I didn't expect to anyway.

    I did expect to not get what I didn't want, and for the most part that "dreaM' was fulfilled.  Talk about low expectations, yes?  Also such "achievments" are very hard to campaign on. Deservedly so.

    Parent

    sorry (none / 0) (#14)
    by glanton on Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 02:07:35 PM EST
    for the multiple posts, BTD.  Computer went nuts for a sec there.  Please delete duplicaes.

    Parent
    The issue of explanation (none / 0) (#16)
    by christinep on Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 02:21:35 PM EST
    President Clinton has been talking about just that issue--how do you, in digestible TV and other media messaging, explain the "but for" ("it would have been much worse if we had not....") Clinton raised the question, then said it is not something that really can be successfully done and, from a political election standpoint, the better way is for the WH to define quickly where they started (a reminder of the hole that we were in) and where we are now and what is in the works to get us further out of the mess and where he wants to take us.

    While the former President did not say it, the old null hypothesis comes to mind--the problems with proof.  Clearly, Clinton has been saying that the focus must be on the future and steps to get there in better shape. My own take is similar to yours as to what is worse, WORSE, or EVEN WORSE. It is a sandtrap to keep looking into the hole--it is about getting out.

    Parent

    When you demand an insurance (none / 0) (#33)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 06:26:49 PM EST
    company expand coverage and include those with illnesses not previously coverage premiums are gonna go up.

    Even TriCare had an increase.

    Parent

    We should have (5.00 / 4) (#35)
    by glanton on Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 06:35:00 PM EST
    eliminated the insurance companies altogether with the public option.  Health care shouldn't be a commodity akin to hot tubs and ski cabins.  

    Parent
    How can Tricare have an increase (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 06:47:11 PM EST
    over such a thing?  They can't deny for pre-existing conditions.  If you are a soldier, every dependent you have is covered.  So why would Tricare experience an increase?

    Parent
    as Bill Clinton pointed out (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by CST on Tue Sep 21, 2010 at 09:51:02 AM EST
    on the dailyshow - health insurance companies profits went up last year - which means their revenue increased as compared to costs.  So we know it isn't the costs, no matter what Jim wants us to think.

    As he said - they raised prices, because they can.

    Parent

    Indeed (none / 0) (#50)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 11:05:14 PM EST


    Parent
    Sigh (none / 0) (#49)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 11:04:36 PM EST
    They're about to get a gigantic influx of healthy paying customers thanks to the mandate, the trade-off they agreed to.  But then, as usual, they had their fingers crossed behind their backs and it apparently didn't occur to Obama et al that they might well do this.  Either that, or it was part of the plan all along to let them.

    Parent
    Perhaps (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 02:03:38 PM EST
    but didn't Obama have an opportunity to do better? Don't blame the blue dogs. I live in blue dog territory and they respond to strong leadership. Besides, Obama gave them the ultimate out when he said that the GOP is the party of ideas.

    Parent
    I think he failed enormously (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 02:13:44 PM EST
    when it comes to his dogs.  It is so weird that they are called blue dogs and I have my dog thing I do, the similarities are astonishing.  First off, dogs are not human but they have come to serve us and we have lived in a state of interdependency until modern times :)  Secondly, during all of these times I have been and am the BOSS, they eat from my hand.  If I fail the food gets crappy, if I succeed the chow is heavenly :)  If we work together very well we will awarded and celebrated and our offspring will be much sought after, if we don't I'm just some stupid idiot and her mutts overpopulating the world and wasting oxygen leaving piles of dog$hit everywhere I go :)

    Parent
    Perhaps we should send him (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by nycstray on Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 02:29:47 PM EST
    The Power of Positive Dog Training. It suits his style. Heck, I used to use it on co-workers . . .  {grin}

    Parent
    Works really well huh? (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 03:07:16 PM EST
    My old 4H instructor who taught me most of my dog obedience used to say that someone should have to successfully train a dog using praise before they should be able to have children.  Treats were forbidden, only praise was used.  The three legged cat that lives here has me beaten though when it comes to enforcing his will upon other mammals.

    Parent
    yup (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by nycstray on Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 03:40:27 PM EST
    the hardest part is not saying "Good Doggie!" to your boss  ;)

    Parent
    He did not even bother to give the appearance (5.00 / 6) (#30)
    by MO Blue on Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 04:42:42 PM EST
    that he was strongly fighting for a populist agenda. Throughout it all it was always the progressive members of the party that had their arms bent and made to capitulate.   Also I don't let the other members of the party off the hook. They could have stood their ground to get what their constituents needed but chose not to do so.

    Parent
    Exactly. And that's why the line: (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by shoephone on Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 04:30:07 PM EST
    "He is challenging Republicans" on the tax cuts is only half the story. He needs to be challenging the 31 DINOs who signed that letter saying hands off the tax cuts for the rich.

    Parent
    I live in Georgia too (none / 0) (#17)
    by jb64 on Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 02:29:44 PM EST
    I don't think Marshall or Jim barrow was ever going to be much help in crafting or voting for a progressive agenda, both seem to be only interested in Incumbency.

    Parent
    Perhaps (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 02:55:51 PM EST
    but did anyone even try or was it more like they aren't going to do it anyway? It seems more energy was expended getting the GOP to vote for something that trying to get the Blue Dogs to vote for it.

    Parent
    I think her statement (5.00 / 9) (#25)
    by jbindc on Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 03:37:23 PM EST
    Was much more clear:

    "I'm one of your middle class Americans. And quite frankly, I'm exhausted. Exhausted of defending you, defending your administration, defending the mantle of change that I voted for," a woman told President Obama at a town hall.

    "My husband and I have joked for years that we thought we were well beyond the hot dogs and beans era of our lives, but, quite frankly, it's starting to knock on our door and ring true that that might be where we're headed again, and, quite frankly, Mr. President, I need you to answer this honestly. Is this my new reality?," she added.

    His answer was weasly and frankly, condescending.

    Parent

    Wow. (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 03:42:28 PM EST
    That was an eloquent statement she made.

    Parent
    Would have been interesting if (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 05:46:39 PM EST
    he had responded with the snark he uttered about the liberals at the DNC fundraiser this past weekend.

    Parent
    Scathing comments to the NYT blog (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 01:52:12 PM EST
    post. Wonder if the Pres. will read them?

    He needs to stop laughing at (5.00 / 5) (#9)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 02:02:05 PM EST
    and ridiculing his base.  When it comes to that, the man is arrogant.  It is going to eat his lunch too.

    Parent
    Do you have a link? (none / 0) (#31)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 05:43:58 PM EST
    Thanks

    Parent
    BTD's last link: (none / 0) (#52)
    by oculus on Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 11:45:26 PM EST
    NYT The Caucus

    Parent
    Thanks (none / 0) (#58)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue Sep 21, 2010 at 09:20:11 AM EST


    Parent
    What NYTimes blog? (none / 0) (#51)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 11:07:57 PM EST


    Parent
    If I had the feeling Obama actually (5.00 / 6) (#19)
    by Anne on Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 02:42:01 PM EST
    understood the whole issue better, he would have avoided the trap he always sets for himself: making this about deficit reduction; I mean, isn't extending the lower rates to 98% of taxpayers going to affect the deficit, too?  So, why is it responsible to take the hit for the so-called middle class, but not for the elite?

    Because when John and Jane Doe - and all the millions of Johns and Janes - get smaller paychecks come November, that giant sucking sound will be money coming out of the local economies - how hard is it to explain that that's one way to depress an economy that is already so sensitive one wrong move could have serious and long-lasting repercussions?

    Deficits really shouldn't matter to Obama at this stage of the game, either.  He should be advocating for greatly increased government spending on jobs programs to put people back to work and start pumping more money into the private sector - but he's got a bad case of Deficit Hysteria Syndrome (Exhibit A: the Deficit Commission), compounded by what seems to be a poorly disguised distaste for the poor.

    If he felt like tossing off a smart answer to the question of why he won't advocate for the top 2% to get the break at income levels over $200K/$250K, he could just say, "because contrary to what you hear at the movies, greed is not good," and then defy anyone to come back with a response.

    Too bad I really can't picture him doing it...

    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 02:57:59 PM EST
    the same thing I was thinking: if he's so concerned about the deficit then why extend any of the tax cuts or even offer any at all?

    Parent
    But (5.00 / 6) (#22)
    by hookfan on Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 03:02:48 PM EST
    how could he set up cuts to social security if he doesn't emphasize deficits?

    Parent
    I'm waiting for the announcement in (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by Anne on Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 03:39:57 PM EST
    November - post-election, of course - that the good news is, taxes for 98% of us won't be going up come January, but - more good news! - they're cutting Social Security, so make room for Granny and Pop-pop!

    Parent
    He's also (none / 0) (#44)
    by hookfan on Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 08:44:19 PM EST
    setting up the reduction of benefits by proposing undercutting ss and medicare funding: link.

    "Obama also told Scaramucci the White House may still propose a temporary cut to Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes to encourage new hiring."

    Parent

    The facts..... (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by NYShooter on Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 07:14:28 PM EST
    As Bob Herbert wrote: "....the top 1% percent of earners since the 1970s,....  was 8 percent to 9 percent..........By 2007, the last year for which complete data are available, the richest 1 percent were taking more than 23 percent of all income.
    The richest one-tenth of 1 percent, representing 130,000 households, took in more than 11 percent of total income in 2007.

    And they need a tax break?

    (Oh, btw, the typical male worker's income actually dropped during that period)

    Now, how hard would that be to explain to the American public?

    This is where he could prove himself (none / 0) (#1)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 01:31:25 PM EST
    And it is time for his dogs to wear his collars.

    Or I can assume that they are (none / 0) (#3)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 01:37:24 PM EST
    That works too.  Because I know who controls the war chest now.

    Parent
    Couple that sentiment... (none / 0) (#24)
    by kdog on Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 03:24:28 PM EST
    with a "No to irresponsible spending for the benefit of the rich" and we're getting somewhere.

    Taxing and spending...they do go together like beans and rice...yet we treat them like entirely seperate issues...bugs the crap outta me.

    No one is getting a tax cut. (none / 0) (#34)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 06:28:26 PM EST
    The issue is should we have a tax increase in the midst of the longest recession since WWII.

    Erza Klein covered this subject today: (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Harry Saxon on Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 07:01:23 PM EST

    Obama's "tax cuts for the middle class" aren't actually tax cuts for the middle class. They're tax cuts on all family income up to $250,000. So if you make $300,000 a year, you're getting a tax cut on $250,000. That's a serious tax cut! That's why the graphs showing how different taxpayers make out under the Obama and Bush tax plans all show a tax cut for the rich under Obama's plan:

    .....................................

    Now, the tax cut for the rich is obviously much larger under Bush's plan, and rich people would prefer a big tax cut to a modest tax cut. But that doesn't change the facts of the situation: Under Obama's tax plan, everyone gets a tax cut, including families making more than $250,000 a year.


    Click Me

    Parent

    Harry Saxon (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by shoephone on Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 10:24:20 PM EST
    If you want to me to click on your links, please label them with a phrase indicating what's in them, or where on the web they emanate from. Anyone who posts a link saying "click me" is not going to get me to click it at all.

    Word to the wise.

    Parent

    And, yes, for the record, (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by shoephone on Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 10:26:07 PM EST
    I do read your block quotes, but a blind link is still a blind link...

    Parent
    I believe that if you hover your (none / 0) (#48)
    by Harry Saxon on Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 10:48:11 PM EST
    mouse over a link you're unsure of, if you look in the bottom left panel you will see the address that will open up if you click that link.

    I've tested this in an early version of IE8, it's true in Mozilla Firefox, I don't know about Safari or the other varieties.

    Also, I named in both cases who I was quoting, but I'll name the source in the future as it doesn't take a lot of effort to do so.

    Parent

    Thanks! (none / 0) (#53)
    by shoephone on Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 11:58:02 PM EST
    I try to read all the links people post here.

