Yes or No. Did President Elect Obama pledge he would eliminate Shrub's tax cuts before they expire?

[RiverStone]

In light of the downturn, Mr. Obama is also said to be reconsidering a key campaign pledge: his proposal to repeal the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. According to several people familiar with the discussions, he might instead let those tax cuts expire as scheduled in 2011, effectively delaying any tax increase while he gives his stimulus plan a chance to work.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/23/us/politics/23obama.html?_r=1&hp

WASHINGTON – An economic crisis, rising joblessness and a credit squeeze can make a president-elect refine his words. Today's word is "repeal." During his presidential campaign, Barack Obama promised to repeal President George W. Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy ahead of their scheduled expiration in 2011.

It was part of how Obama would pay for an overall net tax cut aimed at low- and middle-income taxpayers, and an effort to bring what he called "fairness" to the tax system.

No one is talking tax hikes now.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/fact_check_obama_taxes;_ylt=Ahoq9jjZMjSLhG2ebDt0yHTZn414

Shrub's tax cuts for the super wealthy have always been one of the trademark decisions I detested the most from that criminal regime. I thought I heard Barack Obama pledge to repeal them in short order. I am very disappointed that this may not be the case; albeit still thrilled he will be President!

A few DUers have suggested that I may have misunderstood; President Elect Obama never said he would repeal Shrub's tax cuts, rather he would just let them expire before year's end in 2010.

During the campaign, did Barack Obama say he would eliminate Shrub's tax cuts before their expiration date? If that is a definitive yes, than why would he change his mind on such a fundamental issue of fairness?

[Doityourself]

1. With the state of the economy he just should let them expire. At this point, that's sound. n/t

[w4rma]

25. With the state of the economy now, he should revamp the tax system, overriding the Bush cuts. (nt)

[Doityourself]

26. As much as we don't like it...it would have an even more detrimental effect on the economy

even the smartest economist don't suggest he does such a thing right now.

[w4rma]

43. This would absolutely not have a detrimental effect on the economy.

The ultra-wealthy have money, they just aren't spending it. They've pulled their money out of the economy and are hoarding it.

[Blarch]

46. Funny how you guys...

have never brought that up till Obama was thinking about not repealing the taxes.

We need to push this guy to do the right thing ...we certainly don't need to sit here and make excuses for him every time he goes back on a pledge.

Yesterday dozens of DUers told me "Obama will outlaw torture" ...as if it isn't illegal now. We are starting top sound like the freeps.

[Doityourself]

49. Funny how you make generalizations and say "you guys"

You don't know me.

[Blarch]

51. I said that because...

You were making excuses.

When Obama pledged to repeal the tax cuts nobody on DU was making the argument you and others are making today.

[tyne]

2. No...

His position during the primary was to let them expire. I've no idea how the media has changed it's tune. Google Obama cuts expire....and you'll find this position being reported as "expire" even days before the election.

[RiverStone]

7. Curious how (and where) the corporate media has spun this wrong

There are many stories indicated he is "reconsidering a pledge" --- of course, we know how the MSM can be the tail wagging the dog.

That is why I asked.

It would be interesting to see if somewhere along the line, Pres Elect Obama did make that pledge. If not, why all the mass DISinformation???

[apnu]

29. Its media bullshit plain and simple

Notice how they say he said those things. The media never gave a direct quote of Obama saying that. The media editorialized Obama's words into "repeal" when he, specifically said then, and now, "allow to expire". Obama has been surprisingly consistent on this point, with the minor exception that every now and again he says that he would "consider" repealing them but defers that decision until later.

[theboss]

39. In the debates, I thought he said he would let them "expire"

Which seems to be the best plan at the moment. Even I'm not thrilled with the propsect of a tax increase in the middle of this madness.

[JeanGrey]

58. Yes but Obama pledged to pay for National Health Care

by rescinding the bush tax cuts. Now I doubt seriously NHC can be paid for that easily but that is what he said, so naturally people didn't expect they would have to wait until 2011 for healthcare?

[Diamonique]

3. No he did not.

[Occam Bandage]

4. I have never seen a quote in which he explicitly states that he will.

[bunnies]

5. No.

Nor did he "promise" to take public financing. See how that works?

[polichick]

10. "Wiggle room"

[bunnies]

14. a necessary evil, imho. nt

[polichick]

17. I agree - he's no dumby!

[bunnies]

24. Yep.

Thats exactly why I find some of the DU shrieker posts so laughable. Jump all over Obama without having the tiniest inkling about why he does the things he does. Its as if the only possible explanation for anything is that he's really a secret Republican. :rofl:

[Avalux]

6. NO. He said he would let them expire. Obama NEVER said he'd take action against them. n/t

[cali]

8. Honestly, he was rather ambiguous about it.

He both said he'd roll them back and that he'd let them expire.

[ellacott]

20. If he was ambiguous that shouldn't be classified as a pledge

I also remember him saying both. He hasn't broken a pledge. His pledge was to eliminate the Bush tax cuts. He also didn't put a timetable on when he would do this.

[navarth]

9. I also would like to know why he wouldn't do it right away.

Why not just repeal them like NOW? What's the rationale?

[RiverStone]

11. I have the same question...

The only answer I can fathom is he wants rethug buy in for his stimulus package?

[Shiver]

12. In 2012...

...the Republicans will run the "The First thing he did upon taking office? Raise taxes...." ad. It'll be one of their biggest talking points, and it will technically be true.

[CountAllVotes]

13. another little pat on the back for the rich

and yes, that is what it is all about. That is all I hear from those that did not vote for Obama - that he will raise taxes.

They really need to get over it IMO. They had a good deal going for themselves until the market crashed. Now the rich are looking for another pacifier and it seems this is it for now.

In any event, I believe that these tax cuts should be rolled ASAP as was the promise!

:kick:

[Occam Bandage]

15. Because we're in the middle of a financial crisis,

and stimulus at any cost is more important than deficit control.

[navarth]

28. So you're saying he thinks allowing them to keep their tax breaks = stimulus?

Hmm..I still don't quite get that. Is that his rationale?

[ellacott]

16. He stated that he wanted to let them expire

This reminds me of the time when the press tried to say he flip-flopped on his 16 month timetable to get troops out of Iraq. People believed that also and criticized him for something he never said.

These are some links where he talked about letting them expire:

He's said this throughout the campaign.

"No change to the tax plan - at all," the aide said.

Obama plans to raise taxes on the wealthy by asking the Democratic-controlled Congress to allow President Bush's tax cuts to expire at the end of 2010. When they expire, it could pump in about $72 billion a year toward balancing the budget, according to the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/11/08/2008-11-08_obama_says_hell_tax_the_rich_roll_back_b.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dxh-Wb3FGNA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3bMw8nWloU

[RiverStone]

23. Thanks for the links

Ultimately, the best barometer of what he said is to listen to what he said as he says it!

I really try to pay attention and am open to having a faulty assumption corrected. In this case, I really thought he said this would happen ASAP --- apparently as evidenced by the stories referenced in the OP, even the NYT heard it wrong. Maybe I did too.

Or not...:hi:

[ellacott]

27. You're welcome

I don't remember him ever putting a timetable on when it would get done. I do remember him saying he wanted the middle class tax cuts as soon as possible but he changed that after the financial crisis. He amended by saying he still wants it done as soon as possible and to be included in a stimulus package but he couldn't commit to it with the uncertainty of the financial crisis. He made that statement just a few days before the election.

[mkultra]

35. sounds like your confused

It was clear to me.

[RiverStone]

52. Confusion shared by many out there...

DUers in the know, offer great compass bearings.

It's still a worthwhile discussion and if we can get most of the CHANGE we seek, from ending the insane war, to torture, to protection of civil liberties and choice --- if President Obama delivers an administration and the Dems deliver a Congress that can truly make these changes; I'd be willing to wait for a couple of years on the tax parody question.

A compromise, but a good one. Though even if down the road, I hope we can expect those tax cuts made by Shrub to wilt on the vine, no later than early in 2011.

[mkultra]

56. i think most people knew what was meant

a highly vocal minority(read troll) have to chose to be "concerned" about this "new" revelation.

[JeanGrey]

59. Then are we expected to wait on National Health Care for two

more years? Excuse me?

[AtomicKitten]

18. My impression is that he has said he would let them expire.

[Perky]

19. I really don't care if he did promise.

That is not the biggest issue we face. I am hardly a supply-sider but ubcreasing tax bvyrdens on those most able to creat jubs just is not good fiscal policy. You seem to want the tax burdent o increase on the wealthy as punishement.

To me it is an issue of how to best stimulate the economy. I am not entirely sure it makes sense to soak the rich in order to give a tax cut to the middle class... Largely because I am not sure a middle class tax cut creates jobs and private capital is one of the levers that does.


Now I will say that if we could offset those tax increases with capital gains tax cuts and closing target corportate loopholes I would be all for it,

[leftstreet]

22. "those most able to create jobs" Huh...Paris Hilton is hiring?

:eyes:

[LisaM]

47. Soak the rich? The gap between rich and poor has done nothing but widen

in the last 8 years. The rich are doing very well. If they could create jobs before they got "soaked", then why haven't they done it? I for one think that narrowing the gap would be an enormous economic stimulus. Too much wealth is currently in the hands of too few, thanks to fiscal policies that started with Reagan.

[navarth]

55. Perky: you think the rich create jobs?

huh?

The need for a product creates jobs. Rich people will fill that need if they can make a profit. This isn't about punishing the wealthy. It's about them sharing the pain. They've had breaks they didn't deserve. They should be taken away.

[No Elephants]

21. Wrong question. The right question is, did Obama pledge to repeal the tax cuts

after the state of the economy hit the fan. The way to find the answer is to Google and see if you can find a direct quote. If you can't, then he did not promise, just as he did not promise to take public campaign financing. (You won't find a direct quote making that promise, either.)

[tyne]

30. Regardless....

This should be cleared up by the Obama campaign and us. He's taking a beating on the blogs by people (unfortunately Dems are leading the way) saying that he's already breaking a promise. The media just keeps repeating it.

Let's hit the msm with e-mails and correct it where we see it, eh? Probably wouldn't hurt to contact change.gov too.

[leftofthedial]

31. Yes He Can!

er, did.

[Two Americas]

32. whatever

He is a good politician, so he will be vague or whatever. What else do we expect?

The point is, that regardless of what he did or didn't say, we should be free to advocate for repealing the tax cuts.

I don't think the sentiment that some are expressing - "he's wise, he knows better than we do, we should trust him" - is compatible with being free and responsible citizens in a representative democracy.

It is not hurting Obama to disagree with him about something, nor is it "support" to agree with everything he says and object to any dissent.

Why change the discussion from being about people's positions on the tax breaks for the wealthy into one of what Obama did or didn't say?

I think he has done a masterful job of managing the discussion and expectations - we have an extraordinarily brilliant and talented man here - and at the same time I fully expect to express and to listen to dissent and disagreements with some of the things he does. It is called democracy, it is a dynamic process, and as Truman said if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen.

[RiverStone]

38. Good point

Why change the discussion from being about people's positions on the tax breaks for the wealthy into one of what Obama did or didn't say?

Really, the motive behind my OP was to generate discussion in support of implementing a FAIR tax structure ASAP --- in so much that we may have some influence over a timetable if the Obama team hears rumbling from their constituency.

Obama has done a masterful job and I don't believe he would play politics with this issue. It seems the NO's have it on this thread - and at most, Barack was explicit in his support to kill Shrub's tax breaks, but vague on time-lines.

[mkultra]

40. or, as the African proverb goes

if your not part of the solution, your part of the problem.

[Shiver]

41. Absolutely

No matter what he says, though, people are going to think he's sold out. So many want the tax cuts repealed not out of any regard for the economy, but as revenge against the rich. Paul Krugman could go on Olberman and say repealing them now would be a bad idea, and they wouldn't believe him. (Disclaimer: I don't know Paul Krugman's thoughts on this at all, it was merely an example.)

Dissent should never be objected to, but the people who dissent are bringing themselves open to criticism when they do so by those who disagree. The ones who bother me are the ones who are saying things like "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" and "I wish I could take back my vote".

I'd like to see the disagreement be a bit more constructive that mean, is what I'm saying.

[Two Americas]

44. why?

What is wrong with saying "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" and "I wish I could take back my vote?"

[Shiver]

45. Saying such a thing this early

Is pure bullshit. Obama hasn't taken office, yet people are saying he's the same as Bush? He makes one decision you disagree with, and now you wish you'd voted for someone else? You vote was entirely dependent upon who he appointed to Secretary of _____?

It's pure reactionary. They're either letting knee-jerk emotion cloud judgment and logic, or they never supported Obama and are latching onto the first thing they can find just for an excuse to bitch, offering no alternatives they would like to see.

It's like many of the people who are foaming at the mouth over the supposed reneging on the Bush tax cut repeal; they want it taken back as revenge against the rich, not because they believe it will help the economy. Knee-jerk, and non-constructive to debate and discussion.

That's how I see it, at least.

[Two Americas]

48. that isn't fair

Many sincere and honest people who are tremendously valuable contributers here hold those opinions, or opinions that sound to you that way. We may disagree, but that does not justify questioning their motives or character.

Your post is laced with invective against some group of people, vaguely defined and broad.

Opinions that you don't like are not necessarily "non-constructive to debate and discussion." Smears and character assassination are, though.

"...pure bullshit."

"...knee-jerk emotion..."

