Come 2012 & the general election, how on earth does President Obama get around the tax issue?

[mtnsnake]

Most economists know that extending Bush's tax cuts was simply irresponsible. Even if you don't agree that it was irresponsible, what the heck is President Obama going to do when the election rolls around in less than 2 years?

If he campaigns to end Bush's tax cuts in 2012, he'll be raked over the coals by Republicans for flip-flopping, and it will jeopardize his chance of re-election.

If he campaigns to make Bush's tax cuts permanent, he'll make himself look like a hypocrite, alienating Independents, as well as many Democrats, and it could cost us the election.

So when the General Election rolls around, how does Obama take a position on the all important tax issue without getting labeled as a flip-flopper by one side or a hypocrite by the other? The campaign will start in little more than a year and a half. Any suggestions?

[rurallib]

1. Or as one of the Bushco lackeys termed it, the trap they set for him.

[customerserviceguy]

4. Make that the second trap

The expiration of the cuts at the end of 2010 was timed so that it would be right in the middle of a Presidential term. That would be a Democratic President, if, as could be reasonably expected, the Repukes would lose in 2008.

[louis-t]

2. Show the damage done and increase in debt due to

leaving them where they are. Repukes will all but control Congress and will have no excuse for not creating jobs or decreasing the debt.

[Hello_Kitty]

5. The GOP will control Congress and they don't give a shit about damage or debt increase.

Except as an excuse to cut social programs. Which they'll do, with the President's blessing. Because, you know, the deficit.

[Hello_Kitty]

3. Yeah, given how many in the Teabagger freshman class are signing a "no tax increase" pledge

Where are the votes in the House to increase taxes going to come from?

[tblue]

6. Who will believe him when he says he wants to let them expire, again?

Not me.

[Exilednight]

44. Exactly. More than anything, this deal severely damaged his credibility on the issue. n/t

[niceypoo]

7. The timing says it all

The Bush tax cuts will be the number one issue in 2012, the republicans will scream, 'you can't raise taxes in a bad economy,' and Obama will fold again.

If he campaigns to make them permanent, he is no longer a Democrat. At that point he becomes a republican.

[awoke_in_2003]

31. if he campaigns to make them permanent...

then there is hope that they will be allowed to expire if he is re-elected :)

[boppers]

43. *snort*

We need to get the whole party behind making them permanent.

The republican machine would fight tooth and nail to let them expire, just to avoid letting Obama get what he wants.

[Exilednight]

45. WTF? Why would the Democratic party get behind making permanent the

Bush/Obama tax cuts for the top 2%?

There has already been enough economic damage done to this country due to those tax cuts. It's like going into the doctor with a fractured finger and he tells you that he needs to amputate your arm.

[awoke_in_2003]

54. Because then the republicans....

would want the expire- and the republicans usually get what they (think they) want

[awoke_in_2003]

53. agreed...

:)

[customerserviceguy]

8. There is one way

The Deficit Commission laid out the roadmap for this. If cuts are made in spending, and deductions eliminated, then the top tax rates can come down, since more income will be taxed.

I think this is the way that the President and the tea party infested Repuke party will deal with this.

[ProSense]

9. The question needs to separate the issues

Most economists know that extending Bush's tax cuts was simply irresponsible. Even if you don't agree that it was irresponsible, what the heck is President Obama going to do when the election rolls around in less than 2 years?

If he campaigns to end Bush's tax cuts in 2012, he'll be raked over the coals by Republicans for flip-flopping, and it will jeopardize his chance of re-election.

If he campaigns to make Bush's tax cuts permanent, he'll make himself look like a hypocrite, alienating Independents, as well as many Democrats, and it could cost us the election.

So when the General Election rolls around, how does Obama take a position on the all important tax issue without getting labeled as a flip-flopper by one side or a hypocrite by the other? The campaign will start in little more than a year and a half. Any suggestions?

Point one: Most economists say extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich was irresponsible. President Obama didn't advocate extending the tax cuts for the rich.

Point two: What Republicans think is irrelevant, and they'll rake him over the coals regardless of what he does.

Point three: Why would he campaign to make Bush tax cuts for the rich permanent (assuming that's what you meant)? Campaigning to make the middle class tax cuts permanent would be separate. Still, while he has indicated that he'll fight expanding tax cuts for the rich, he's hasn't stated that he will definitely campaign to make the tax cuts for the middle class permanent.

Point four: What exactly would he be flip-flopping on?



edited typo

[Dawgs]

11. Point One: Economists said doing it was irresponsible. Obama did it. Obama was irresponsible.

Nice to see that you agree with point one.

[Vincardog]

10. His backers get Sister Sarah to get the GOP the nomination then the GOP would really be worse option

[CakeGrrl]

12. He never supported raising taxes, and was very clear when he spoke

to announce the deal to extend unemployment.

It's not that hard to get: He doesn't want the tax cuts, and never did. But the Republicans held any other progress hostage until they got a partial concession.

The President explained that clearly the other week when he gave a presser about the tax deal, and he's on record where he stands with tax cuts.

[Dawgs]

16. He sure fought like he didn't want them.

Not!

:eyes:

[awoke_in_2003]

33. because democrats appear powerless...

when they are the minority party and the majority party. Funny how the republicans don't have this problem.

[Exilednight]

46. On record is fine and dandy, but actions speak louder than words. n/t

[RDANGELO]

13. There are plenty of economists who think that a second stimulus

is needed, such as Krugman. That's basically what this amounts to. My hunch is that he will probably propose another temporary cut for the middle class, but not the wealthy, which is where most of the electorate is. The main issue for the election is going to be job creation. On that account, I think you are overrating the issue.

[Dawgs]

15. 'he will propose another cut for the middle class, but not the wealthy, which is where most are.'

Then why didn't he do it this time? I know, unemployment insurance.

The OP is wondering what it will be in two years. How can we trust that he won't cave to get something else next time?

[Telly Savalas]

59. That's what he proposed this time.

When it was clear that this proposal wouldn't be adopted, he compromised. There's certainly room to debate whether the pseudo-stimulus of the middle-class cuts plus the unemployment insurance extension was worth tax cuts for the wealthy, but they were certainly desirable goals.

In two years he'll be dealing with a GOP controlled House. So Obama will likely be left with the choice of accepting an even more watered down deal or playing some stupid game of chicken with the GOP. One would have to be dreaming to imagine that the latter option would arrive at a productive outcome, so I'd be prepared to be disappointed.

The only way we're going to see real productive change is to nominate and elect quality candidates to the House and Senate in Nov. 2012. Such candidates generally aren't going to be bankrolled by big money interests, so it's going to take grassroots efforts to succeed. These grassroots efforts take time to work, so this shit needs to be happening now if it's going to happen at all. DU would presumably be the ideal venue to communicate about these grassroots campaigns, yet there's basically no discussion of them here.

[Hello_Kitty]

17. Something will be held hostage for tax cuts to the rich and they will be extended too. eom

[msongs]

14. One lie deserves another? nt

[Aramchek]

18. why would he be criticized for flip-flopping? He still believes the high-income tax cuts were unwise

and has said so repeatedly since the bill passed.

All he has to do is keep saying what he has already said.

[Igel]

20. Because of the reasoning.

Continuing current rates for the top earners was unwise because it added to the deficit. We simply couldn't afford it. The extension was seen as a big loss.

Then the extension that we couldn't afford turned out to be a small portion of the overall increase in the deficit due to the bill he signed. It was suddenly spun as a second Obama stimulus. In this, he made a defeat into a victory--but quite possibly at the risk of levering his victory into a much larger defeat.

Similarly, the Bush anti-recession stimuli in 2001/02 and in 2008 were panned as inevitably ineffective. Tax cuts, economists left of center, with Democrats loudly backing them, couldn't work. Tax cuts were included in the Obama stimulus in 2009 only as a ineffectual sop to repubs, even if many of the tax cuts were refundable tax credits. Except now the third stimulus for this recession is very like the first stimulus in being almost entirely "ineffective" tax cuts (distributed differently--the first was in the form of single-lump payments). And, unlike the horrors of the first stimulus added a couple hundred billion to the debt this one adds many hundreds of billions to the debt.

[awoke_in_2003]

34. he is good at "saying" stuff. nt

[craigmatic]

19. He'll most likely try to do political jujutsu by saying that he extended them once but now it's time

to raise rates back up. It's sort of like an alcoholic preaching against alcohol. This is going to play into the republicans' favor and they'll run the entire election arond these tax cuts. It'll unify their party at a time when they should be at each other's throats.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

21. He will stand tough on the tax cuts for the rich

until the election is over and he's re-elected. Then he'll cave on tax cuts.

[Enrique]

22. easy

campaign on ending the Bush tax cuts. Do it loudly and very sincerely and eloquently. Say all the right things. Then at the very last minute, extend them and bash anyone who doesn't like it.

[paparush]

24. Hey, I might go for that..

ooh..I already did.

[mtnsnake]

26. LOL

That wouldn't surprise me in the least, although at that point, it wouldn't be "extending them", it would be "making them permanent."

[NorthCarolina]

30. Deja vu. nt

[awoke_in_2003]

35. like Lucy with the football...

and some of us keep thinking we are going to kick it this time.

[robcon]

23. Get AROUND the tax issue????

It will never get to his desk.

There's no chance whatsoever that Congress will pass a tax increase in an election year.

His position on taxes makes him the prohibitive favorite to win re-election, IMO. He's attracted a lot of independents, and pissed off a few Democrats, but his approval overall is rising because of it.

[mtnsnake]

28. Wow, talk about wishful thinking

There's no chance whatsoever that Congress will pass a tax increase in an election year.

Huh?? Since when does Congress run for President? It's the presidential candidates campaigning for President who will be taking a position on taxes in the 2012 campaign, not Congress.

His position on taxes makes him the prohibitive favorite to win re-election, IMO.

And how do you figure that? If his position is to end Bush's tax cuts, then he'll be branded a flip-flopper by the repukes and many Independents. But if he campaigns on making Bush's tax cuts permanent, then he'll be labeled a hypocrite by many of the same people who got him elected in the first place AND many of the Independents.

The country needed that tax money to survive the future. He should have fought to end all of Bush's obscene tax cuts, period, for the sake of the entire country. His move was political for the short term, and it could backfire severely in less than 2 years unless he pulls a bunny out of a hat.

[robcon]

42. How do you get that?

"If his position is to end Bush's tax cuts, then he'll be branded a flip-flopper by the repukes and many Independents."

Just the opposite is happening. Independents are turning favorably since the 'compromise' occurred. See Gallup.

I know you'd LIKE it to be a negative, but the tax 'compromise' was a huge win for Obama.

[mtnsnake]

48. This thread is about the position he'll take in 2012, not about 2010

"If his position is to end Bush's tax cuts, then he'll be branded a flip-flopper by the repukes and many Independents."

Just the opposite is happening. Independents are turning favorably since the 'compromise' occurred. See Gallup.

That may be what's happening now. When he's forced to take a solid position on the same tax issue in a year and a half, he's going to be caught between a rock and a hard place. Don't you ever care to look ahead?

I know you'd LIKE it to be a negative, but the tax 'compromise' was a huge win for Obama.

I don't mind you making it personal, but I don't appreciate it when you lie about me. I do not "LIKE it to be a negative." I don't like it because it IS a negative. I think it's bad for the future well-being of our country because we can't afford Bush's obscene cuts any longer, but all you seem to care about is that Gallup says people are glad for the compromise. Well you and Gallup may be glad about the rich continuing to strangle this country of its last financial breath, but I'm not. Some of you cheerleaders need to peer through your pom poms and show some concern for the future, or we're gonna end up with a Republican president. You should be glad there are some people who are concerned enough to start preparing now for a tough position Obama is going to have to take on an issue that always hurts us in elections. I'd rather start figuring it out now, but go ahead and sit back with your complacent attitude that the election in 2012 is a lock because Gallup says some Independents are happy with the compromise now.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

25. Depends how strong the GOP is looking in 2012

If the predictions of many here (including myself) are borne out and the Republican Tea Party is fizzling out and/or disgraced by then, President Obama will have a stronger hand with which to argue against extending the upper-income tax cuts and it will probably be harder for the GOP to "take hostages" again, particularly since President Obama has already called them out on it. :shrug:

[Robbins]

27. Easy

Run on repealing the tax cuts for the rich and work on helping Democrats retake the House.Which Is not a crazy thing.Getting
Democrats out to vote and regaining the Independent vote can do It.The Public likes the comproise because the middle class tax
cuts and other things he got remain.Repealing tax Cuts for the rich Is a popular thing.

