[B]The Hill
Left sees tax surrender, says Obama reelection bid now crippled[/B]
[release]President Obama could be crippling his own reelection effort by making a deal with Republicans to extend all of the Bush-era tax cuts, Democratic strategists and liberal groups said Monday.
A two-year extension of tax rates ushered in by President George W. Bush nearly a decade ago, would ensure a resumption of today’s fiery debate in 2012, when Obama is expected to reapply for his job, strategists in both parties said.
It also is angering the left wing of the Democratic Party, which already has a long list of complaints about Obama.
“President Obama has shown a complete refusal to fight Republicans throughout his presidency even when the public is on his side — and millions of his former supporters are now growing disappointed and infuriated by this refusal to fight,” said Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee.
The PCCC on Monday afternoon circulated quotes from 2008 Obama campaign staffers who expressed disillusionment with the president for agreeing to extend tax cuts for the wealthy amid signs that the White House and Republicans were edging closer to a deal.
“Obama is demobilizing the troops and demoralizing the public right before he seeks reelection,” Green said.
The compromises by the White House have also disappointed liberals in the House and Senate, who have pushed Obama to take a tougher line with the GOP. Some liberals had said it would be better for Obama to allow all of the tax cuts to expire rather than cave to GOP demands and allow tax cuts for the wealthy to be extended.
Democratic strategists are disappointed that the president appears to be fighting the tax debate on terms dictated by Republicans, who have been able to frame a tax increase on any taxpayers as detrimental to a struggling economy. Friday’s unemployment report, showing a surprising jump in the jobless rate — to 9.8 percent — didn’t make matters easier for the White House.
“This is only a tough fight [now] because Americans have lost faith that President Obama is fighting for their economic futures,” said Jamal Simmons, a Democratic strategist and former official with the Clinton administration.
But Simmons and other Democrats believe a shift in the economy could help the president and Democrats argue for an end to the tax cuts in two years.
“I think most people feel like the economy is still really bad, and the idea of raising taxes on anyone right now does strike the average person as ‘This might not be a good idea,’ ” said Lara Brown, a political science professor at Villanova University. “But when people are making money, tax increases are just not as scary.”
Aware of the second round of fights facing him, Obama said in his late Monday statement that he will spend part of the next two years engaged in a conversation to try to convince people that the country cannot afford another extension of the high-end cuts.
By agreeing to a two-year extension of the cuts, Obama appears to be gambling that he — and the economy — will be in a better position to define the debate in 2012, when it could be more fruitful for Obama to sell a tax hike for the rich as part of an effort to lower the national debt.
“If by 2012 the president can convince voters of his commitment to helping them reclaim the American Dream, they’ll support denying tax cuts for the wealthy that put us $700 billion in more debt to China,” said Simmons.
Privately, both White House and Republican aides say they would love to have a fight over the high-end tax cuts as a central 2012 campaign issue.
“It’s ultimately a question of whether Democrats believe their own rhetoric,” said one Senate GOP aide. “They seem to think that Americans are OK with raising taxes on small businesses. Republicans disagree and would love to debate that notion anytime.
“It’s an area where the GOP can hit the Democrats hard any day,” the GOP aide said.
But one Democratic strategist said that defending tax cuts for the wealthy will put 2012 candidates in a tough position with conservative, blue-collar primary voters.
“As a campaign issue it can play both ways — the GOP is more likely to be seen as the party of big money, big oil, big special interests, et cetera,” the strategist said. “So they would be in the position of again defending bonus tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires — not where you want to be message-wise in early primary states.”[/release]
Source: [url]http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/132307-angry-left-sees-refusal-to-fight-as-crippling-2012-reelection-bid[/url]
[B]The Washington Post
Obama defends White House deal with GOP on tax cuts[/B]
[release] President Obama on Tuesday forcefully defended the deal his administration has struck with Republicans to temporarily extend Bush-era tax cuts for all income levels, saying the concessions - some of which have infuriated liberals - are necessary to avoid a tax increase for nearly all Americans at year's end.
Speaking at a news conference at the White House Obama said he would have preferred to let the tax cuts on high incomes expire, and he pledged to continue to argue that Republicans are wrong in insisting that all the cuts be extended.
But the president said allowing the stalemate to continue and the tax cuts to lapse - as some Democrats have urged - might help his party politically but "would be a bad deal for the economy and a bad deal for the American people."
"This isn't an abstract debate, this is real money for real people," he said.
Obama also spoke directly to concerns that he had ceded too much ground, comparing the tax debate to disappointment among liberals over the failure to include a so-called public option in the health-care overhaul
"This country was founded on compromise," he said.
The surprise news conference came as liberals complained loudly about the agreement announced Monday night.
Sen. Bernard Sanders (I-Vt.) called the agreement "an absolute disaster and an insult to the vast majority of the American people," and he said he would try to block it in the Senate. MSNBC host Ed Schultz called it "against the will of the American people."
Adam Green, leader of a liberal activist group called the Progressive Campaign Change Committee, said, "President Obama let down millions of voters." And Rep. John Conyers Jr., a senior House Democrat from Michigan, said he would "do everything in my power to make certain that legislation along these lines does not pass during the lame-duck session."
"I have some serious reservations about parts of this deal," Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) said in an interview on Tuesday with Bloomberg Television. Van Hollen was the lead negotiator for House Democrats in bipartisan talks on the tax cut extension. "I understand the importance of getting to an understanding, but there are certain elements that I think will cause a great concern to members of our caucus."
Administration officials are aware of the frustration. In announcing the deal Monday night, Obama said, "I know there's some people in my own party and in the other party who would rather prolong this battle, even if we can't reach a compromise."
But it's not clear that the liberals can do anything to stop the agreement, which would extend expiring income tax cuts for all Americans, renew jobless benefits for the long-term unemployed and grant a one-year reduction in Social Security taxes paid by employees. With most Republicans and some Democrats in both houses of Congress likely to embrace the deal, it's not clear that Sanders can do much to block it.
Liberals have repeatedly backed down in similar instances in the past two years. For example, many liberal Democratic lawmakers threatened to withhold their votes from the health-care legislation Obama sought unless it included a government insurance option. But administration pressure eventually led nearly of all of them to vote for the measure.
One key difference Obama faces this time in convincing the left will be the absence of strong support from congressional leaders.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said nothing publicly Monday after the deal was announced, while a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) was noncommittal.
"Now that the president has outlined his proposal, Senator Reid plans on discussing it with his caucus tomorrow," Reid spokesman Jim Manley said in a statement.
Vice President Biden plans to go to Capitol Hill on Tuesday afternoon to lobby Senate Democrats - including Reid and Sanders - on supporting the agreement. [/release]
Source: [url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/07/AR2010120701402.html?hpid=topnews[/url]
Related Opinion piece:
[quote=Obama: On the way to a failed presidency?]Ronald Reagan famously quipped that the Democratic Party left him before he left the party. Like many progressive supporters of Barack Obama, I'm beginning to have the same feeling about this president.
Consider what we've seen since the shellacking Democrats took in the fall elections.
...[/quote]
Source: [url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/06/AR2010120606022.html[/url]
What happened here? I thought Democrats supported Obama.
You can have extremists on both sides of the aisle, and I feel that's all these people are. They will still vote for a democrat candidate, because not voting hurts them even more.
At least we won't have Obama for another term.
We should extend cuts on those who lost their jobs and are having it bad and those who arn't making a whole lot.
The rich should not only see no cuts but raised taxes.
[QUOTE=Glaber;26556632]At least we won't have Obama for another term.[/QUOTE]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvGKF5qPObU[/media]
Obama is a centrist? No way!
Obama is a spineless, smart coward just like every other democrat. Republicans are spined, rich retards.
[QUOTE=Glaber;26556632]At least we won't have Obama for another term.[/QUOTE]
You honestly think independents will vote for Palin over Obama?
[editline]7th December 2010[/editline]
Source:
[url]http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/elections/[/url]
I think Independents will vote for whoever wins them over. Republican, Democrat, or third party.
Besides, all I said is "At least we won't have Obama for another term." I didn't say we wouldn't have a Democrat president in 2013. (Obama still has to serve 2012)
[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;26557113]Obama is a spineless, smart coward just like every other democrat. Republicans are spined, rich retards.[/QUOTE]
People say he is spineless, and then I hear things like this.
Obama responding to a question about his core principles. Skip to 26:40.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrTKUEfnegE&[/media]
[QUOTE=Glaber;26557355]I think Independents will vote for whoever wins them over. Republican, Democrat, or third party.
[/QUOTE]
Sure, but Palin, considered by many to be the GOP frontrunner, is pretty unpopular among independents and many Republicans.
[url]http://www.gallup.com/poll/144491/palin-unfavorable-score-hits-new-high.aspx[/url]
Did I say or imply that Palin was going to run? Right now, I have no idea who's going to be the Republican candidate.
[QUOTE=Glaber;26557355]I think Independents will vote for whoever wins them over. Republican, Democrat, or third party.
Besides, all I said is "At least we won't have Obama for another term." I didn't say we wouldn't have a Democrat president in 2013. [B](Obama still has to serve 2012)[/B][/QUOTE]
this is a revelation to us plebeians that aren't as smart as the great glaber
[QUOTE=Glaber;26557513]Did I say or imply that Palin was going to run? Right now, I have no idea who's going to be the Republican candidate.[/QUOTE]
Palin is obviously going to run, that dumb bitch has been alluding to it for years.
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;26557779]Palin is obviously going to run, that dumb bitch has been alluding to it for years.[/QUOTE]
She'll run, but she'll never be chosen as a presidential candidate.
[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;26557801]She'll run, but she'll never be chosen as a presidential candidate.[/QUOTE]
She's leading in a lot of the polls of potential contenders.
[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;26557801]She'll run, but she'll never be chosen as a presidential candidate.[/QUOTE]
People love her, she's a folksy soccer mom from good ol' alaska.
If you are seriously politically retarded, you pick the person who makes you feel good or has a good catch-phrase or whatnot, not the person with a solid platform. It's just unfortunate that the sentence I just finished describes about half the people on this planet.
[QUOTE=Prismatex;26557836]She's leading in a lot of the polls of potential contenders.[/QUOTE]
Lefty media smears are just going to make her reputation crash and burn. That or if we throw clips of the reality shows to other members of the UN.
[QUOTE=Prismatex;26557836]She's leading in a lot of the polls of potential contenders.[/QUOTE]
Exactly, it's pathetic.
[editline]7th December 2010[/editline]
[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;26557859]Lefty media smears are just going to make her reputation crash and burn. That or if we throw clips of the reality shows to other members of the UN.[/QUOTE]
Except right-wing people obviously don't watch left-wing networks, otherwise there wouldn't be right-wing people in the first place.
[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;26557859]Lefty media smears are just going to make her reputation crash and burn. That or if we throw clips of the reality shows to other members of the UN.[/QUOTE]
Was Troopergate a "lefty media smear"?
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;26557850]People love her, she's a folksy soccer mom from good ol' alaska.
If you are seriously politically retarded, you pick the person who makes you feel good or has a good catch-phrase or whatnot, not the person with a solid platform. It's just unfortunate that the sentence I just finished describes about half the people on this planet.[/QUOTE]
That's how Obama got elected. Remember "Yes We Can!", the Obama Posters with the caption HOPE that are being parodied, and him having his own logo?
[QUOTE=Glaber;26558352]That's how Obama got elected. Remember "Yes We Can!", the Obama Posters with the caption HOPE that are being parodied, and him having his own logo?[/QUOTE]
dont try to compare obama to that her. obama might not even be a good president but his name should not even be said in the same sentence as Palin unless the words atleast blank isnt as bad as blank
[QUOTE=Glaber;26558352]That's how Obama got elected. Remember "Yes We Can!", the Obama Posters with the caption HOPE that are being parodied, and him having his own logo?[/QUOTE]
Yeah that shit was dumb as hell, but it was his catch-phrase.
Even if Obama wasn't the political savior as was advertised (and seriously, who didn't expect that?) the difference between her and Obama is Obama isn't totally mentally handicapped.
He just goes off message when not on the prompter. Remember the "Joe the Plumber incident"?
[QUOTE=Glaber;26560167]He just goes off message when not on the prompter. Remember the "Joe the Plumber incident"?[/QUOTE]
What?
He actually provided a pretty good explanation of how progressive tax brackets work.
[quote]Obama responded with an explanation of how his tax plan would affect a small business in this bracket. Obama said, "If you're a small business, which you would qualify, first of all, you would get a 50 percent tax credit so you'd get a cut in taxes for your health care costs. So you would actually get a tax cut on that part. If your revenue is above 250, then from 250 down, your taxes are going to stay the same. It is true that, say for 250 up — from 250 to 300 or so, so for that additional amount, you’d go from 36 to 39 percent, which is what it was under Bill Clinton."[9]
[/quote]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