"...an excuse to bitch..."

"...offering no alternatives..."

"...foaming at the mouth..."

"...revenge against the rich..."

That is not how you see "it," rather how you see "them."

[Shiver]

50. I apologize if I came across as insulting

It was not my intention.

However, it is the way I see arguments and statements such as those. They come across - to me - as close-minded and reactionary. Such mindset do not often lead to constructive discussion and debate, in my experience. The statements you highlight are how they come across to me; I'm still rather new here, and don't know people too well, so I have nothing from the past to contradict that first impression.

It does not justify my questioning of their motives or character, on that I agree, but the same can be said of them. I don't like the assumption that I'm "drinking the kool-aid" because I think differently, or that I "worship at the alter of Obama". But, since I never held the belief of 'an eye for an eye', I apologize for doing so. I slip up sometimes.

I would never, however, try to silence them, no matter how much I disagree.

[Two Americas]

53. it is intimidating

Also, it makes it very difficult for people to make their point when you set up a prejudiced context like that to trap them in.

There is a case to be made for your "give him a chance" point of view. That is mostly what I am doing. You don't need to characterize and smear others to make it, though. I am making that case on other threads, but once the insults start it is not only difficult to refute your argument - or even hear it - it is difficult to support it effectively.

Some were not big supporters of Obama from the beginning, and are saying the same things now that they did back then. That is OK. They have legitimate points to make that we should hear. Some have reservations on some things, but not on others. There are a wide variety of opinions, and it is not as simple as "for or against" Obama. I support him as much as I have any politician over the last 40 years, but I have never supported any politician the way that some do Obama. So be it. The people here are more important in my view than any politician, and a free-ranging discussion, dissent and criticism are absolutely essential to a healthy functioning representative democracy.

I thought that Emmanuel's "we welcome ideas and concepts from Republicans" remarks were abhorrent. I am going to speak out about that - now, then, always. That does not mean I don't "support" Obama. I wish Obama would unambiguously state that he is going to eliminate the Bush tax breaks - now. So I call for that. If we don't call for anything, how can our elected representatives represent us? If we don't speak out, how can public consensus ever be created for any change?

Thanks for giving such thoughtful consideration to my ideas.

[4lbs]

33. I see Obama and the Democrats in Congress using this as a bargaining tool.

Just in case they don't have a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, they can use these Bush tax cuts as a bargaining tool.

Don't block the massive economic stimulus package (700 or 800 billion) which includes health care, alternative energy investments, environmental investments, enhanced stem cell and other scientific research, and we (Obama and the Dems in Congress) won't repeal the Bush tax cuts before they expire naturally.

If the Repubs try to filibuster or otherwise block it, the Congress can threaten to repeal the tax cuts.

[uponit7771]

34. NO, this is right wing and MsM meme

[tyne]

36. I wrote a request

to change.gov asking for clarification.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

37. He's Always Left The Possiblity Open And Never Committed To Anything Firm.

[Joe Chi Minh]

42. It is puzzling. Even before Bush's tax cuts, tax rises on the very rich would have had a negligible

impact on them.

Brown's raising of income tax on the "£150,000 plus" earners frm 40% to 45% in the UK shows he stll doesn't realise that super rich foreginers who exploit the congenital cheapness of our leaders and consequently the country, are no friends of our economy. Though they might be of help in various ways to their own "low-rent", short-term interests.

Thing is, an awful lot of liquidity funds has been stock-piled by all 5% of them (Polly Toynbee gives intesting figures in her article in todays' Guardian), just waiting to be trickled down on the rest of us, but nobody's wanted to take the initiative. The last act in the turnkey construction of this major dam still awaits some worthy in our government, who will cut the ribbon and actually open the dam's well... let's not say "floodgates"; "appreciable aperture", perhaps.

Though she didn't put it quite like this, I think Polly Toynbeee is right to stress that our managerial class don't seem to understand how they have been well and truly done. They literally don't know any better. That is, for us, a major and tragic, difference between UK and US politics.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/nov/24/pre-budget-report

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/nov/25/pre-budget-report-economy1

It's ironic that NuLab(c) has taken the worst of Old Labour, the creeping secularism and galloping anomie, and abandoned its original priority - as envisaged by its founder, Keir Hardie - of economic justice.

[IsItJustMe]

54. Obama did use phrases like roll back, let expire, and eliminate the Bush tax cuts for the Rich.

Take your pick; but it sure seemed to me that was going to take the issue on, implied or explicitly.

[JeanGrey]

57. Many people make many promises when they are

campaigning, even if they know reality is different. This should not be a surprise to most.