Obama Reverses

[Embar Angylwrath]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/1 ... 81992.html

Obama has reversed course (through Axelrod) and now will accept full extension of the Bush tax cuts. Looks like he's coming to grips with the new political reality. Kind of ironic though that just before Axelrod made these statements, Obama's own deficit commission recommended action in the opposite direction.

[Lurker]

The Huffington Post story, if you actually read it carefully, says nothing more than what Obama said a week or two ago. He's open to a temporary extension for the tax cuts for the wealthy if that's the only way the Republican Tea Party will allow an extension of the middle class tax cuts. There hasn't been a reversal because Obama already said that temporary extension is on the negotiating table.

Of course, if you care about deficits the only logical thing to do would be to let all the cuts expire. The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts were the most damaging thing Bush did to this country.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Nah. Up until Axeelrod made the statement, Obama was pressing for keeping the taxes in place for higher incomes.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44766.html

He said this on teh Saturday following the elections.

“I want to make my priorities clear from the start,” Obama said. “One: middle-class families need permanent tax relief. And two: I believe we can’t afford to borrow and spend another $700 billion on permanent tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires.”

The president said he agrees with Republicans that the deficit needs to be brought under control, but that the country cannot afford the additional $700 billion it would cost to extend tax cuts to 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,” Obama said.

[Lurker]

You're wrong. Again.

Edit to add: And here's another story from today that says the same thing. Obama had already indicated he was open to a temporary extension of the tax cuts for the wealthy if that was the only way to get permanent cuts for the middle class. The Huffington Post story doesn't show a reversal.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

And here I thought this would be about the "Don't ask, Don't tell" Supreme Court case...

[Embar Angylwrath]

You're wrong. Again.

Edit to add: And here's another story from today that says the same thing. Obama had already indicated he was open to a temporary extension of the tax cuts for the wealthy if that was the only way to get permanent cuts for the middle class. The Huffington Post story doesn't show a reversal.

Those links dont back up what you are inferring. I quoted exactly what Obama said.

“I want to make my priorities clear from the start,” Obama said. “One: middle-class families need permanent tax relief. And two: I believe we can’t afford to borrow and spend another $700 billion on permanent tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires.”

That sentence makes it clear what his position is. Extend for the middle class, don't extend for the "millionaires and billionaires". Nothing in there about..."but if I have to, I will".

[Lurker]

Embar, you can't be that stupid. I refuse to believe you are that stupid.

You insisted that the statement yesterday was a reversal and that Obama had never said anything like it. I linked a story from November 4th showing that Obama was open to a temporary extension for the wealthy if that was the only way to get permanent cuts for the middle class. That was a week prior. Yes, Obama wants the cuts for the wealthy to expire and for the middle class cuts to be made permanent. But he's also offering a compromise to make that happen. Both are true.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Embar, you can't be that stupid. I refuse to believe you are that stupid.

You insisted that the statement yesterday was a reversal and that Obama had never said anything like it. I linked a story from November 4th showing that Obama was open to a temporary extension for the wealthy if that was the only way to get permanent cuts for the middle class. That was a week prior. Yes, Obama wants the cuts for the wealthy to expire and for the middle class cuts to be made permanent. But he's also offering a compromise to make that happen. Both are true.

Oh, he said something very much like that, again and again and again during his campaign.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44990.html

Such a deal would run counter to one of Obama’s longest-standing and most often-repeated promises from the 2008 campaign — that he would end the tax cuts for wealthier individuals.

And now the Axelrod is trying to walk back his statements...

http://www.nationaljournal.com/budget/a ... s-20101111

Why the need to walk back statements previously made? Look, its obvious the Obama administration is grappling with some serious communication issues. They never were very good and managing the message, that's why they took a drubbing in the elections. They weren't able to adequately counter rightist statements on the economy and healthcare refrom. This is no different. Confused messaging from the WH even has the Dems in a panty twist. They're pissed that Obama is giving ground in an area they think he can win. And really, I agree with them. The Reps would not have torched tax breaks for 98% of the public. They would have blinked first.

[Lurker]

Ok, you really are that stupid. Who knew concepts like "temporary", "permanent", and "compromise" were too complex for you to handle, or that you couldn't comprehend that November 4th came before November 10th.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Ok, you really are that stupid. Who knew concepts like "temporary", "permanent", and "compromise" were too complex for you to handle, or that you couldn't comprehend that November 4th came before November 10th.

Others don't see it as you do, so maybe they're stupid too...

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/11 ... the.house/

The context here that we can't forget is that Axelrod, framing the issue this way now, is a complete reversal from what Obama said at a news conference two months ago when he drew a line in the sand and said he would only accept an extension of middle-class tax cuts for families making under $250,000 a year.

The author nails it when he says that Obama reveresed himself only after the pounding the Dems took in the election.

The president himself had already disavowed what he said at the September news conference by saying the day after the election that he was now willing to negotiate on the tax cuts for the rich -- something that had been an ironclad no before the election.

So you're right Lurker, Obama didn't reverse himself through Axelrod, he reversed himself all on his own.

[Lurker]

Thanks for linking that. It does a great job ripping the Huffington Post article.

I'm also glad you finally (FINALLY!) acknowledge that November 4th comes before November 10th, and that Obama had already opened the door to a compromise where he'd agree to a temporary extension of the tax cuts for top earners if that was the only way to get a permanent cut for everyone else.

In other words, I was correct and practically everything you posted in this thread was wrong. Thanks for admitting it.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Now that you're satisifed with all the nits, the larger issue remains. He reversed himself on the issue. Only after the Dems took a beating in the elections. And he's continuing to send mixed messages to his own party. Should be interesting to see how he deals with the position he put himself in.

[Lurker]

Hey, at least one thing is certain... no matter what Obama does you'll attack him for doing it.

If Obama compromises and allows a temporary extension for the wealthy to get a permanent cut for everyone else you'll attack him for "reversing". If he fights and doesn't compromise you'll attack him for not accepting political realities. If he tries to resolve the tax issue before January you'll attack him for trying to ram it through before the new congress convenes and if he doesn't try you'll attack him for not seizing an opportunity.

You apparently have no idea how transparent you are.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Hey, at least one thing is certain... no matter what Obama does you'll attack him for doing it.

If Obama compromises and allows a temporary extension for the wealthy to get a permanent cut for everyone else you'll attack him for "reversing". If he fights and doesn't compromise you'll attack him for not accepting political realities. If he tries to resolve the tax issue before January you'll attack him for trying to ram it through before the new congress convenes and if he doesn't try you'll attack him for not seizing an opportunity.

You apparently have no idea how transparent you are.

Im a lot more transparent than the Obama admin, thats for sure.

He's the one that drew the line in the sand about absolutely not backing off on the tax cuts for the upper 2%. Any change in policy IS a reversal, whatever the exigencies or reasons given. He's in the corner now because of his own choices. And it looks like you understand that.

[Lurker]

Obama's line in the sand is about making the cuts for the top 2% permanent. Since his starting position is that we should make the middle class tax cuts permanent and allow the cuts for top wage earners to expire, it's not a reversal to agree to a temporary extension for top earners to achieve his main goal. Temporary is not permanent. Compromise is not reversal.

Now, if Obama agrees to make both cuts permanent or both cuts temporary then you'll have a point, but until that happens you are wrong. And of course, whatever he decides to do you'll be attacking him for doing it. In this thread alone you've staked out two contradictory positions to attack him from.

[Partha]

Im a lot more transparent than the Obama admin, thats for sure.

Code words - they're not just for Free Republic!

[Embar Angylwrath]

Obama's line in the sand is about making the cuts for the top 2% permanent. Since his starting position is that we should make the middle class tax cuts permanent and allow the cuts for top wage earners to expire, it's not a reversal to agree to a temporary extension for top earners to achieve his main goal. Temporary is not permanent. Compromise is not reversal.

Now, if Obama agrees to make both cuts permanent or both cuts temporary then you'll have a point, but until that happens you are wrong. And of course, whatever he decides to do you'll be attacking him for doing it. In this thread alone you've staked out two contradictory positions to attack him from.

When "temporary" and "compromise" were never part of the equation, and Obama's firm stance was to commit to letting them expire, then any change that allows them to continue, is a reversal. Spin it how you want.

Edit: Never part of the equation during his campaign, never part of his presidency.. at least not until the day after the 2010 elections that is.

[Harlowe]

I guess the real question then is ...so what? Once again...and again, and again, YOU, who did not vote for him, but are the one crying "REVERSAL" anytime he has to compromise. I think I can safely say most of us that voted for him, just want him to get shit down and aren't going into a lather every time the political realities effect what can and can not be done.

The campaign is over. A candidate can not know what the political realities are going to be until they are in office dealing with them. They are going to compromise, they are going to change course if it's the right thing to do at the time.

No matter his faults, to date he's still better than what the GOP is offering = obstructionism and social conservatism to the extreme. It's a party of crazy, since you decided to bully all the moderates and push them out and cater to the religious right and faux family values. You actually have people saying that there isn't or shouldn't be a separation of church and state, you have conservatives trying to insert their religious views into the public school system and actually re-write history so it's more complimentary to conservatives....seriously, wtf.

[Embar Angylwrath]

I guess the real question then is ...so what? Once again...and again, and again, YOU, who did not vote for him, but are the one crying "REVERSAL" anytime he has to compromise. I think I can safely say most of us that voted for him, just want him to get shit down and aren't going into a lather every time the political realities effect what can and can not be done.

The campaign is over. A candidate can not know what the political realities are going to be until they are in office dealing with them. They are going to compromise, they are going to change course if it's the right thing to do at the time.

No matter his faults, to date he's still better than what the GOP is offering = obstructionism and social conservatism to the extreme. It's a party of crazy, since you decided to bully all the moderates and push them out and cater to the religious right and faux family values. You actually have people saying that there isn't or shouldn't be a separation of church and state, you have conservatives trying to insert their religious views into the public school system and actually re-write history so it's more complimentary to conservatives....seriously, wtf.

He could have gotten some "shit done" if he'd approached things differently. In regards to this particular issue, he had more bargaining power before the elections, he had people in his own party begging him to do it, namely the Bluedogs. You might want to consider what might have happened differently at the elections if he'd worked out a compromise before he had to, instead of being forced into one now. He could have sent the Dems in with a bi-partisan win, instead of sending them in with nothing but 9.5% unemployment, rising foreclosures, healthcare reform that most Americans don't want, and the consequences of that... namely the repudiation of the independent voters (the ones that put him in office) and the loss of Dem moderates.

Yeah Harlowe, you sure picked a winner.

[Partha]

He could have gotten some "shit done" if he'd approached things differently. In regards to this particular issue, he had more bargaining power before the elections, he had people in his own party begging him to do it, namely the Bluedogs.

You notice those Bluedogs were the ones who got slaughtered in the elections, right?