MyDD :: Obama Backing Away From Repealing Bush Tax Cuts?

Obama Backing Away From Repealing Bush Tax Cuts?

by rayj, Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 11:53:58 AM EST

According to the AP:

Democrat Barack Obama says he would delay rescinding President Bush's tax cuts on wealthy Americans if he becomes the next president and the economy is in a recession, suggesting such an increase would further hurt the economy.

Nevertheless, Obama has no plans to extend the Bush tax cuts beyond their expiration date, as Republican John McCain advocates. Instead, Obama wants to push for his promised tax cuts for the middle class, he said in a broadcast interview aired Sunday.

"Even if we're still in a recession, I'm going to go through with my tax cuts," Obama said. "That's my priority."

What about increasing taxes on the wealthy?

"I think we've got to take a look and see where the economy is. I mean, the economy is weak right now," Obama said on "This Week" on ABC. "The news with Freddie Mac (FRE) and Fannie Mae (FNM), I think, along with the unemployment numbers, indicates that we're fragile."

Obama was referring to the two mortgage companies taken over by the federal government Sunday in what could become a huge taxpayer bailout. The nation's unemployment rate climbed to 6.1 percent in August from 5.7 percent the month before, the government said last week. It was the first time in five years that the unemployment rate had topped 6 percent.

This is really depressing. Obama has just validated the Republican talking points on the economy. He's shying away from raising taxes and yet talking up his tax cut plan. Earth to Obama: we are in massive debt. If we don't raise taxes, how are we going to pay it off, let alone afford the necessary progressive reforms like universal health care. Sigh.

Tags: Barack Obama (all tags)

Permalink :: 28 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Obama Backing Away (2.00 / 2)

Just another example of how Obama is letting McCain define the terms of the campaign and is putting one fuzzy message after another to try and keep up with everything being thrown at him.

I am lost. What is the message of Obama's campaign again?

by RichardFlatts on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 12:08:35 PM EST

Judging by your history (2.00 / 1)

You never understood Obama's message in the first place.

He's the one who is pro-woman, pro-real family values, pro-economy, pro-diplomacy, pro-seperation of church and state, pro-honesty, and pro-security.

The other guy is anti-woman, anti-real family values, anti-economy, anti-diplomacy, anti-separation of church, and state, anti-honesty, and anti-security.

Clear enough?

The pebbles have voted and the avalanche has begun.

President-Elect "That One"

by Dracomicron on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 12:15:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Judging by your history (none / 0)

You don't need to sell me. I vote a straight ticket. But is he having trouble in middle America.

by RichardFlatts on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 12:19:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I wouldn't say that (2.00 / 1)

Minnesota and Wisconsin are about as middle as they come, and he's doing fine in those places.

I think his big problem is that the Republicans just had their convention, and the press (and Obama's campaign) hasn't had time to debunk all their lies yet.

The pebbles have voted and the avalanche has begun.

President-Elect "That One"

by Dracomicron on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 12:22:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No, acually, the problem... (2.00 / 0)

...with the Obama campaign is you have a brilliant orator with an equal amount of charisma, along with the most brilliant field strategist in the history of the Democratic Party (Plouffe)...and we've got a veritable novice at the helm of the communications effort, at least as far as managing national campaign media is concerned...yes, I'm talking about David Axelrod...whose total summary of national campaign communications' experience, prior to this year, was 10 minutes running Simon's bid for President in 2000, and Edwards bid for President in 2004...which started and stopped in one state: Iowa.

by bobswern on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 12:36:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't get it (2.00 / 1)

Axelrod is the problem?

Isn't that the guy who's strategy took him all the way through the primary against Obama's most impressive opponent to date?

Haven't we determined that "experience" is not the sole determinant of success with this election?

The pebbles have voted and the avalanche has begun.

President-Elect "That One"

by Dracomicron on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 12:58:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't get it (2.00 / 0)

Fighting in the primaries is TOTALLY different then fighting a general election.Whatever Axelrod did in the primaries,he sure isn't repeating his success in this GE and for some time now I've felt that that was and is a big part of the problem that is beginning to rear it's ugly head right about now. I don't profess to know a great deal about campaign running but as far as I'm concerned obamas campaign ( other then his DNC speech ) has been getting flatter and flatter since he won the nomination.
It isn't too late just yet ,but the time when it will be isn't too far off.

by Lodgemannered on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 01:56:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Chess vs. Checkers (2.00 / 1)

Obama and Axelrod are playing chess; they make boring and seemingly innocuous plays until their opponent is checkmated.

McCain and Rick Davis are playing checkers; they go for the biggest series of jumps they possibly can at any given moment with no regard for where their position is afterwards.

The Republicans have controlled a few news cycles, while Obama has been building credibility, ground game, a donor base, and overall appeal gradually, working towards his endgame.

If you see it as "flat," then perhaps you can't see beyond the daily news cycle.

The pebbles have voted and the avalanche has begun.

President-Elect "That One"

by Dracomicron on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 02:32:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

He's got bigger issues (2.00 / 2)

He said he wouldn't renew them, and would look at repealing them if the economy looked to be at a point where it would work out okay.

What more do you want?

Do you not think that a theoretical President Obama will have more important things to do in the first year of his presidency than to go after a tax cut that will expire on its own?

The pebbles have voted and the avalanche has begun.

President-Elect "That One"

by Dracomicron on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 12:08:52 PM EST

WTF!?!?!?! (2.00 / 2)

Well, if we try hard enough, perhaps we can dilute our (the Dem's) message even more!!!

Is it possible?

by bobswern on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 12:31:54 PM EST

Sad (2.00 / 4)

Obama's continued capitulation to the right isn't winning any more votes. His surrender on FISA, his waffling on Iraq, his courtship with the evangelicals-- these are losing strategies that only deflate his base.

If an electorate is being given a choice between a Republican and someone trying very hard to look like a Republican, who do you think they'd vote for?

Obama must change the game NOW. He must redefine the debate, and put truly progressive issues back to the fore. Stop the further slide to the right!

by Sieglinde on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 12:46:05 PM EST

What waffling on Iraq? (2.00 / 1)

He's always been against wasting our time, treasure, and lives in Iraq. It's the Bush administration that's waffling.

Your criticism is ridiculous. Centrists win more often than progressives, and Obama is a progressive masquerading as a centrist. I don't see how going more progressive would help him; progressives aren't going to vote for McCain.

The pebbles have voted and the avalanche has begun.

President-Elect "That One"

by Dracomicron on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 12:56:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What waffling on Iraq? (2.00 / 0)

So you think McCain is getting his bounce because now he's appealing to moderates and Democrats? Or did he just fire up his base, with that horror parade in Minneapolis, headed by Sarah Palin?

In my liberal circles, morale is down because of Obama's continued capitulation to the right. We may yet all vote for Obama, but the enthusiasm is lower than it should. And we won't be able to convince anyone if we ourselves can't tell what Obama's positions really are.

Is he for the Bush tax cut or not?

by Sieglinde on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 01:03:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You didn't answer my question. (2.00 / 1)

What "waffling on Iraq?"

It seems like there are agents in play to raise doubt about Obama's message. Are you one of them, with your nebulous "liberal circles?"

Is he for the Bush tax cut or not?

This McCain talking point brought to you by the Anonymous Internet Jagoffs of America.

The pebbles have voted and the avalanche has begun.

President-Elect "That One"

by Dracomicron on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 01:55:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You didn't answer my question. (none / 0)

Your ignorance shows.

http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/07/o bama-waffling-on-iraq-pullout/

Come visit my "liberal circles" of academics, artists, and homosexuals in Chelsea NYC.

It seems we don't need McCain talking points to lose this election.

by Sieglinde on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 04:46:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I can't read your link through my firewall (none / 0)

But I'm pretty sure I know what it's referring to; which is the ridiculous notion that taking into account of conditions on the ground somehow translates to "waffling."

He's always been firm that "we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in." If he said that he would get us out in 16 months regardless of what the generals said, he'd be crucified for putting our soldiers into potential risk.

"Academics, artists, and homosexuals" in "Chelsea, New York" are probably, as a group, smart enough to know this. If you have been given the authority to speak for everyone in all three groups, then I apologize... but would like to see credentials.

The pebbles have voted and the avalanche has begun.

President-Elect "That One"

by Dracomicron on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 04:53:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I can't read your link through my firewall (none / 0)

I have the creds. Come meet me on Broadway and 23rd St. tonight at 7pm, and I'll show them to you.

Iraq is but one example of his consistent capitulation to the right. If you think that that's fine, then maazel tov to you.

My "liberal circles" aren't too excited about Obama-lite. His courtship with the evangelicals, which now appears as a big waste of time (thanks to Palin and the GOP cynics), doesn't sit well in "Chelsea NYC".

by Sieglinde on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 05:05:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You haven't named any capitulation (none / 0)

The Iraq thing, if it is what I thought it was, wasn't capitulation.

Making a play for evangelical voters isn't capitulation. He's not sacrificing freedom of choice for them or anything.

Anyway, I'd love to join you at Broadway & 23rd, but I'm afraid I'm half a continent away and have an urgent appointment with Monday Night Football tonight.

The pebbles have voted and the avalanche has begun.

President-Elect "That One"

by Dracomicron on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 05:33:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You haven't named any capitulation (none / 0)

Hey dude, I was there waiting for you at Broadway and 23rd for 2 minutes, you didn't show.

Anyway, I think a play for the evangelical vote brings with it a lot of risk. I don't know if Biden is on message or not when he said recently that life begins at conception. That scares the hell out of the lesbians in my "liberal circles".

It may be that Biden is just being Biden, but no one knows any more.

I guess I have to check Obama's website to figure out exactly what his cadre of advisers and policy wonks think his positions are. (I recall that he said that the issue was above his pay grade or something. Hopefully some of his advisers are in that pay grade to know these things.)

by Sieglinde on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 09:00:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Er, right (none / 0)

If the lesbians in your social circles are "scared" about whether or not they can get abortions, then they're probably not really lesbians. I'm just saying.

That aside, Biden was totally on message when he gave the very astute answer that he thinks that life begins at conception, but that what he thinks doesn't matter in this particular regard, because there's a constitutional issue that overrides his personal beliefs. I found the endorsement of both right to choice and the seperation of church and state refreshing.

The pebbles have voted and the avalanche has begun.

President-Elect "That One"

by Dracomicron on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 01:09:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Er, right (none / 0)

I, on the other hand, find it unnecessary for him to actually tell us what his personal beliefs are.

If life begins at conception, then abortion is murder, and the so-called prolifers are right to advocate for the human rights of the unborn. Joe Biden isn't bound to advocate for the preservation of Roe v. Wade, for it's not, after all, enshrined in the Constitution. If he's true to his beliefs, he may then look forward with hope to the day when the law of the land is consistent with his such beliefs.

I would rather he shut up about these things and just say that current law stands, regardless of what BS his pope cooks up.

My lesbian friends aren't all so gay, by the way-- they actually like boys. (With apologies to Katy Perry.)

by Sieglinde on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 01:58:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Doesn't that make them bisexual? (none / 0)

It occurs to me that there's a broad spectrum of sexual orientations, and lesbian is the one where you are a girl that likes girls and bisexual is the one where you are a boy or girl that likes both boys and girls.

Your understanding of gender and orientation seems to rival Tom Coburn's.

Anyways, as entertaining as this discussion has come, you still haven't provided any evidence of Obama's "waffling" or any honest point where he's sold out to fundamentalists. In fact, you're starting to defend fundamentalist positions by taking the nuanced view of abortion when applied to Joe Biden, a benefit of the doubt you haven't given to Obama's positions.

Your "liberal circles," which you would probably describe as being filled with "elitists" if we talk long enough, would probably be a little worried if they heard you talking like that.

The pebbles have voted and the avalanche has begun.

President-Elect "That One"

by Dracomicron on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 07:34:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Doesn't that make them bisexual? (none / 0)

A defense of fundamentalist positions? Surely you've heard of proof by contradiction.

And about the lesbian thing-- you're too hung up on labels, my midwestern friend. I like to call some of my friends lesbians, whether they're lesbians or not. I know it's confusing and a bit juvenile.

The expansion of the involvement of government in faith-based programs-- that's also alarming, don't you think? Or not?

Oh, and there was that little issue about FISA.

by Sieglinde on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 10:51:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh, I'm a lesbian then (none / 0)

Nevermind the fact that I'm a straight male. It's okay, I saw some dude on "The L Word" do it and it wasn't ridiculous at all!

The faith-based initiatives are actually a great program; I say this as someone who is non-religious. Applying federal funds to existing support networks is incredibly efficient and helps a lot of people more cheaply and easily than building an organization from scratch, and there's no conflict of church & state if those funds are not used to hire based on religion. The problem with Bush-era faith-based initiatives is that they were basically a smokescreen to give money to Reverend Sun-Myung Moon and other crackpot fundamentalists.

FISA is the first legitimate point you've made in this entire thread. Good work! I will contend, however, that Obama still wants to win this election, and one right-wing capitulation doesn't compromise his whole message.

The pebbles have voted and the avalanche has begun.

President-Elect "That One"

by Dracomicron on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 11:34:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh, I'm a lesbian then (none / 0)

You're much too cute to be a lesbian.

;)

by Sieglinde on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 12:32:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Courtship of evangelicals? (2.00 / 1)

Depends on which evangelicals you're talking about. We'll never get the real Religious Right types, but most evangelicals care about more than just abortion and gay marriage. Democrats paid dearly for dismissing the religious vote out of hand. Like it or not, there aren't enough seculars and religious liberals to form a majority in most states.

by KTinOhio on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 02:24:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Courtship of evangelicals? (none / 0)

Are seculars and religious liberals the only other groups besides evangelicals?

You seem to not know what you're talking about.

There are about as many Roman Catholics as evangelical Protestants. Besides, there's a sizeable population of mainline Protestants too that don't think they're evangelicals.

And about 33% of the US population do not consider themselves either evangelical Protestants, mainline Protestants, or Roman Catholics.

In any case, I was talking about EVANGELICALS as opposed to the RELIGIOUS, if you were paying attention.

by Sieglinde on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 04:56:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Neo-Keynesian economics (2.00 / 3)

...says that you cut taxes in a recession and raise taxes in an expansion.

Obama is a neo-Keynesian. That means demand-side economics used to even out the natural rises and falls of the business cycle.

Reagan, Bush, et al., are closer to (ironically) the Chicago school of economics which says that you cut taxes in a recession and you also cut them in an expansion, and you cut them any other time you can, too. This causes long-term financial instability (like the housing bubble) that, after a strong period of expansion, collapses into a severe recession. Rather than smoothing the business cycle, it exaggerates it.

Unfortunately, Bush has left us in a very precarious position. We have a huge debt and huge deficits, and we also have a tanking economy. Obama is faced with a conundrum--try to save the tanking economy by keeping taxes low, or try to save the deficit by letting the economy tank?

Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics

by BishopRook on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 12:49:26 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.