Compromise to block year-end tax increase for millions takes shape. Benefit extension included

[bigtree]

5:55 p.m. Thursday, December 2, 2010

WASHINGTON — A critical compromise to head off a year-end tax increase for millions of Americans took shape in private talks between the White House and congressional Republicans Thursday, and an extension of unemployment benefits for many others appeared likely to become part of any deal.

The Obama administration sought to expand the package with other provisions that officials said would accelerate the nation's sluggish economic recovery. They included a tax break providing as much as $400 for individual working people and $800 for couples — even if they pay nothing to the IRS.

Two days after he and newly empowered Republicans exchanged pledges of cooperation at the White House, President Barack Obama expressed optimism about the prospects for agreement in time for enactment by year's end.

Still, he cautioned, "That doesn't mean there might not be some posturing over the next several days."


read more: http://www.ajc.com/business/compromise-to-head-off-762160.html

[Subdivisions]

1. How about letting the tax cuts expire and extending UE benefits, Mr. President?

:mad:

[bigtree]

3. he's assuming that would be dead on arrival in either House

Senate leaders are looking to find a way to isolate the middle-class tax cuts - get them past a cloture vote. If that fails, they'll end up compromising right along the lines the President is negotiating. They are, of course, free to set their own course. One leads to compromise, the other threatens to end the breaks - something the majority of neither side will likely let happen.

[laughingliberal]

22. Well, I think he assured it would be when he caved on tax cuts before Congress even convened. nt

[bigtree]

26. the legislature is free to do whatever they want

There's no reason to believe they intended to just let the cuts expire. They're not about to let the middle class tax portion which affects millions of Americans just expire and the President isn't going to do that with his veto. They don't seem to have the votes to get the middle class tax cut extension through on its own, so . . .

It makes no sense to blame the President for not doing something the legislature just wouldn't go along with.

[laughingliberal]

30. Yes, the legislature intended to write a bill extending the middle class tax cut, only & dare the...

Republicans to vote against it. In fact, the House already did just that.

President Obama signaling his willingness to cave didn't help at all.

[bigtree]

32. they intend to stage a vote to get republicans on record voting against tax cuts

. . . for the middle class. They will still have that vote. But, it's just not true that the President refusing to negotiate would have produced republican votes for cloture on a middle class-tax extension on its own. That's just not the case at all.

[laughingliberal]

43. uh huh nt

[Better Believe It]

42. Good thing the Democrats control the House and Senate or they would be dead on arrival.

[stray cat]

9. Everyone can give their potential tax cut away to the unemployed themselves regardless

[Jackpine Radical]

44. As a bloody matter of fact, I'll be doing that and more

whether or not there is a tax cut. These are terrible times. My wife and I will be more than tithing to local charities that deliver direct services and resources to the poorest of the poor, just as we did last year, and intend to increase our volunteer time as well.

[Beetwasher]

2. No Matter How Many Times You Smear And Slime Him, He Will Take The High Road

And still try to get things accomplished. It may be frustrating to us partisans who want to see him smack people around, but it's how he works. He's focused on getting stuff done, not on beating people up.

Some may call it weak, but considering the beatings, the smears and slime he is taking from all sides, I'm not sure how you can call this man weak. He keeps chugging along trying to make progress on important issues.

[abelenkpe]

4. If he extends tax cuts to the wealthy he is weak nt

[bigtree]

5. the House and Senate are in control of that, not the President

They're free to set whatever course they want, but they can count the votes like anyone else. They're not going to let the middle class tax cuts expire and they're willing to extend the upper-class cuts in some form, temporarily, to allow that. The President is merely working to make the best out of a muddled situation. Who controls those two legislative bodies, anyway?

[ibegurpard]

8. veto

[bigtree]

12. which would effectively end the middle class cuts

. . . if it's not overridden (very likely). That's something that the President's been clear he won't allow to happen.

[ibegurpard]

15. well, we all have to make sacrifices isn't that what we're being told?

[bigtree]

17. who are we speaking for?

[Beetwasher]

16. Cuz That's The Only Thing That Matters

All business must stop until we end their tax breaks. Fuck the unemployed whos benefits are running out. We should trust the media to rightly educate the public on whos fault it is.

[sendero]

19. Aw...

... bullshit. Just complete bullshit.

Obama gives us the worst possible outcome as I expected. And there were folks here who actually thought he would get the right thing done, expire the tax cuts for the rich.

You don't have to be a genius to see that nothing that is good for the middle class is going to happen with Obama in charge.

[bigtree]

21. who thought the President had the power to just expire the tax cuts for the wealthy

. . . and preserve the middle tax cuts that affect millions of Americans?

[laughingliberal]

23. Certainly will-that high road up there where all the billionaires live. nt

[Beetwasher]

27. Yes! Fuck The Unemployed!

it's more important we end the tax breaks now! No deals! Stand on yr principles because surely we can trust the media to report and inform the populace on the truth about the courageous stand!

[laughingliberal]

45. Well, the billionaires would certainly like us to think that's the only way.

Cave on the tax cuts or the unemployed are screwed. Since the President caved preemptively, guess we'll just have to take their word for it.

Might have been nice if he'd let Congress convene before he caved, though.

[Beetwasher]

46. Yeah! Nothing Happens Until We Stop The Tax Breaks!!

Line in the sand, man! That solves everything! Always! Fuck everything else that needs to be done!

[laughingliberal]

47. The billionaires thank you.

As did the hospital corps for your support of the bill with no public option.

But I repeat myself.

[Beetwasher]

49. Yes, You Repeat Yourself And It's Working So Well!

I'm now a believer! You've convinced me with your vapid repetition!

[OlympicBrian]

6. How is this going to look for the deficit next year and our credit rating?

All these tax breaks and spending?

US bond rating agency Moody's warns, "extending the Bush tax cuts would be bad for the US credit rating."
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/treasurys-pare-losses-after-data-2010-11-15?dist=afterbell

And they are talking about more spending and cuts on top of the above.

[stray cat]

7. does anyone really care or do each side just grandstand?

[OlympicBrian]

10. Looks like a lot of BS to me nt

[bigtree]

11. Geithner, one of the WH negotiators argued that point repeatedly

. . . as I'm certain he is in negotiations. He's argued publicly to let the Bush cuts expire.

Geithner said extending the Bush-era tax cuts for top income earners, as Republicans want, would force more borrowing to cover lost revenues and crimp more-effective remedies for boosting economic growth and hiring.

"Borrowing to finance tax cuts for the top 2 percent would be a $700 billion fiscal mistake," Geithner said. "It's not the prescription the economy needs now, and the country can't afford it."

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0423839920100804

[OlympicBrian]

13. Well this opens the door to higher interest rates and possible debt rating downgrade nt

[bigtree]

14. we don't know what the final pakage will contain

. . . hopefully there are enough job-oriented incentives and investments in there to satisfy the market rating.

[sendero]

18. There were three possible outcomes..

... 1) All of the tax cuts expire
2) The tax cuts expire for only those making over $250K
3) The tax cuts continue

Of these outcomes, we will get the worst possible one, all the tax cuts continue.

Thanks again Obama, for NOTHING.

[bigtree]

20. there was never a possibility of getting one without the other. Congress is in charge of that

. . . not the President who you are intent on blaming. There never was a possibility that the Democrats were just going to let the middle class tax cuts that affect millions of Americans just drop.

The balance of power and motivations in the Senate doesn't look like it will allow a middle class tax cut to get beyond a cloture vote on its own. That's not the President's fault either.

[laughingliberal]

24. Which is why it was weird he announced his willingness to compromise before they were in session. nt

[bigtree]

28. who didn't know what the House and Senate would bear?

Everyone looking on has known since before the election what this Congress would support. The only thing that's changed is that there's no more time for legislators to procrastinate because of the looming deadline and the change in the balance of power in the upcoming Congress. The President is pressing to get dozens of his tax proposals considered and voted on before this one ends. It makes sense that he's not waiting for the predictable outcome of the House-passed tax bill in the Senate before looking for a deal to maintain his 'first priority' of a n extension of the middle-class tax portion of the expiring cuts.

[laughingliberal]

29. Human pretzeling is hard. He doesn't pass legislation!!!! He already knew what was possible!!!!

Just pick whichever one let's President Obama look best today.

[bigtree]

31. political pretzeling is hard

. . . how a bill becomes law; the role and power of the presidency . . . all that.

[laughingliberal]

40. uh huh nt

[sendero]

34. Folding before the fight..

... is Obama's way.

And all of the claims that he is just a figurehead and it's "all up to congress" are laughable when you consider what the previous moron president accomplished under more adverse circumstances.

[bigtree]

35. there wasn't going to be the fight you imagined or hoped for

. . . that's why it's taken Congress so long to act. Democratic leaders don't look to have found a way to complete the legislative circle and have their way on the middle-class portion of the cuts while leaving the rest behind.

What you imagine happening just isn't, or wasn't, even going to occur - whether the President 'fought' or not. He's busy managing Democratic legislators' failure to thread this needle throughout their Congress' term. The notion that he could puff up and bully his way through doesn't stand up to reality.

[RainDog]

36. the blue dog in my state who didn't vote for unemployment extensions the first round

...lost his seat to a teabagger.

a lot of people didn't care about voting for him after he did that.

can't blame them.

As Truman said (in paraphrase) why vote for a republican lite when you can vote for a republican extremist.

Voter turn out among liberals was low - but it was up among angry old white guys.

guess that's what happens when blue dogs run the show.

[sendero]

37. Your post is incomprehensible..

... but what is going to happen is that the tax cuts for the rich are going to continue. Par for the course for a loser ass president like Obama.

[RainDog]

48. really?

I said the blue dog in my state pissed off liberals by voting against the unemployment extension the first go around (back in the summer.)

He was being a fiscal "republican lite." Because of his vote, a lot of people didn't care about going out to vote on election day.

On the other hand, angry old white guys who sat out the 2008 election who consider themselves teabaggers came out in droves to vote this last election cycle. The Democrat wasn't going to get their vote. But because of his blue dog vote, he also didn't get a lot of liberal votes. People didn't care about going to the polls and voting - people who are liberals. They didn't think he represented their interests.

I don't understand why you think that post was incomprehensible. Liberals/the youth vote sat out this election cycle (as the youth vote tends to do in midterms anyway.) The old angry white guy vote came out this election cycle - this was part of the post election voter analysis.

When a guy came around asking me to sign a pledge to vote for that representative on the 4th of July, I asked the campaigner if he knew how his guy had voted in the recent unemployment extension vote back then. The campaigner said... uh, no but I'm sure he voted for it. So I told the campaigner that, in fact, the guy voted against it, and because of that, I would not sign any pledge to vote for the man (tho I did - but not because I wanted him to win - he could fuck off as far as I'm concerned - and one big reason is because of that vote.) But I also was not interested in doing anything to get him elected. He didn't represent my pov. I only voted for him, as in nearly every other vote in my lifetime, because his opponent was worse. However, I have voted for and my county has elected Green Party reps in the past - my local govt is much more representative of my pov than my state or federal options - which is why I really don't give a fuck about my state democratic party.

However, I thought it was a *tad* ironic that this preppy kid didn't even know how his pol had voted...but that's politics for you, I guess.

[laughingliberal]

41. uh huh nt

[TheWebHead]

25. This is positive news

Those who argued to raise the top tier tax rates haven't made a coherent argument as to why it would be economically advantageous. You raise the tax rate on investors and job creators, you depress equity valuations, which produces a negative wealth effect for those investors, antagonizes those investors into a capital strike - something we had seen during the summer slowdown that the administration hoped would be "recovery summer" - and as a result you dampen GDP growth and income tax revenues to the government. If you poke the wealthy in the eye, the blowback comes at a greater cost to government revenues. Because of globalism, other countries emulating our capitalism, there is more competition for investment capital, so tax rates have been coming down. The world has changed since the Clinton era tax rates. The debate should be about tax simplification and lowering the rate to everyone while eliminating gimmicks to protect politically favored industries.

[RainDog]

33. I have read arguments that indicate that it is economically advantageous to tax the wealthy

Here's a look at the distribution of wealth in the U.S. as tax rates for the wealthy have fallen:



Here's a look at the effect of the Bush tax cuts. (you can download a pdf of the info at the link, below.)

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/02/bush_recession.html

Supply Side Tax Cuts Failed to Deliver Jobs and Growth Between 2001 and 2007

...the economic cycle that began in March 2001 and ended in December of 2007—which almost exactly coincides with the Bush presidency and the implementation of the Bush tax cuts. This period registered the weakest jobs and income growth in the post-war period. Overall monthly job growth was the worst of any cycle since at least February 1945, and household income growth was negative for the first cycle since tracking began in 1967. Women reversed employment gains of previous cycles. And for African Americans, the worst job growth on record was matched by an unprecedented increase in poverty.

If investors want to create a "capital strike" I and many others I know would be happy to go in with billy clubs and bust a few of their arrogant heads. You know, like the Pinkertons did to miners, that sort of thing. Good for the goose, all that.

They worked to manipulate the election by withholding investment in the time leading up to the election. For that, in and of itself, I would be happy to string as many of them as I could up by the nearest lamp post until their eyes popped out of their heads. Along with their asshole spouses who benefit from this manipulation for these greedy miserable fucks.

Funny but only in America are the wealthy such asshole motherfuckers that they think they have no obligation to the common welfare of this nation. Or rather, I should say, America is the only western democracy whose elite are such worthless pieces of shit that they think they are entitled to bring down the rest of the nation by their pissy refusal to acknowledge they do not deserve the inequality they foist upon the rest of the nation's people.

The value, however, of taxation is evident in the continued growth of Sweden and Germany, for instance. Policies that require manufacturing in the nation, rather than outsourcing, is another way those nations have maintained a healthier economy than the U.S.

Study after study indicates that tax cuts have negative effects for the nation because the wealthy merely horde their largesse or engage in casino gambling on the stock market among themselves - and, yeah, those activities have really worked out well for American economic health...

If things do not change, there may very well come a time at which a tipping point is reached - when enough people are unemployed, have lost their retirement savings, have lost their homes - that they are as angry and willing to act as the peasants and lawyer class of the French Revolution. Personally, I would not shed one tear if the "aristocrats" in this nation were treated just as they were back in the day when the guillotine was a la mode.

In other words, they can threaten to hold this nation hostage - and, if so, I hope they are treated like economic terrorists.

People have fucking had it with the collusion between the wealthy and the govt. Those who fail to heed the signs are fools.

[laughingliberal]

39. +1000 nt

[laughingliberal]

38. Investors and job creators???

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Yeah, see, we were hoping for investment and job creation in the US. The tax cuts for the wealthy had the opposite effect.