Obama tells GOP no compromise on tax rebates (for poor)

[usregimechange]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Obama told Republican House leaders Tuesday he plans to stand firm on the part of his $825 billion economic recovery plan that calls for tax rebates for nearly all working Americans -- including those who make too little to owe income taxes.

According to two Republican aides familiar with Obama's Capitol Hill meeting, Rep. Dave Camp, R-Michigan, the ranking member on the Ways and Means committee, asked Obama if there was room for negotiation on the structure of the biggest tax cut in the bill.

"Feel free to whack me over the head because I probably will not compromise on that part," the president replied, according to one of the aides, who requested anonymity because the member of Congress relaying information to the aide from inside the meeting wished to remain anonymous.

Obama supports the tax rebates for those who don't pay income taxes because they do pay payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/27/obama.meetings/index.html

:bounce:

[Clio the Leo]

1. I am LOVING all of the jumping smilies......

.... I've seen here this last week. How LUCKY are we all to be alive to witness all of this wondrousness!!!

[Danger Mouse]

2. Good.

[EraOfResponsibility]

3. "I PROBABLY will not? why probably?"

just asking. "Probably" leaves too much wiggle room IMO.

[usregimechange]

5. Oh come on, the way he said it, "wack me over the head" leaves no wiggle room whatsoever, imo

[Why Syzygy]

4. You know.. this is NO different than the tax rebates they gave last year.

People who normally do not file were able to file JUST TO RECEIVE THE REBATE!!!

Why are they now giving Obama a hard time about something that was done a YEAR AGO under a different Executive? (in thief)

[SpartanDem]

6. Obama knows

when to stand his ground despite what some say about him being too bipartisan and capitulating. What have we lost so far? A family planning provision that was questionable, at best, in a economic bill not exactly huge loss that some are making it out to be.

[murielm99]

7. Oh, yes. Let's compromise on women's rights.

Who care about a lot of unplanned pregnancies? No big deal here!

Just like the gays were supposed to shut up and take it about Rick Warren, women are supposed to shut up, too.

[SpartanDem]

8. oh please

No one is saying that the provision doesn't have merit on it's own ,but as part of an economic stimulus bill it was questionable. To think that this is some attempt to compromise women's right is just unnecessary overreaction

[EraOfResponsibility]

10. perhaps it will go into the SCHIP bill

we shall see.

[murielm99]

11. Delete. Dupe

[murielm99]

12. Oh Please?

Please what? Please be patient, little ladies? We'll get around to you when we feel like it, which is never? We overreact, you say? We get hysterical?

We need to sit down and shut up I guess.

I've seen enough of that attitude around DU lately. You are out of line to condescend to me or any woman about family planning or anything else that is our right.

[NutmegYankee]

13. But as part of an economic bill? It can be its own bill n/t

[murielm99]

14. That would be all right.

But I don't think it will be done that way. There are other things in that bill the republicans were complaining about. Which of them were removed? AFAIK, the only one removed was about family planning.

[cali]

15. or for the love of reason. it NEVER FUCKING belonged

in the stimulus bill. And I'm a woman and one that does not shut up. Conflating this with Warren is pathetic. And dumb as a box of rocks.

[Lyric]

17. To be fair, cali, you are a woman whose childbearing years are past.

I'm pretty sure I've seen you mention that you're over fifty. It's easy to dismiss it as trivial when you're not the one at risk, you know?

I actually think that the bill *does* belong in the stimulus, because helping women keep their reproductive lives under control is a good way to combat poverty overall.

[cali]

18. Um, so what?

Because I'm over 50 means that I don't care about the issue? How wrong you are. And sorry, that tenuous explanation of why it belongs in the stimulus package is silly- one could rationalize nearly anything being included by that that kind of "logic".

[Lyric]

19. No, really you couldn't.

And attacking my "logic" rather than actually addressing my point is very telling. To expand my point:

--More children born into poverty is the last thing we need right now, and the measure that was removed was meant to fund family planning *specifically* for poor women. As usual, poor women are kicked to the bottom of the priority list.

--The enormous costs of childbirth and delivery, opposed to simple contraception, lay a heavy burden of debt on people who are already struggling. Many of these families might have been able to stay afloat, if not for the crushing costs of having another baby. Instead, they'll be contributing to the public assistance burden--at least until public assistance gets cut too. Then they'll have nothing.

--There are going to be a LOT more "poor" families in the coming year, considering the job losses and the state of the economy. The problem seems to be a small thing now, but that's only because these women have absolutely no power at all, so we aren't hearing from them. There are millions of poor women in America--where is their lobbying group? Who is looking out for their interests and health? Apparently, *nobody* is.

I'm sure that you "care" about the issue--what progressive wouldn't?--but that's not the point. The point is that it isn't YOUR body or YOUR finances that are at risk; therefore, your "Well I'm a woman too, and I think it's fine" spiel wasn't helpful. There was a thread a while back about listening to the voices of the people who are actually living with poverty; this is one of those times when *their* voices are the ones we should be listening to.

It's not necessary to be sarcastic and dismissive, either. I wasn't being rude to you. I am simply advocating for those whose voices are silent and whose needs and well-being are continually marginalized and used as political footballs in some politician's "game strategy." It's not right to play political games with peoples' lives, especially when those people are poor and powerless. To you it might be "silly," but to those who actually have a stake in this, it's not the least bit silly. It's deadly serious.

[murielm99]

20. The bill provides basic women's health coverage for

2.3 million low-income women. It saves the states money in these tight economic times, too. States will be cutting their budgets. Many women may get no coverage without this provision.

http://www.ppaction.org/campaign/abcjan09_call/w8855659pkemdni?source=abcjan09_e1_ppol

This provision does belong in an economic stimulus bill.

[sandnsea]

26. Actually it does, absolutely

There are many states that are too stupid to value contraceptive benefits and will cut them, that's why we need to guarantee them at the federal level. People will lose jobs, most likely women, if we don't replace that money. I know we will replace it in another bill, but it's a waste of time and could just as easily be done now. There's nothing wrong with this bill, Republicans are just looking for things to bloviate over. It's all they ever do.

[avaistheone1]

9. If Obama continues like this he is going to turn me into a rabid fan.

[usregimechange]

22. He stood on principle and lost every R vote, good, we didn't need em

[Hope And Change]

16. K & R!

[Hansel]

21. They don't mind treating payroll tax like income tax when they

are drooling and slurping like little piggies at the "lock box" trough. But they are very well aware of the difference when it comes to doing anything for the working poor who make too little to even pay income taxes.

Basically to them, the higher percentage of your income that you have to pay in taxes, the less deserving you are. The poor pay a higher percentage in sales tax, gasoline tax, and property tax but for some reason giving them a tax break is like giving them welfare while handing hundreds of billions of dollars to their corporate friends is the free market.

Is it possible that the Republicans are doing just a tinge of racist whistle blowing here?

[Telly Savalas]

23. Even if they didn't pay payroll taxes, tax rebates for low income folks makes sense.

The lower the income the higher the marginal propensity to spend the rebate, and hence the bigger bang for the buck in terms of economic stimulus.

If it's fair to hand Capital One billions to help them pay for all the television ads they air, then it's fair to give tax rebates to folks who don't pay income tax.

[Hekate]

24. Well, good. And the family-planning part will show up in other bills soon, I am sure.

The more Boehner talks about "stimulus" and "contraception" the more like an idiot he looks.

:bounce: indeed.

Hekate

[Cha]

25. Yay!

:bounce: