« | »

AP Sobs: Obama Can’t Shake Bush Tax Cuts

From a frustrated Associated Press:

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

By JIM KUHNHENN – Associated Press

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.

Bear in mind that this is supposed to be a news article from the Associated Press. Not an editorial from the Daily Kos.

We should also recall that when the Bush tax cuts were extended last December, they were extended through to the end of 2012. In order to provide the markets some semblance of ‘certainty.’ Remember how important certainty is for the market?

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

"Key opportunities" to renege on his word, his deal. Key opportunities to make the markets even more uncertain.

The Bush tax cuts would have expired in December of last year, but Obama agreed to extend them in a deal cut with Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell during a lame-duck session of Congress. In exchange, Obama won a payroll tax cut [sic] and an extension in jobless aid. Overall, the president came out ahead then, winning a repeal of the ban on gays serving openly in the military, a nuclear-arms agreement with Russia, even a food safety bill

And yet this article is complaining that Obama still has not reneged on this deal. – Is Obama offering to give back all the wonderful ‘goodies’ he got in exchange for extending the Bush tax cuts? Would he really be willing to give up the ban on ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’?

Since then, Obama has had to deal with the Republican-controlled House and his compromises have been more evident. He and House Speaker John Boehner avoided a government shutdown in April by agreeing on immediate spending cuts in domestic programs

Which amounted to meaninglessly tiny reductions in the real rate of increased spending.

But the debt ceiling has been his biggest test, raising the risk of a potentially disastrous government default… Polls showed public support for a mix of cuts and taxes. But in short order, tax revenues were off the table at the insistence of Republicans, and Obama was left to endorse a Senate Democratic bill that would raise the debt ceiling by his requested $2.4 trillion but cut spending by $2.2 trillion, including $840 billion in non-war spending by government agencies…

Given that these spending cuts will never materialize, increasing the debt by $2.4 trillion dollars ultimately amounts to a tax increase of $2.4 trillion dollars.

You think that would be enough to placate the AP and the rest of the Democrat Party. But they are never satisfied.

A "grand bargain" with House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, would have achieved nearly $4 trillion in deficit reduction and would have included up to $800 billion in new tax revenue. But Boehner broke off those talks.

The $800 billion in revenue would have been virtually the same as the amount generated by repealing the Bush tax cut for people making $200,000 or more… The revenue would come from eliminating loopholes, tax breaks, subsidies and myriad deductions…

In other word, the ‘grand bargain’ was all about rolling back the Bush tax cuts ‘for the rich.’ Which is what we said all along.

Meanwhile, the Republicans are supposed to trust Obama’s word and deal with him as an honest broker. Even though he won’t even stand by the measly two year tax extension that he agreed to.

Even as he signed the debt limit bill into law Tuesday, Obama once again sounded his now-familiar call for higher taxes on the wealthy as a tool to curb budget deficits. He said there would have to be a "balanced approach where everything is on the table. … It also means reforming our tax code so that the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations pay their fair share.

"And it means getting rid of taxpayer subsidies to oil and gas companies and tax loopholes that help billionaires pay a lower tax rate than teachers and nurses."

This should be no surprise. Every word that comes out of Mr. Obama’s mouth ultimately is a call for higher taxes.

After all, those votes aren’t going to buy themselves.

This article was posted by Steve on Wednesday, August 3rd, 2011. Comments are currently closed.

8 Responses to “AP Sobs: Obama Can’t Shake Bush Tax Cuts”

  1. River0 says:

    A larger percentage of House Democrats voted for the bill than House Tea Party Reps. The bill passed easily with Dem votes. They call us terrorists, and they vote for the bill! The hypocrisy and hubris of ‘progressives’ is beneath contempt.

    “Hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue.” – Matthew Arnold.

    They’re fully aware of their crime. Their hypocrisy proves it.

  2. Rascal says:

    What I will never understand is why these liberals think that what I earn is ultimately theirs? They didn’t pay my bills when I was going through college and grad school so why should they take more from my paycheck saying it really belongs to them to begin with? I wonder how they would react if I went on their front lawn, spread out a blanket and had myself a fine picnic on a summer’s day? Using their logic, that part of their lawn belongs to me. Think I would be arrested if I used that logic on them?

  3. JohnMG says:

    …. “We are going to roll back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans……”

    Well………he’s lied about everything else, why not this?

    Oh, yeah. Those be his peeps he lyin’ to now.

  4. proreason says:

    This tax stuff is interesting and potentially a huge clue to what will happen in the next 15 months.

    They know that raising taxes is lethal electorally. It doesn’t matter how many orgasms the welfare queens have over the thought, raising taxes will inflame many more tax-paying voters. They could create a 100% turnout of people opposed to the Criminals in Washington.

    So what is going on with this AP article, and the Moron’s renewed claim for tax hikes. That debate has been won by us at least twice AFTER the 2010 election, big-time.

    I’m wondering if it isn’t a signal that they plan to stop the 2012 election. Dick Morris said yesterday it will be a conservative landslide, and he might be right. Somehow, I don’t think the marxists are willing to slink off into the shadows again for a generation.

    And they aren’t exactly big proponents of voting when the outcome is uncertain, are they?

  5. Papa Louie says:

    “The ‘pay as you go’ rule is very simple. Congress can only spend a dollar if it saves a dollar elsewhere.”
    — President Obama; June 9, 2009

    It sounds simple to me, too. So why was Obama for “Pay As You Go” before he was against it? And why didn’t Republicans remind Obama of his own words? It was Obama that was holding America hostage in the debt deal with his demands to increase taxes. And, again, Republicans failed to remind him that he had already agreed to keep taxes unchanged for two years when he agreed to the extension of the Bush tax cuts.

  6. Anonymoose says:

    Over and over I keep hearing about how bad the Bush tax cuts were and seen the charts that it’s going to cause this tsunami of debt because that money isn’t coming in. The charts the Libs keep putting up show over and over the tax cuts taking up an increasing amount of the deficit. But the cuts were just that, no more money from that source; the Libs keep playing a shell game—they assume that as the deficits increase the wealthy would be there to pay on the entitlements; and also that the wealthy would be doing well enough to provide all this anticipated revenue, either by increased taxes or by simple virtue of having more money to tax.

    It’s the cumulative effect of having an income reduced but expenses increased that they look at; just like how these charts show the costs of the Iraq/Afghanistan wars as “costs of Bush’s policies” and therefore part of his debt, but don’t show the same wars on Obama’s watch where he’s also been spending money on them. And Libya? What Libya?

    The drive to fleece the rich is ridiculous; especially when so many people pay no taxes; everyone should just pay the same flat percentage of their income, no escapes, no outs, no cuts. Instead we’ll keep on going with tax breaks here and there for everything and somehow anyone with a good income should step up and cover for it. (And I’m definitely not rich.)

  7. vietnamvet says:

    This is the old class warfare all over again. Tax the rich does not work. They stop making money and creating jobs in the process or find other sources of income that are not taxed.

    • eaglewingz08 says:

      Gee, you’d think those highly competent fact checkers at AP would discover that Boehner had a Grand Bargain calling only for 800 billion in additional revenue but at the last minute Obama wanted an additional 400 billion in tax increases, which blew up the negotiations.
      But since Obama can do no wrong, and since raising taxes is the holy grail of the democrap party, and thus AP, these inconvenient facts will never see the light of day in an AP article.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »