Obama Wants Tax Cuts for Wealthiest Americans Ended in 2012, Jarrett Says

[Joanne98]

Source: Bloomberg

Valerie Jarrett, a senior adviser to President Barack Obama, said the administration will work over the next two years to end tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans that were included in broader tax legislation passed this month.

Obama, in a compromise with Senate Republicans, agreed to a two-year extension of tax reductions for family income above $250,000 coupled with an extension of unemployment benefits. Jarrett said the issue will come up again before the 2012 presidential elections.

“That’s something he is willing to fight for,” she said in an interview taped for broadcast on NBC’s “Meet the Press” today. “He is going to fight very hard when those two-year extensions expire” to end the breaks for top earners.

Vice President Joe Biden said on the same program last week that ending the tax cuts for the wealthy would be a goal in 2012.



Read more: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-26/obama-wants-tax-cuts-for-wealthiest-americans-ended-in-2012-jarrett-says.html

---

yada yada

The Republicans are already planning to hold the "debt limit bill" hostage to get MORE tax cuts for the rich. As in a PERMANENT rate of 28%. Now if she wanted to be HELPFUL she would let us know NOW if he planned to veto that bill and let the Republicans shut down the government.

Telling us what he wants to do in 2012 is pointless. We need to know what he's going to do in MARCH OF 2011!

[Angry Dragon]

1. Where are the jobs??

[whattheidonot]

37. no jobs.

There will be few jobs until this whole thing on the debt and taxes plays out. Private business is not going to give people jobs until they start selling stuff. The stimulus was not big enough so people are not buying. Austerity will eventually free up capital but meanwhile people lose more jobs so there are fewer buyers. It is one gigantic Catch 22. The whole way we do business including the wars has got to change. Spending all this money on influencing the world while our economy goes down the tubes is crazy.

[soryang]

2. Sure he has to say that for the next two years

Politicians are the worst sort of liars!

:puke:

[cyclezealot]

Yeah.. We've heard that one before.

:banghead:

[roguevalley]

58. I want job creation for the jobless and help for the poor. Who

is more moral? Him or me? Right now, I would have to see it written in platinum to believe him. I wanted them over the moment they were enacted. Oh, wait. He has some fifth dimensional plan going. I see.... I see ...

[sendero]

60. Obama..

... talk, talk more talk, talk talk, hope, hope, change but no change, talk talk talk talk talk.

[breadandwine]

45. How on earth can he pull it off?

If tax cuts for the wealthy had expired now, later the GOP would have to demand tax cuts for the rich to restore them. It would look like a new set of tax cuts for the rich which wouldn't be so popular.

But because Obama passed tax cuts for the rich now, in 2012 it will be said that he is raising taxes if he doesn't continue them. In an election year. It is politically impossible for this wet noodle to push for a tax increase in an election year if he couldn't push for one now with 2 years before the next election.

Besides, people believe the GOP because they have passion while Obama is called "No Drama." He who shouts must have been wronged. They get all hot and bothered about the HURT of tax increases for the rich while he is relatively soft-spoken.

The tax cuts for the rich will be permanent for the next few years. Jarrett is full of crap. We have already lost this one.

[egoclothes]

3. He had his best chance THIS year!

[Sherman A1]

33. Precisely

He gets :nopity: from me on this one.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

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

[enough]

5. I wish he and everyone in his administration would STOP SAYING THIS.

It sounds so false and self-serving that it's actually insulting. How do they expect us to react to this? Sure they want to cut those taxes in 2012. Fine. He will "fight very hard?"
Fool me once .........

[eleny]

6. I just watched her interview on MTP

She's so smart and committed yet she came across as the smartest one in the class who developed her talking points and was most committed to only to sticking to repeating them. I feel that she's got a lot of heart and yet she came across as robotic.

I agree with you that she needed to get to the meat of the matter, rounded out the realities and provided us with at least some hints on how the president is planning to get his plans accomplished or at least in motion.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

14. She always sounds robotic to me. But it's mostly about her speaking style.

She doesn't seem to vary her pitch or amplitude. It starts to sound like droning after a while.

[Ruperto31]

26. "Smart and committed"? Here's some info re: her real estate scams.

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2010/06/illustrated-valerie-jarrett-primer.html

[Hawkowl]

70. Ding, ding, ding!

We have a winner!!! Jarrett is about as smart as a steaming pile of fertilizer. She really, really is one of those local Chicago politicians that is not ready for prime time. She should be back in Hyde Park organizing a bake sale.

[Faygo Kid]

7. Yeah. Sure.

No chance at all. Limbaugh continues to enjoy his extra $2 million in tax cuts. He will need it to pay off his fourth divorce by then, and to ensure her silence.

[BlueJac]

8. WTF?

There was no time better than this year

[wordpix]

9. however, I sent money to O to end tax cuts for the rich this year

since he made this a campaign promise. Oh, well...:banghead:

[PSPS]

10. "Obama wants..." Oh, please. Stop already. Just go away and stop bothering me with your nonsense.

[lib2DaBone]

48. Egg-sactly. And Biden says we'll be out of Afghanistan by 2014...

Blah blah blah 2014 blah blah blah I promise Blah Blah Blah your social Security is safe ....

[skepticscott]

11. And did anyone point out

that he promised to to exactly that THIS time? Did anyone ask why we should believe he'll fight any harder for it in two years, and won't use any excuse NOT to do it, just as he did this time?

[snappyturtle]

12. My gut reaction: When pigs fly!

The President knows and is signaling through Jarret what we WANT to hear. I like to believe the President recognizes the importance of ending the tax cuts for the rich but whatever monster has grabbed his soul won't allow that to become reality.

[captain jack]

13. "Jerry, just remember, it's not a lie if you believe it" - George Costanza nt

[indepat]

15. What an utter pipe-dreamed fantasy oozing with utter nonsense akin to giddy gibberish

;)

[captain jack]

16. Obama promises future broken promises.

I know, "wants" is a long way from promise. And perhaps even further from "will." Though I do recollect the latter being sold like a promise during the campaign and into the presidency. If that recollection is correct, and considering the outcome, I have no hope for what he "wants" to do.

[No Elephants]

17. I think implied is "If the recession is over in 2012....."

"You don't raise taxes on anyone during a recession."

You don't hire-appoint/re-appoint Republican/NY Fed man Geithner, Bush appointee Bernanke and Larry Summers as the most important financial figures in D.C. for no reason, especially in the throes of the Wall Street collapse/bailout. (Yes, the controversial Summers is now theoretically gone, but not forgotten, as Summers' conveniently timed pronouncements in support of the Obama-McConnell "compromise" show.)

[skepticscott]

25. And if the economy is recovering

the excuse will be that we don't want to raise taxes during a recovery, for fear of taking us BACK to a recession. The truth is that it will NEVER be in the best short-term interests of the economy to let tax cuts expire (not now and not in a year or two; same with the SS tax "holiday"), and Obama damn well knows this, so if his promise of such a thing was ever sincere in the first place, he had to have long-term interests in mind ahead of short-term ones. If that is the case, then why is he waiting and making excuses at all? He should have fought for it now as hard as he ever intended to.

[Ruperto31]

28. And if there is a full moon with grunion running....

...provided the planets are in proper alignment.

[Ruperto31]

30. Virtually everyone on DU is disappointed in Obama. So what do we do about it?

Not vote? Then we'll get Mittens, who is Obama in white-face.

I guess we can always whine about it. That can be fun if you're good at it.

[whattheidonot]

36. challenge

Obama needs a serious challenge from the left now. The challenge from the right will not shake out for at least a year. There are about 100 candidates running on the right. Obama has got to come to realize soon that he has no chance in hell of getting reelected without the base. he does not believe that. Obama talks out of both sides of his mouth. He has to frame an argument now and stick to it. Can he do that, especially since he does not address the Wall Street problem and seems beholden to them.

[wordpix]

32. and IF the nearly $14 trillion debt is reduced and IF unemployment decreases...

[onehandle]

18. Impossible. All they have to do is 'hurt a hostage' and he will fold.

The extending is done.

[mimitabby]

19. hohum

[jimlup]

20. So will this work for him on the campaign trail?

Apparently, he thinks it will. I'll feel like its a cheap manipulation of the electorate but whatever - I'm sure the other sides cheap manipulations will be far worse. This means it went into his calculations this December but I don't see how he can go to the well twice on the same issue.

[wordpix]

21. when the richies start dangling money, the promises are broken, works every time

[Amonester]

71. dandling money, AND taking hundreds of millions HOSTAGES

like the teRroRists they R

and always have been

they count on our elected capitulators to continue taking HOSTAGES without fearing anything will be done against them, forever.

[somone]

22. "He is going to fight very hard" on December 31, 2012

It's 2012, right?

[Still a Democrat]

23. He has wanted to end them all along

but gave them a temporary reprieve as part of a compromise, as those paying attention understand.

[skepticscott]

29. Those paying attention understand

that the same excuses for not keeping his promise that he gave this time will still be there next time, and that the Republicans will fight and blackmail just as hard next time to keep the tax cuts permanent. So why should we believe him that he'll fight any harder in two years than he did now, and that he won't cave in to another right wing "compromise"?

[wordpix]

35. +1 It is disappointing that our president caved over an issue he could have won

Only the richies want tax cuts for the rich to continue, and that's the top 2%.

Fighting means making your case to the American people, not going in a back room with the likes of Boner Cry Man and making a Sub Prime Fiance Deal that costs us nearly $1 trillion, to be paid by us and generations to come.

[skepticscott]

38. And it would have been an easy case to make

All he would have had to do was point out, vigorously and regularly that:

1. The Republicans had AGREED a long time ago that these tax cuts would expire now, and that they were breaking their promises.

2. The Republicans were saying that 18 billion dollars for unemployment benefits would be too much of a burden on the budget, at the same time they were demanding 700 billion in tax cuts.

3. The tax cuts the Republicans were demanding were going to millionaires.

[Sherman A1]

50. Precisely

I have been paying attention and I am not very happy with what I have seen thus far.

[Tx4obama]

53. Yep. I was paying attention and I understand. n/t

[Nite Owl]

24. We are supposed to believe him this time?

Trust is gone. I need to see it to believe it.

[NorthCarolina]

27. This is likely just meaningless PR banter. I wouldn't ascribe any truth to it.

He will never have a better chance to end the tax cuts, if he really desired to do so, than he had this past month. The tax cuts for the top 2% can most probably be considered permanent.

[subterranean]

31. Why will he need to "fight" and "work hard" to end the tax cuts?

All he has to do is not sign another extension!

[Haole Girl]

34. Um... 2012, huh? Which is coincidentally an election year.

:sarcasm:

[ElsewheresDaughter]

39. blah blah blah

[Overseas]

40. But will he still want to be Bipartisan with the party out to destroy him then too ?

And he seems to be choosing "Move Backward" economic advisers from the Clinton era again, so they may still want that corporate campaign cash that is far more important than the suffering of the majority of our citizens.

[colsohlibgal]

41. Virtually No Chance This Happens.

Unlikely he'll even wind up pushing that hard for it then, impossible that they could get it through the changed congress anyway. Yada yada indeed, much ado about nothing except it reminds us of how he caved (or in reality doesn't even care that much) when it counted this time.

[neverforget]

42. Notice how farther away something is, the more intense the promise?

Just like he wanted to end them this year, but didn't. In 2012, he's REALLY going to....but something will come up....it always does.

[valerief]

43. Where have I heard that old song before??? nt

[hay rick]

44. Fool me once, shame on you.

Fool me twice, shame on me.

[AlphaCentauri]

46. lame duck session of 2012?

not in the first 100 days, right?

[FreeStateDemocrat]

47. Don't listen to what he says watch what he does as he cuts Social Security funding and

gives Obama tax break for the rich. Wonder what the fucking lie will be in 2012 to make them permanent? What a sleaze politician!

[MannyGoldstein]

49. Couldn't fight for the last 2 years, but

Will fight in 2 years from now.

OK.

[Fearless]

51. More promises for the election year... how about this year...

How about not enacting them in the first place... oh wait... riiiight... :banghead:

[Frisbee]

52. Mwahahahahaha!!!!

Barrack, you crack me, you joker, you! End the tax cuts while you seek reelection, man you are just too funny! :rofl:

[daleo]

54. He will "fight hard" for this, then lose.

It will be an impressive display of political Kabuki theater.

[Autumn]

55. That sounds very familiar.

I know I've heard that one before. I'm not going to believe it this time.:shrug: What was it Bush said? Fool me once.

[0rganism]

56. Obama wants a GOP-dominated house to increase taxes on the wealthy...

:silly:

[bvar22]

57. Obama Wants Tax Cuts for Wealthiest Americans Ended in 2012....

...about as much as he waned a Public Option in 2008.


"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."
--- Paul Wellstone

[dflprincess]

59. I'm sure relieved to hear this!

It just changes everything. :sarcasm:

[progressoid]

61. I've already seen this movie and the ending SUCKED.

[gtar100]

62. Yes, this time he means it.

Really.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

63. "Obama Wants Tax Cuts for Wealthiest Americans Ended in 2010, Obama Says"

:think:

[panzerfaust]

64. Yawn: He is going to fight very hard when those two-year extensions expire

Why, as a then lame-duck (having lost the election in November to an actual out-of-the closet Republican) will he fight, when he would not fight to keep his many times repeated promise to NOT "compromise" on that issue in the first place?


2012 Campaign Slogan

[GeorgeGist]

65. Would it be fair to say ...

BULLSHIT?

[FlyByNight]

66. I'll believe when I see it

If this doesn't get done before '12, then I seriously doubt it'll get done in '12.

:eyes:

[HughBeaumont]

67. Sherrod Brown 2016: End the Cycle of Republican Presidents.

Because your Choice Doesn't HAVE to Be "Republican", "Lunatic" or "Wasted, but Principled, Vote".

[robcon]

68. The probablity of raising taxes in an election year is nil.

Tax rates will stay the same in 2012.

[whosinpower]

69. Here is the reality check

Republicans will control the house in January. The Senate just recently REFUSED TAX CUTS FOR THE MIDDLE and lower class ONLY. There is no way in Hell, Heaven, or any other unearthly or earthly existance that will allow taxes to increase to the wealthy. Not unless, americans succeed in electing trully progressive senators.

So - as much as Obama can mouth the pretty words, speak them loudly, or softly, sweetly, or forcefully - there will not be tax increases to the wealthy in 2012.

It would be very very interesting to compare which senators voted NAY for the middle class tax cut, but voted AYE for the rich one. Those are your targets come 2012. DADT, START, etc will be sold BIG time as cover for the rich tax cut. And I will continue to repeat this - the payroll tax holiday has never been, nor will ever be a democratic goal. That is a republican's wet dream.

I have not seen any roll call list that showed which senators voted NAY on the middle tax cut......have you?

[high density]

72. He wanted them ended in 2010

Yet he signed the bill to extend them anyway. What he says about these tax cuts doesn't seem to matter much.