Results 1 to 10 of 17

Thread: Well he compromised...

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Inactive Member R13's Avatar
    Join Date
    September 25th, 2007
    Posts
    10,269
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Well he compromised...

    I'm not thrilled about this at all, I understand he was in a corner with this and that they wouldn't budge(they have made this openly clear and even Mitch McConnell said that their number priority over the next 2 years is to make sure he isn't elected again - defend that), but I didn't want them extended to the wealthy at all - that's disappointing. With that said, this wasn't as bad as I thought it would be because..

    1) The middle class cuts were extended, which was the most important thing.
    2) The tax cuts for the wealthy were only extended for 2 years.
    3) There's new tax cuts in this for the middle class, like that payroll tax cut.
    4) I seen Obama take a new tone today in that speech, he blasted the GOP for this and said he can't wait to see them defend this in 2012.


    Washington (CNN) -- President Barack Obama vigorously defended his agreement with Republicans to extend all of the Bush-era tax cuts, arguing Tuesday that it was a price that had to be paid to spare the middle class from crippling tax hikes.

    The president promised disheartened Democrats that the fight over the cuts for the highest-income Americans would continue over the next two years. He also urged them to take a long-term view of the bitter policy fights now taking place in Washington.

    My "number one priority is to do what's right for the American people," he said at a hastily scheduled news conference at the White House. "Because of this agreement, middle class Americans won't see their taxes go up on January 1."

    Obama blasted the Republicans for clinging to a rigid ideology that, in his opinion, has blinded the GOP to the needs and concerns of average Americans.

    It is "tempting not to negotiate with hostage takers unless the hostage gets harmed, "he said. If "there was not collateral damage" to a continued fight with the GOP over tax cuts, then "I would just stick to my guns" and not cut a deal with Republican leaders.

    But, he complained, he had little choice given the current composition of Congress and GOP gains in the midterm elections.

    Extending tax cuts for the wealthy is the "holy grail" for Republicans, he said. It appears to be "their central economic doctrine," and, he noted, one they can defend by using the filibuster in the Senate.

    Democrats need to "make sure we understand this is a long game, not a short one," he concluded, promising to take the fight to the GOP on the campaign trail in 2012.

    It was not immediately clear if Obama's defense of the deal -- as well as Vice President Joe Biden's one-on-one efforts behind closed doors on Capitol Hill -- would sway more liberal Democrats. The overall cost to the U.S. treasury of the controversial compromise will be between $600 billion and $800 billion over two years, according to CNN estimates.

    At the heart of the deal is an extension of the Bush-era tax cuts for two more years, which would keep income tax rates at their current levels for everyone, as Republicans have advocated. Obama and other Democrats had argued that tax rates should stay the same for most people but rise for people earning more than $200,000 a year and families making $250,000 or more a year.

    The deal Obama and Republicans have struck also includes a one-year cut in payroll taxes, from 6.2% to 4.2%. The tax is applied to a worker's first $106,800 of wages. If implemented, it would mean that someone earning $50,000 a year would pay $1,000 less in Social Security contributions next year. Someone earning $100,000 would pay $2,000 less. The payroll tax rate would go back up to 6.2% in 2012.

    The estate tax -- currently scheduled to return in 2011 to a top rate of 55% along with a $1 million exemption -- would instead come back with a lower top rate of 35% along with a $5 million exemption.

    Agreeing to extend the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans represented a major concession for Obama. In a concession to Democrats, Republican negotiators agreed to leave in place for 13 months the option to file for extended federal unemployment benefits. That will not, however, affect how long someone can collect unemployment benefits -- the maximum will remain 99 weeks in states hardest hit by job loss.

    The plan also would continue tax breaks for students and families contained in the 2009 stimulus bill and allow businesses to write off all investments they make next year.

    Republicans appeared quick to rally behind the deal.

    "The right thing for our country is to support the tax agreement," Tennessee GOP Sen. Lamar Alexander said before Obama spoke. "It makes it easier and cheaper to create private sector jobs."

    Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, predicted the "vast majority" of Senate Republicans will back the deal.

    Several Democrats said they have reservations about the agreement. One reason is the cost.

    Extending the Bush-era tax cuts for two years would cost $458 billion, the Treasury Department has estimated -- $383 billion for lower and middle income Americans plus $75 billion for individuals making more than $200,000 a year and families making $250,000 or more. The White House has estimated that lowering the payroll tax would cost $120 billion. Extending unemployment benefits for 13 months comes with a $62 billion price tag, according to CNN estimates.

    Lowering the top estate tax rate to 35% -- combined with the $5 million exemption -- costs $88 billion over two years, according to the Tax Policy Center.

    The deal doesn't say anything about raising money to pay for the changes. That suggests that the federal deficit will continue to rise despite rising pressure to curb spending and lower the deficit. Just last week, a bipartisan presidential panel voted 11-8 in favor of spending cuts and tax changes that would cut $4 trillion from the projected deficits between now and 2020. That majority, however, was not big enough to send the proposal on to Congress.

    The 2010 federal budget deficit was $1.3 trillion; it's projected to be somewhat smaller in 2011. That projection doesn't take the proposed tax deal into account.

    Defenders of the deal contend that it is possible to be fiscally responsible while adding to the deficit in the short-term. The package, they argue, could help stimulate economic growth necessary to create new jobs and generate new tax revenue.

    "One of the critical things for what our fiscal situation is going to be in 2014 and 2015 is not only the tougher policies that the president will talk about in his (upcoming) State of the Union (address), but ensuring that we get growth going in 2011 and 2012," a senior administration official said Monday.

    If Congress doesn't pass some kind of tax deal by the end of the year, taxes will go up for everyone, since the current rates set under President George W. Bush expire automatically at the end of 2010. Democrats control both houses of Congress, but the Republicans will take control of the House of Representatives in January, and the Democratic majority in the Senate will be smaller than it is now.

    Some Democrats, speaking to reporters before Obama's news conference, said the president had conceded too much to Republican demands.

    "I still seem puzzled at the president's enthusiasm, and the Republicans giving an income tax break for people making over $1 million. We're borrowing $46 billion to do so," said Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu, a moderate Democrat.

    Liberal Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-New Jersey, accused the president of "capitulation under pressure."

    "What do I think of it? Not much," said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont.

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, said Tuesday the deal "clearly presents the differences between Democrats and Republicans."

    "Republicans have held the middle class hostage for provisions that benefit only the wealthiest 3%, do not create jobs, and add tens of billions of dollars to the deficit," she said. "We will continue discussions with the president and our caucus in the days ahead."

    A revolt by liberal Democrats, particularly in the House, would imperil the chances for the plan to win approval before the end of current lame-duck session of Congress. With the Bush-era tax cuts set to expire at the end of the year, Obama has said it is more important to act now than to continue waging a political fight.

    The compromise, worked out in negotiations involving the White House, the Treasury and congressional leaders from both parties, includes provisions that each side doesn't like, Obama said in a hastily arranged statement to reporters Monday evening, after discussing the proposed deal with Democratic leaders.

    House Democrats, who approved a measure last week extending the Bush-era tax cuts for family incomes up to $250,000 a year, indicated earlier Monday they were unhappy with the negotiations that the White House was conducting with congressional Republicans.

    "We won't rubber stamp a deal between the White House and (Senate Minority Leader) Mitch McConnell," one Democratic congressional source told CNN. "We want to make it clear. Don't take our support for granted."

    Obama slams GOP, calls tax deal politically realistic - CNN.com

  2. #2
    Inactive Member Biggin's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 18th, 2002
    Posts
    9,588
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Re: Well he compromised...

    So republicans, SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT BALANCING THE BUDGET!!!!!!!!

    You were SOOOO dead set on getting these tax cuts extended, which will mean LESS REVENUE for the government, and make it almost impossible to balance the budget.

    This was just another showing of how fucked up Washington is. One party flat out REFUSED to even compromise on an issue, how fucking ridiculous is that? How selfish, childish, MORONIC is it to refuse to even compromise?
    The dems compromised on the health care bill, which only made it worse, but they were willing to try and make the other side somewhat happy.
    The GOP refuses to acknowledge that they are not teh smartest people in the world and do not always do wahts best for America.


    the dems arent much better anymore, but at least they are willing to at least try to compromise on some things.
    [IMG]http://i254.photobucket.com/albums/hh111/Vic_Fontaine/sig.jpg[/IMG]

  3. #3
    Inactive Member cosmo99's Avatar
    Join Date
    November 7th, 2005
    Posts
    503
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Re: Well he compromised...

    I may not completely be an Obama fan but I am really proud of him this week, he set aside any issues and helped the people. Without him doing this a lot of people would be in some serious trouble with unemployment running out. So for that I thank you Mr. President!!:flagwaver:

  4. #4
    Inactive Member 1inStripes's Avatar
    Join Date
    August 25th, 2002
    Posts
    12,052
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Re: Well he compromised...

    Why STFU to Republicans about balancing the budget?

    Its called spend the money wiser. That is what is the biggest issue is IMO. If you are not going to spend the money wiser, we will all need to be hit with a tax hike. I fully expect that to happen in 2013 if Obama is reelected and if the Dems take control back because then he doesn't have to be worried about being held to his "I won't tax the middle class" talk and worry about losing his next election. That is a big thing that hurt Bush 41.
    "Call me crazy, but I want to buy the Dallas Cowboys end zone and have the star right at the foot of my bed. That way when I score, I can spike the ball right on the star!" -Woody Paige, Around the Horn 10.9.08

  5. #5
    Inactive Member TheBeast's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 24th, 2004
    Posts
    4,351
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Re: Well he compromised...

    Not my words but I agree completely with all of them. I know you dem/libs won't like none of what follows and will agree that whoever did say these things is one of the biggest idiots ever born.



    It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now ... Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.

    Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased ? not a reduced ? flow of revenues to the federal government.

    In today's economy, fiscal prudence and responsibility call for tax reduction even if it temporarily enlarges the federal deficit ? why reducing taxes is the best way open to us to increase revenues.

    It is no contradiction ? the most important single thing we can do to stimulate investment in today's economy is to raise consumption by major reduction of individual income tax rates.

    Our tax system still siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power and reduces the incentive for risk, investment and effort ? thereby aborting our recoveries and stifling our national growth rate.

    A tax cut means higher family income and higher business profits and a balanced federal budget. Every taxpayer and his family will have more money left over after taxes for a new car, a new home, new conveniences, education and investment. Every businessman can keep a higher percentage of his profits in his cash register or put it to work expanding or improving his business, and as the national income grows, the federal government will ultimately end up with more revenues.
    [COLOR="Lime"][SIZE="6"][FONT="Century Gothic"]CREAG AN TUIRC[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR]
    [img]http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a183/mm38nut/thkfc.gif[/img]

  6. #6
    Inactive Member CoeburnCane's Avatar
    Join Date
    August 24th, 2004
    Posts
    4,931
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Re: Well he compromised...

    OK--I'll bite. Who said those things?
    [U][COLOR=#22229c][IMG]http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b242/btketron/miami-med.gif[/IMG][IMG]http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b242/btketron/nohokie-med.gif[/IMG][/COLOR][/U]
    [U][COLOR=#22229c][IMG]http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b242/btketron/Funny/owmyballs.gif[/IMG][/COLOR][/U]

  7. #7
    Inactive Member R13's Avatar
    Join Date
    September 25th, 2007
    Posts
    10,269
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Re: Well he compromised...

    Quote Originally Posted by 1inStripes View Post
    Why STFU to Republicans about balancing the budget?

    .
    Because they just tacked on a trillion at least to the deficit and not wisely.





    And why would we hate those comments? That's Kennedy btw(well I know the first part is, I've seen it before) and as we can see, dems/libs have long championed tax cuts, I don't know why you on the right try to argue otherwise. As we can see just recently, the GOP doesn't nor has ever cared about tax cuts for anyone but the wealthy.

  8. #8
    Inactive Member 1inStripes's Avatar
    Join Date
    August 25th, 2002
    Posts
    12,052
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Re: Well he compromised...

    Thanks for cutting the rest of my statement. That only tacks on the trillion due to estimates of what could have been gotten had the tax cuts expired as a whole, plus interest. Had the Dems kept the middle class cuts as they wanted and charged the top 2%, then the difference was just slightly less than a trillion. Not a big difference.
    "Call me crazy, but I want to buy the Dallas Cowboys end zone and have the star right at the foot of my bed. That way when I score, I can spike the ball right on the star!" -Woody Paige, Around the Horn 10.9.08

  9. #9
    Inactive Member TheBeast's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 24th, 2004
    Posts
    4,351
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Re: Well he compromised...

    Of course it was Kennedy, he actually had some sense and knew what needed to be done to increase federal revenue. You will notice that he talked about actual cuts across the board especially for businesses, big businesses more so than others.

    Look up bar stool economics it is just an anecdote but it is very fitting of the view that dems/libs have on the "rich".

    I'll go ahead and do the work for ya.



    Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

    The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
    The fifth would pay $1.
    The sixth would pay $3.
    The seventh would pay $7.
    The eighth would pay $12.
    The ninth would pay $18.
    The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

    So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.
    "Since you are all such good customers", he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20". Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
    The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?"
    They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

    And so:
    The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
    The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
    The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
    The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
    The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
    The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

    Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
    "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!"
    "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"
    "That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
    "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
    The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
    The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

    And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
    [COLOR="Lime"][SIZE="6"][FONT="Century Gothic"]CREAG AN TUIRC[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR]
    [img]http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a183/mm38nut/thkfc.gif[/img]

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •