Obama on the tax cuts.

United States
November 7, 2010 10:32pm CST
Here is his weekly address. He addresses the tax cuts that Eric Cantor and the GOP refuse to compromise on. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/11/06/weekly-address-president-obama-calls-compromise-and-explains-his-priorit http://www­.whitehous­e.gov/blog­/2010/11/0­6/weekly-a­ddress-pri­orities-ta­xes An excerpt. "Here’s why this lame duck session is so important. Early in the last decade, President Bush and Congress enacted a series of tax cuts that were designed to expire at the end of this year. What that means is, if Congress doesn’t act by New Year’s Eve, middle-class families will see their taxes go up starting on New Year’s Day. But the last thing we should do is raise taxes on middle-class families. For the past decade, they saw their costs rise, their incomes fall, and too many jobs go overseas. They’re the ones bearing the brunt of the recession. They’re the ones having trouble making ends meet. They are the ones who need relief right now. So something’s got to be done. And I believe there’s room for us to compromise and get it done together. Let’s start where we agree. All of us want certainty for middle-class Americans. None of us want them to wake up on January 1st with a higher tax bill. That’s why I believe we should permanently extend the Bush tax cuts for all families making less than $250,000 a year. That’s 98 percent of the American people. We also agree on the need to start cutting spending and bringing down our deficit. That’s going to require everyone to make some tough choices. In fact, if Congress were to implement my proposal to freeze non-security discretionary spending for three years, it would bring this spending down to its lowest level as share of the economy in 50 years. But at a time when we are going to ask folks across the board to make such difficult sacrifices, I don’t see how we can afford to borrow an additional $700 billion from other countries to make all the Bush tax cuts permanent, even for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. We’d be digging ourselves into an even deeper fiscal hole and passing the burden on to our children." He is the best!
2 people like this
5 responses
@sierras236 (2740)
• United States
9 Nov 10
Sure we could extend the tax cuts and not borrow $700 billion at the same time. How you ask? Simple, we would save $700 billion by... Oh wait, there is an obvious bias against the rich for a party that proposes equal treatment of all parties this is such hypocrisy. Who says $250,000 is rich? Certainly not a person with 5 kids, not a person diagnosed with cancer, not a person who is helping family members with medical bills, not a person who is dumping all of that money back into their business, etc... If President Obama had said $100,000 or $1,000,000 would you be pushing that number instead? Back to saving $700 billion...we simply stop paying Congress. Cut out the benefits, cut out the salaries, cut out the chauffeured cars, cut out the plane trips, cut out the foreign country trips, cut out the catered meals, cut out the reimbursed dinners, and so on. There is your savings of $700 billion dollars. (I am being sarcastic of course)
• United States
12 Nov 10
Could you please acknowledge that the wealthy people will still receive the same EQUAL tax cuts on their first $250,000?
• United States
12 Nov 10
Not as things are currently written, they won't. Nor does this imaginary equal tax cut exist in the legislation that is being tossed around in Committee. But still doesn't answer the bigger question, why is $250,000 considered rich? Because President Obama said it was?
• United States
12 Nov 10
Because it is based on the median incomes of Americans.
@Rollo1 (16685)
• Boston, Massachusetts
8 Nov 10
Of course, some of that "wealthiest 2%" are small businesses who actually create jobs. Now is not the time to raise taxes on them. It's time to stop talking about the Bush Tax Cuts and realize that what he is talking about are the Obama Tax Increases. We don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem. That Obama could seriously discuss increasing taxes when he's spent the first two years of his presidency implementing a trillion dollar healthcare bill that the American people didn't even want just shows his disconnect with the voters and reality.
@trruk1 (1031)
• United States
8 Nov 10
The Bush tax cuts were designed to expire, so he and the other Republicans could lie about how much they would cost. Bush and his buddies in Congress created them with a specific expiration date. Trying to blame that on Obama is just silly. We have had these tax cuts in place for ten years, supposedly so the very wealthy could create jobs. They could have, but they did not. We have lost more than 8 million jobs since these cuts were enacted. When you try something and it does not work, you should try something else. Unless, of course, you are Republican, in which case it is always somebody else's fault if your policy or program fails. It is time for Republicans to stand up and pretend to be adults. Adults admit to mistakes, learn from them, and move on.
1 person likes this
@Rollo1 (16685)
• Boston, Massachusetts
8 Nov 10
Spend some time looking at the unemployment rate month by month from the day Obama was nominated by the Democratic Party, through the election, to when he took office, to today. Unemployment began to rise, although slightly, from the time he was nominated and began to sharply increase once he was elected. The business sector was basically taking steps to downsize and deliberately being cautious as the certainty of a the hostile business environment they expected from an Obama administration began to be realized. April 08 4.8 % August 08 5.6% December 08 6.8% January 09 8.3% October 10 9.6% I won't bother tossing in some snide remark at the end, as you did. That wouldn't be the adult thing to do.
@spalladino (17925)
• United States
10 Nov 10
Excuse me rollo but as the owner of a small business myself...and the relative of several other small business owners...I can assure you that the "wealthiest 2%" are the bigtime, not the small businesses. You are also so very wrong about the cause of the unemployment rate increase. It might make you feel better to blame it on the nomination of Obama but the reality is that it was due to the trickle down effect of what was already happening in this country under Bush. In Florida, for instance, our economic problems started while Bush was in office and, as the economy continued to decline, more jobs were lost. Playing the blame game is easy if you're ignorant of the specifics.
2 people like this
• United States
8 Nov 10
This is one of those decisions that is going to be hard either way it goes. Why? Because of the economy. If they raise taxes on companies and rich people...well they create jobs. Raising taxes on them could make an already horrible job market worse and make recovery of the job market slower. But if then they don't raise taxes on the companies and the rich than our national debt takes a hit. So it comes down to matter of which you would rather happen..have higher debt or a slower recovery in the job market? We don't need to borrow more money from foreign countries. What needs to happen is this...and it is going to hurt....not raise taxes on ANYONE for right now. They can THINK about it when the economy is better. That will encourage job growth in the private sector. Then the federal government is gonig to have to cut their spending BIG TIME and I mean slash and burn. To keep our debt down as much as possible or get rid of the debt we have. Honestly...we won't see our debt go down until the economy improves.More people working means more people paying into the system and fewer taking out. Until then they need to NOT be adding to our debt. When the economy improves the feds need to NOT increase their spending until the national debt is paid off and then once that happens STAY IN THEIR BUDGET and not run up a debt again. I honestly am not fond of the idea of the feds raising taxes on anyone. Why? Because instead of raising taxes they need to learn how to live on the existing tax income. We American Citizens live on a budget....so should they. If you don't have it to spend...don't spend it.
• United States
12 Nov 10
These are not raising taxes, these are tax cuts they have already been receiving, and that includes the extremely wealthy. I don't see the trickle down effect. Where are the jobs the Bush era tax cuts are supposed to have encouraged?
• United States
12 Nov 10
It is a tax increase. Why? Because they will be paying more in taxes than they did last year. All of us will be if congress does not find a compromise. YOu can play word games if you want...but it is an INCREASE in the percentage of tax people will be paying over last year. As for the trickle down effect...look at it as cause and effect. If taxes are raised on companies and the rich they will cut spending elsewhere...especially companies who need to worry about a bottom line and profit margins to stock holders. They have to stay within a budget so if more money is going to uncle sam...it has to be cut from somewhere else. Which usually means it effects the low man on the totem pole...the employees. Either they will lay off or just not hire any new employees to make up the difference. The cause will be increased taxes...the effect will be less job growth. As for the Bush years...( I can't believe you don't know this...it has been all over the news for years) you did not see job growth during the Bush years with tax breaks due to the huge losses on wall street due to the housing crisis. A lot of companies invested very heavily in those high risk loans and people in record numbers were defaulting and getting foreclosed on. Which means they were loosing tons of money and had to lay people off in record numbers. Which meant a lot of people out of work and not buying as many things...which then effected the retail market. People started getting scared and saving as much money as they could not knowing how bad this was going to get (companies and regular people). Which further hurt the economy by causing less demand for goods which meant even more lay offs and less hiring. YOu can say that a lot of the problem we have right now in the private sector was started by the crashing of the housing market. It is a domino effect. One thing happening leading something else to happen...which lead to something happening. It is all one big vicious circle. Do you understand how inter-related all of this is? How one thing effects the other or one thing can cause something else to happen?
• United States
12 Nov 10
Do you not understand that the housing market is still a bust? Banks won't even look at people who are capable of paying their mortgage because their credit is not rated an A. Not to mention the banking industry and the market are a bust. I remember a bailout or two a few years ago. The big vicious circle is when CEOs of companies can not handle being half a billionaire instead of a full billionaire. And they get tax cuts for shipping your potentiol job overseas. And they, and the representatives they pay, manage to dupe people into thinking Reagonomics works. The point blank, and this IS a point blank. We have our options of cutting social security benefits, or giving Donald Trump some extra money. Hmmmmmmm.
@kingparker (9698)
• United States
8 Nov 10
So, is that mean our tax will going up again? I just don't want to see it happen. I need more money from my paycheck from time to time. Please don't change the rule, and don't change it.
• United States
12 Nov 10
These were temporary tax cuts given to the poor, middle class, and extremely wealthy. What Obama is proposing is extending the cuts permanently for the poor and the middle class, and not extending them for the top 2% of wealthy Americans. If he grants the extension to people making $250,000 per year and up, that adds $700 billion to the deficit, helping those who don't need it. EVERYONE has to tighten their belts - right now they are talking about cutting social security and medicare. People think that wealth will trickle down. It doesn't. It is time to take care of the other 98% of Americans, and build a sturdy economy from the bottom up.
• United States
12 Nov 10
Tell me how raising taxes on them is going to "trickle down" to the rest of us?
• United States
17 Nov 10
Well, for starters, we won't create an unnecessary addition to the deficit of $700 billion. This will show the dems have a backbone, and we can than proceed to more progressive financial planning, and stop with the corporate welfare. As more progressive and forward leaning actions are taken, we will stop rewarding companies with tax incentives for shipping their jobs overseas. We will stop changing environmental policies for those exhausting pollutants in the air, making our children sick in record numbers. We will stop giving a slap on the wrist to companies who are trading with embargoed countries, including those listed as "terrorist countries" likely risking our safety. We will stop encouraging exploitation of those in third world countries, keeping the hopelessly impoverish hopelessly impoverished. We will stop having companies reporting billion dollar profits paying less in taxes than you do. That is just all an ideological foundation. We would then get into specific policies as soon as our collective heads are pulled from our rears, and humanity has been restored. An interesting quote from George Carlin, whom you considered great: "Conservatives say if you don't give the rich more money, they will lose their incentive to invest. As for the poor, they tell us they've lost all incentive because we've given them too much money."
@trruk1 (1031)
• United States
8 Nov 10
All Congress has to do to let the tax cuts expire is nothing. They automatically expire unless Congress extends them. Congress is pretty good at talking a lot and doing nothing, so they should be able to manage it. As a matter of fact, the IRS is already preparing the notices to send to businesses to inform them of the new withholding rates, effective January 1.
@xfahctor (14131)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
8 Nov 10
It would have been nice had they sent them before the end of the fiscal year when businesses do their actual accounting.
@trruk1 (1031)
• United States
8 Nov 10
They have to do it this way, because the law does not change until January 1. Sending a notice about new rates before the time to implement them would confuse some folks, and they would change the rates prematurely.
1 person likes this