[golfguru]

29. Good point, he will be between Iraq and a hard place n/t

[RBInMaine]

32. First, chill out. Obama is the best damn political chess player there is. Here is what he does:

He argues that 2010 was what it WAS: A TEMPORARY extension to strike a COMPROMISE at a critical time for the economy. By 2012, the economy will be rebounding at a more robust rate, AND all the talk will be about DEFICITS DEFICITS DEFICITS. He SIMPLY argues that 2010 was 2010 and 2012 is 2012. That was then, and this is now.

He argues what the situation was in 2010: that he NEVER agreed to PERMANENT cuts for the rich, that he is on record TIME AND TIME AND TIME AGAIN saying he wasn't for them (HE PLAYS THOSE TAPES OVER AND AGAIN), and talks like hell about how FISCALLY RECKLESS it would be to extend them PERMANENTLY at this NEW juncture in time. HE puts THEM on the DEFENSE by making them explain how a PERMANENT extension would be PAID FOR and WHY it is more important to give tax breaks to millionaires (WHICH IS AN UNPOPULAR POSITION WITH A SOLID MAJORITY OF PUBLIC BY THE WAY) than to extend them just for the middle class and do other things for the middle class, small business, and the unemployed.

It is simply a matter of framing it up right and putting THEM on defense.

Again, Obama is the best damn political chess player there is.
It is Obama who set the RePUKES up for a fall on this.

[mtnsnake]

38. You didn't actually say it, but I assume you're saying he'll campaign in 2012 to end Bush's tax cuts

which will give repukes their beloved ammunition for saying Obama will raise your taxes and Republicans won't. They'll also plaster him with the flip flopper label if he takes that position because he is the one getting credit for the tax compromise of 2010, which extends all of Bush's tax cuts. You are also basing your thoughts on the assumption that "the economy will be rebounding at a more robust rate" by then.

I will say this. I appreciate hearing your solution, and if things do shape up economically in a year and a half from now, then Obama should hire you as one of his advisers because you certainly do a better job at framing the issue than our current talking heads do.

[Exilednight]

47. That makes absolutely no sense. If he really believed it to be

"FISCALLY RECKLESS" then he would of never have extended them.

And BTW, Obama, since being elected, has never been able to put Republicans on the defensive. He's really bad at playing politics.

I know, it's not what you want to hear, but sometimes the truth hurts.

[RBInMaine]

49. You need a civics lesson. He DIDN'T AGREE BUT HAD TO COMPROMISE IN THE SHORT TERM. Get it?

[niceypoo]

55. No, he didn't

He didn't have to compromise in the short term. All he had to do was let them expire. The GOP would have put up a token show of resistance, then folded under pressure on extending unemployment insurance. Their resistance was/is pure fake bluster. Their folding so easily on everything during the lame duck session proves it.

[mtnsnake]

56. BINGO. n/t

[NYC Liberal]

62. You haven't been paying attention to the Republicans.

What reason would they have for folding when they've never given a shit about the unemployed before? After all the things they've done? In reality, had there been no compromise then NOTHING would have passed because the Republicans have no problem screwing we the people over.

[niceypoo]

63. Bullshit

Its all a phony act. They fold at the slightest political threat, as we saw during the lame duck session.

[RBInMaine]

50. The TRUTH is that he has passed more PROGRESSIVE legislation than we have seen in a generation, and

your views are well outside reality. And, he was and IS against PERMANENT tax cuts for the wealthy.
Get it? PERMANENT. He agreed to a TEMPORARY compromise and it was the right thing to do all things considered, and you are very, very DEEP in the minority of public opinion if you don't agree. The more ideal bill couldn't pass the Senate. Did you somehow miss that? Please, take a civics class.

[Exilednight]

65. Let's see what happens in 2012 when he is running for re-election. n/t

[sofa king]

36. "Voted AGAINST a middle class tax cut."

That's what damned near every Republican up for reelection gets to run against in 2012.

The President gets to set the pace for the election by demanding separate votes on the middle class extensions and the rich peoples' extensions. Then the Dems get to hold the actual vote out of reach of the Republicans until after the election. Just to rile people up, they can force the Republicans to filibuster it in the Senate just before the August recess.

So we get to hammer them from now until then on an issue that like 70% of all voters will consider highly important, and the Republicans are upside down on it, can't change their records, can't vote on a further extension to redeem themselves, and can be forced to hold our taxes hostage again whenever we want, just to remind everyone what wankers they really are.

They're totally screwed.

[BeyondGeography]

37. He'll have two problems

First, if the economy has improved, the Republicans will say it was because he did it their way and held the line on taxes. "Why kill our still weak recovery with a tax hike?" they will scream. And it will have legs.

The other problem, as you suggest, is he didn't have the political will or the votes last time, so why will anyone expect it to be different in 2013?

What he will have going for himself in the 2012 campaign, however, is the absurdity of the Republican approach to the deficit, which is cut, cut, cut, without even contemplating a revenue-based solution. He will get plenty of mileage out of that in the campaign, and recycle the arguments that he traded off this time around for legislative gains at the end of the session.

[mtnsnake]

40. Great point

First, if the economy has improved, the Republicans will say it was because he did it their way and held the line on taxes.

Yup, you are spot on about that. And if the economy doesn't improve, then he won't only be caught between a rock and a hard place with whatever his 2012 tax position becomes, but he'll have a lot of explaining to do about his 2010 decision to compromise by extending Bush's tax cuts.

[krawhitham]

39. he will campaign to end Bush's tax cuts, - NO FLIPPY FLOP

He already explained in a press conference they only reason they were not ended now was because the GOP was blackmailing the DEMs into it or nothing would get done in the duck session.

So there is not Flip Flop

He runs on the fact that if enough other DEMs are voted into office they can not be blackmailed into it again.

[mtnsnake]

41. The Republicans will surely say he flip flopped if he campaigns not to extend them in 2012,

considering that he commpromised to extend the tax cuts in 2010. Republicans aren't nice people when it comes to campaigns.

[RBInMaine]

51. They can say whatever they want to say. He made it VERY VERY CLEAR that he opposed PERMANENT cuts

for the rich. So chill out over it.

[mtnsnake]

52. Why do you keep telling me to chill out when it's you who sounds like your head is about to explode?

You really do need to calm down and start thinking ahead so we can get prepared for the tough situations were going to face in 2012. Winning in 2012 isn't as simple as sitting back and relaxing over the thought that our president made it "VERY VERY CLEAR that he opposed PERMANENT cuts" in the past. Good gawd.

[Pisces]

60. I guess you didn't listen to him. He said is against tax cuts for the rich, but felt the compromise

was necessary with Republicans in order to get relief for unemployed workers. He stated this at the press conference when he was asked point blank about it. He never thought tax cuts for the rich
was the way to go, but thats what happens in a negotiation. You don't get everything you want. He got an extension not a permanent tax cut. In 2012 he doesn't extend them and he makes the republicans run on the supporting the rich.

[mtnsnake]

61. "In 2012 he doesn't extend them"

And you know this how? From past experience?

I just love how the best excuse anyone can come up with to justify extending Bush's obscene tax cuts for the rich is the unemployment thing, when that issue could have/should have been dealt with separately on its own merits, not as an excuse to continue Bush's tax cuts that everyone knows we can't afford.

Anyway, it will be interesting to see how he handles it during his upcoming campaign.

[paulk]

57. he'll be against tax cuts for the rich

some "compromise" will be reached over some issue or another where the tax cuts will be extended - Obama will fold, knowing that the part of the Democratic Party he pisses off will have no alternative but to vote for him...


wash, rinse, repeat

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[zbdent]

64. He won't ...

Why didn't he negotiate for a 3 year extension? One year extension?

Come now, it's going to be the big issue of 2012 ... "Look, Obama betrayed you liberals by extending the tax cuts. Now look at the economy:"

(economy picking up steam): "We have to make these cuts permanent or Obama's going to have the fragile recovery grind to a halt or go into reverse!"

(economy still stagnating, at best, under - guess what - Republican-controlled house - which, in 2010, the "liberally-biased media" let be portrayed as "Nancy Pelosi's recession"): "Look, we've now SUFFERED under 4 years of Obama's socialist agenda. He's got to be eliminated."

[mkultra]

66. seems pretty simple. Stand against the tax cuts for the rich

if they label him a flip flopper he can remind them that he has always been against them and that he only agreed to them as part of a package deal that included tax cuts for the rest of us as well as UI extensions and DADT cloture.