Tax Deal Suggests New Path for Obama

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Tax Deal Suggests New Path for Obama
62
Tue, 12-07-2010 - 9:56am

I'm disappointed to say the least. Does this sound like blackmail to anyone else?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/07/us/politics/07cong.html?ref=homepage&src=mv&pagewanted=all

WASHINGTON — President Obama announced a tentative deal with Congressional Republicans on Monday to extend the Bush-era tax cuts at all income levels for two years as part of a package that would also keep benefits flowing to the long-term unemployed, cut payroll taxes for all workers for a year and take other steps to bolster the economy.

The deal appeared to resolve the first major standoff since the midterm elections between the White House and newly empowered Republicans on Capitol Hill. But it also highlighted the strains Mr. Obama faces in his own party as he navigates between a desire to get things done and a retreat from his own positions and the principles of many liberals.

Congressional Democrats pointedly noted that they had yet to agree to any deal, even as many Republicans signaled that they would go along.

Mr. Obama said that he did not like some elements of the framework, but that he had agreed to it to avoid having taxes increase for middle class Americans at the end of the year. He said that in return for agreeing to Republican demands that income tax rates not go up on upper-income brackets, he had secured substantial assistance to lower- and middle-income workers as well as the unemployed. (Me: Holding the unemployed & middleclass hostage.)

“It’s not perfect, but this compromise is an essential step on the road to recovery,” Mr. Obama said. “It will stop middle-class taxes from going up. It will spur our private sector to create millions of new jobs, and add momentum that our economy badly needs.”

 


Photobucket&nbs

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-11-2010
Tue, 12-07-2010 - 10:06am

(I'm disappointed to say the least. Does this sound like blackmail to anyone else?)

No, sounds like bipartisanship to me.

From the article:

"Congressional Republicans in recent days have blocked efforts by Democrats to extend the jobless aid, saying they would insist on offsetting the $56 billion cost with spending cuts elsewhere."

Good for the Republicans.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Tue, 12-07-2010 - 10:11am

"Good for the Republicans.

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-11-2010
Tue, 12-07-2010 - 10:26am
So....let me get this straight....you are fine with Obama spending a trillion dollars to "stimulate" the economy and even agree with the idea of more stimulus because of the massive failure of the first stimulus....but you are not okay with this?

Don't forget.....SEVERAL billion of that money is for the extended benefits for the unemployed.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-30-2007
Tue, 12-07-2010 - 11:22am

I am very disappointed with this.

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-15-2007
Tue, 12-07-2010 - 11:27am

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-11-2010
Tue, 12-07-2010 - 11:58am
(guess who will be bent over and sc***ed again? The poor. Those who can least afford it. )

How, exactly, are the poor getting scr**ed? They don't pay federal income tax.

(If the tax cut is allowed to fail, then everyone will feel the pain.)

Actually, no one will feel the pain. The taxes are going to stay at current levels for EVERYONE. Remember, the rich STILL pay the lion's share of the taxes while 47% of Americans pay no federal tax at all.
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-07-2002
Tue, 12-07-2010 - 12:13pm

All fine & good, but I've noticed a particular loathing by those getting the biggest cuts to reinvest.

 nwtreehugger  

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-11-2010
Tue, 12-07-2010 - 12:20pm
(that those who carry this country (the middle-class) )

It's the rich who carry this country in regards to tax revenue generated.
iVillage Member
Registered: 11-11-2010
Tue, 12-07-2010 - 12:31pm

(It still seems off-kilter that those who carry this country (the middle-class) are the ones who are paying the most in taxes in proportion to their income....)

You might want to view this link:

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-07-2002
Tue, 12-07-2010 - 1:22pm
Did you read what I wrote? "The most in taxes in proporation to their INCOMES..." Believe me, $10,000 (as an example) to me is a LOT more than it is to some million/billionaire!

 nwtreehugger  

Pages