    I just got a new laptop, and for the first few weeks, it was not allowing me to see the link when hovering with the mouse. I've got it covered now.

    Parent

    Those money bubbles say it all (none / 0) (#54)
    by shoephone on Tue Sep 21, 2010 at 12:20:42 AM EST
    The current tax cut for those making upwards of $500,000 a year is... obscene. Why can't the Dems frame THAT message effectively? Every Democratic congressperson should have that bubble graphic on the front page of their website.

    Parent
    Add the president's proposal on cap gains... (none / 0) (#40)
    by Romberry on Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 07:29:21 PM EST
    ...that instead of returning to the 39.6% max under Clinton set the rate permanently at 20 percent (up from the current 15), the cut goes much higher and the benefits to the wealthy become much bigger.

    As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities put it:

    The middle-class tax-cut package the Joint Tax Committee analyzed does not extend the reduction in the tax rate on dividends for couples with incomes over $250,000 (and singles over $200,000). President Obama has proposed ... that the dividend top rate for high-income people be permanently set at 20 percent, rather than being allowed to return to its pre-2001 level of 39.6 percent. If Congress follows that approach and incorporates this proposal into a middle-class tax-cut package, the average tax cut that high-income households will receive from enactment of such a package will be considerably larger  than the figures just cited, and the dollar amount by which the average tax cut going to high-income households exceeds the average tax cut for middle-income households will be significantly larger, as well.


    Parent
    Obama's Tax Cuts??? Pass me that glass (none / 0) (#41)
    by BTAL on Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 07:49:34 PM EST
    of kool-aid that you, Ezra and BTD are sipping from.

    Hint:  There is no such thing as the "Obama Tax Cuts".

    Parent

    Here's what Bruce Barlett had to say (none / 0) (#42)
    by Harry Saxon on Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 08:09:18 PM EST
    about extending the tax cuts and prosperity:

    Republicans are heavily invested in permanently extending the tax cuts enacted during the George W. Bush administration, all of which expire at the end of this year exactly as the legislation was written in the first place. To hear Republicans, one would think that the Bush tax cuts were the most powerful stimulus to growth ever enacted and only a madman would even think of allowing any of them to expire.

    The truth is that there is virtually no evidence in support of the Bush tax cuts as an economic elixir. To the extent that they had any positive effect on growth, it was very, very modest. Their main effect was simply to reduce the government's revenue, thereby increasing the budget deficit, which all Republicans claim to abhor.
    .............................................

    But no one should delude themselves that continuing tax cuts that did nothing for growth over the last 10 years will do anything to stimulate growth in the future.

    Click Me

    Parent

    At best it is an extension of (none / 0) (#55)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 21, 2010 at 06:57:46 AM EST
    existing tax rates for some... tax increases for others..

    There is no tax cut for anyone.


    Parent

    Click on the link (none / 0) (#57)
    by Harry Saxon on Tue Sep 21, 2010 at 07:58:10 AM EST
    to the Ezra Klein article, and you'll see the differences, between the Republican plan and that proposed by the Dems on all income levels

    or you could listen to jimakaPPJ.

    Parent

    pssssst! the recession is officially over (none / 0) (#43)
    by nycstray on Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 08:17:30 PM EST
    has been since July 09 . . . . or so they say . . . .

    Parent
    In a technical economic sense its true (none / 0) (#45)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 10:16:28 PM EST
    the problem is that the new norm might be 8-10% unemployment.

    Parent
    That will be called a (none / 0) (#56)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Sep 21, 2010 at 06:58:37 AM EST
    permanent recession.

    Parent
    "I can't give tax cuts to the top 2 percent (none / 0) (#36)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 06:45:14 PM EST
    "I can't give tax cuts to the top 2 percent of Americans" and "lower the deficit at the same time," the president said
    Is he really suggesting he's going to lower the deficit (ie, cut spending in a big way) or is he merely foreshadowing how he's going to blame the Repubs after he caves on raising taxes on the 2%'rs and, in a mostly unrelated event, the the deficit continues upward?

    President Obama: No To Irresponsible Tax Cuts For The Rich | 59 comments (59 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment