[SQiTmhuY]

Daily Caller: http://dailycaller.com/2010/12/06/ob...r-all-incomes/

President Obama and congressional Republicans have reached a tentative deal to extend the Bush tax cuts for all income and are presenting the proposal to congressional Democrats Monday afternoon, The Daily Caller has learned.

The deal will extend the current tax levels for two more years, preventing taxes from going up on any income levels, despite the wishes of many liberal Democrats — including Obama — that individuals making more than $200,000 a year and families with more than $250,000 a year in income see their rates go up.

In exchange, Republicans have agreed to extend unemployment insurance for an additional 13 months.

Obama presented the proposal to Democratic congressional leaders at the White House Monday afternoon, seeking to obtain their approval for the deal.

[VovTortki]

...And this is the party of fiscal conservatism, how?

[Tilmbeinymn]

Hmm. I'm not sure how I think about this yet. One pundit wondered if this is a chess move or a checkers' game for Pres. Obama. Too soon to tell.

[CorpoRasion]

Well, Obama made his position pretty clear in the speech he gave. He personally opposes additional tax breaks for the wealthy and he opposes moving up the estate tax threshold for the wealthy. But Republicans made it clear that they were willing to force taxes up for everyone and they already cut off unemployment extensions until they got tax breaks for the richest 2% of the country, which has grown much wealthier over past ten years.

As he positioned it, middle and lower class tax increases and a cutoff of unemployment payments is unacceptable collateral damage, but those people are being held hostage by the GOP until the rich can be given a bailout that they don't need. The only way to avoid further damage to millions of Americans was to give in to the GOP's demands.

[Jadldqys]

True. He also made reference to a 2011 campaign of "hard choices" regarding the deficit. The fight over these tax cuts is going to come up again right before his election. How that will all play out is going to depend on the economy and what direction the country is taking on reducing the deficit. I'm just wondering how significant that one comment was.

[6M8PJigS]

I'm disappointed that the canard over the rich being the gatekeepers of job-creation wasn't more forcefully dismantled in this debate.

Point #1: Job growth is predicated on one thing: Consumer demand for products. If you hand a wealthy owner of a car dealership $10,000, do you think he's going to suddenly call a meeting with the dealership's partners to say "I got a big check - let's hire up?" Nope. Hiring will happen only if cars start flying off the lot and they run short of sales people to deal with the rush of customers. That owner of the dealership is going to park that money in the bank, or possibly in an off-shore tax shelter on the Cayman Islands.

Point #2: The numbers waved around suggesting that three quarters of a million small businesses fall into the over-$250k taxable income range is ridiculously padded. Where it comes from is that many wealthy folks incorporate small businesses around single-person activities as tax deductions. A large number of the 750,000 "wealthy" small businesses claimed by the GOP are exactly this. For instance, they rent a guest house and claim the rental income as a business. They rent their boat, they consult, they day-trade. And then they file a schedule C to claim home office and other deductions. When they get their tax windfall, will there be hiring? No. They're going to park that money in the bank, or possibly in an off-shore tax shelter on the Cayman Islands.

In the real world, let's say you've got a real small business owner who owns a pizza place. He files as an S Corp, so company profits flow into his personal tax return. The real-world small business owner will know in the 4th quarter if he's had a good year. If the summer got strong, he hired in the summer. If it looks like he's headed into the winter with a windfall, the real-world small business owner will do those repairs on the ice maker, get a new oven, get some new chairs for the dining room.

Find someone in that top 2% who can say with confidence that the tax cut alone will be the deciding factor in whether any business they own will hire more people in Q1 or Q2. I don't think they exist.

[DioraMoostebeers]

I absolutely agree with you, Richard. I made that argument many times. I was met with the same blank stare and the same old party line, "Tax cuts create jobs." I felt like I was talking to the stapler on my desk. Truthfully, the Democrats got beat. I suppose you could say it's the economy and politicians don't have the will to raise taxes in a bad economy, or you could just say the Republicans did a better job of message control. Maybe it's both, I don't know.

To illustrate the point, I purchased new tires yesterday. The business had a help wanted sign out front and I asked the owner if the tax cuts would have made any difference in him hiring. He said no. Business was good, he needed the help. He fell into that over $250k catagory. I believe that regardless of a 3% marginal tax hike, if a business needs to hire, they will hire, and this man proved it.

[wsbizwsa]

Interesting that we haven't heard from Regis on this yet. He needs to find out what he's told to think by Limbaugh and Beck. We'll have him parroting whatever they say in the next day or so.

My gut is that Obama's careful words about this since he announced the deal are intended to provoke the majority of Americans who oppose a massive cash giveaway to the richest of the rich in this country. We're already seeing the reactions coming loud and fast, though a thorough reading of the framework shows that Obama got quite a bit more than just unemployment extension - his team managed to cobble together what many economists are calling a second stimulus round focused on job creation.

But on the GOP tax windfall for the rich issue, I predict that we'll see marches, protests and polls showing the GOP that making their rich campaign donors richer is not in the best interests of this country and that the mandate they think they have to serve only the rich and the wingnuttiest social extremists is a very large misunderstanding. They're going to spend all their political capital in one, spectacular fireball.

If that does happen, this may well be a brilliant move by Obama to show who's side he's really on, the side of working-class Americans who make up most of the country and who are sick of the growing wealth and opportunity divide and ready to do something about it.

[FliveGell]

Hard spin out there, on both sides. I took a closer look at the package and you're right about Pres. Obama gearing this toward more job stimulus. The 2% reduction in payroll taxes, two year increases in the Child Tax Credit and EIC, a tax credit for students, and the most helpful, I think, allowing businesses to expenses 100% of their investments in 2011 and two years on the R&D tax credits..

He really has to sell this though, and I mean sell it fast and sell it completely. At the same time he's selling the good stuff as helpful to the economy, he'll have to sell the tax breaks for the rich as only adding to the deficit. It's a tough needle to thread. Heck, even his own party leaders are pushing back, especially on the estate tax. Where are all the tea party people who yelled the loudest about deficits? That's who he needs to rile up.

[wonceinee]

Looks like Comrade Obama is the ONLY Liberal that learned anything from that "Shellacking" on November 2nd. Who would have thunk it?

http://washingtonexaminer.com/politi...ax-cut-reality

While his base rages, Obama faces tax-cut reality

By: Michael Barone 12/07/10 8:05 PM
Senior Political Analyst

Reality strikes. President Obama spurned the advice of columnists Paul Krugman and Katrina vanden Heuvel and agreed with Republicans to extend the current income tax rates -- the so-called Bush tax cuts -- for another two years.

He got a few things in return, primarily extended unemployment benefits for another 13 months, and agreed as well to a 2 percent cut in the Social Security payroll tax.

But he recognized the reality that in order to prevent a tax increase on those with incomes under $250,000 he had to prevent a tax increase on those over that line as well.

This has infuriated liberal Democrats like outgoing Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., but they share some of the blame themselves. They probably could have passed their version of the tax bill earlier this year, before the economic recovery stalled in the spring.

But with the economy faltering, there's a strong argument against raising anyone's taxes -- strong enough to have persuaded many congressional Democrats.

Obama had to abandon his goal of raising taxes on high earners not because Republicans opposed it but because not enough Democrats supported it. Pelosi couldn't summon up a majority on the issue back in September, and Harry Reid could get only 53 of the needed 60 votes this month.

[hablyShappY]

Good grief. Even the Obama lapdogs at MSNBC are fit to be tied. They're furious at their Messiah.

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/12/0...-goes-through/

Olby: Obama won’t get renominated if tax deal goes through

posted at 2:15 pm on December 8, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

printer-friendly How angry has the professional Left become? Their oracle on MSNBC isn’t just warning that Barack Obama won’t get re-elected after cutting a deal with Republicans, but won’t even be on the ticket come November 2012. Keith Olbermann warned in his Special Comment last night that Obama won’t survive a primary challenge if he persists, because Democrats and progressives are wedded to principles, not personalities:

Er, doesn’t the nomination of Obama in 2008 more or less rebut that notion? Obama didn’t offer any different rhetoric than did John Edwards did, or even Bill Richardson, who was a lot more experienced and qualified as an executive (and in foreign affairs) than Obama. The only real argument for Obama over Hillary Clinton (who was playing all the populist cards at the end, too) was “change” over experience, and Obama’s supposed charisma over Hillary’s baggage.
Beyond that, though, has a sitting president ever been denied the nomination of his party for re-election? None comes to mind, especially in the modern era. LBJ may have come the closest, with a narrow victory in New Hampshire in 1968 enough to push him into retirement. Nor is Obama likely to be the first to lose it. His strong support from African-Americans won’t change no matter how many Special Comments Olbermann launches, and Democrats can’t afford to alienate that bloc in 2012, and not just in the presidential election. A poor turnout among black voters will doom their Senatorial incumbents as well. Splitting the party along progressive lines will doom Democrats across the country in yet another wave election.

If anything, Obama might prevent getting a challenge from the old DLC wing of the party with this deal, and that would be much better for him in the long run. If Evan Bayh (as an example) ran against him in the primaries, Obama would have to run all over again as a progressive, which won’t be the path to re-election, if one exists at all.

[Adimondin]

Interesting that we haven't heard from Regis on this yet. He needs to find out what he's told to think by Limbaugh and Beck. We'll have him parroting whatever they say in the next day or so.

Bingo.

[avaiftBoara]

Bingo.

Indeed. I'm particularly taken with the first line of the Washington Examiner story: "President Obama spurned the advice of columnists Paul Krugman and Katrina vanden Heuvel..."

Since when are these two presidential economic advisors? Furthermore, how would Michael Barone, the writer, know that Pres. Obama "rejected with disdain" the advice of these two? Was there an interview? Quotes? No, of course not.

Obviously, Pres. Obama did what he believed was right for the country. Whether or not that proves to be true or not remains to be seen. What is certain is Mr. Barone, Mr. Krugman and Ms. vanden Heuvel will write about it. That's what writers do.

[Dodoerabe]

I think I may actually agree with Krauthammer on some of the points he make in this column:

If Obama had asked for a second stimulus directly, he would have been laughed out of town. Stimulus I was so reviled that the Democrats banished the word from their lexicon throughout the 2010 campaign. And yet, despite a very weak post-election hand, Obama got the Republicans to offer to increase spending and cut taxes by $990 billion over two years. ...

The package will add as much as 1 percent to GDP and lower the unemployment rate by about 1.5 percentage points. That could easily be the difference between victory and defeat in 2012.

Obama is no fool. While getting Republicans to boost his own reelection chances, he gets them to make a mockery of their newfound, second-chance, post-Bush, Tea-Party, this-time-we're-serious persona of debt-averse fiscal responsibility. The loudest voices on the left arguing against this are focused solely on the tax giveaway to the rich. There's a lot more going on in this agreement. And unlike the political theater and histrionics that are grabbing headlines over the past few days, economists and analysts on both sides of the aisle are regarding this as a smart move, not a cave-in.