I can guarantee you, Obama WILL keep this promise on tax cuts

[Enrique]

He said in his radio address today that he won't make the tax cuts for the rich PERMANENT. He has already said he would veto that. I believe him 100%.

But, it's a red herring. All the talk of comprimising has been to make the tax cuts for the rich "temporary", two years is what I've heard most often, meaning they would expire right around the 2012 election.

He says nothing in this radio address about this real compromise which is being discussed, and which will probably happen. I think our best chance if we want to stop them is to pressure our senators to filibuster the tax cuts. Write to them, demand they filibuster the Boehner-Obama tax cuts for the rich.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/11/06/weekly-address-president-obama-calls-compromise-and-explains-his-priorit

[rug]

1. I'll read your lips.

[kentuck]

2. And if Obama and the Democrats lose in 2012?

Will we then say they blew a golden opportunity? They had this issue before the election and punted, let us not forget.

[ProSense]

3. Possibly, but there is another option

Extend the Bush Tax Cut to the Bottom 99 Percent, But Not The Top 1 Percent.

If Republican don't agree to something, the tax cuts will expire.

[denimgirly]

4. If ure saying Obama will not Compromise and let them Expire I will give u my Car...for real

Obviously obama will veto the perm tax cuts that is not the problem..it is his weakness that he will accept a temporary extension which leaves it open for repubs to make perm in 2012....simple strategy which will kill the government....its a suicide move.

Why doesnt Obama and dems deal with this whole thing right now before the new owners come in?!?!?

[Frustratedlady]

5. Giving in would make Obama look weak. I think he's waiting for an

uprising from the masses to let the tax cuts for the top 2% expire at the end of the year.

Does anyone remember the cheers each time he mentioned letting them expire? The people want him to stick it to the wealthy who have had all the breaks over the past however many years. The rich didn't spend the money or hire more people, they hoarded/invested it...hid it from taxes, when possible.

I still think that is Obama's style. Suggest a move, wait for the reaction from the people and then move. That way, he can always say it was the will of the people.

If he gives the break to the top 2%, you can forget 2012.

[Better Today]

9. What do you mean? He IS GIVING IN, if he lets them be renewed even temporarily.

In less than one week, he's now gone from no tax cut renewal for the rich to non-permanent tax cut renewal for the rich, which means he's intending on giving the rich a renewal on their tax cuts for the time being. Weakling, and stupid, imo.

[Cartoonist]

6. School me

Why isn't it being done this way: 1)Declare the Bush Tax cuts will expire for all. 2) Write a new tax bill that cuts taxes for the middle class and poor, and watch repubs vote against it?

[Autumn]

7. Well there you go, making too much

sense.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[countrydad58]

10. Here! Here!

[ProSense]

11. WTF? n/t

[ClarkUSA]

12. Why should there be outrage over something that hasn't occurred?

Nothing in what President Obama said today would warrant hyperventilation:

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.

I recognize that both parties are going to have to work together and compromise to get something done here. But I want to make my priorities clear from the start. 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.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x511584

Quite the opposite.

[Better Today]

13. Because stirring after it's occurred doesn't stop it from occurring, does it?

Seems we all waited a little too patiently regarding the public option, thinking there would be some last minute chess play, but instead we got screwed with a mandate and no PO.

Hopefully we learned our lesson and will stir shit up before hand from now on.

[ClarkUSA]

14. How do you know what will occur in the future? Other than the usual Outrage rumor mill, that is.

As for the PO, there was never any votes for it in Congress. The only people still whining about that are those who haven't a clue as to how legislation is passed and expected President Obama to wave his magic wand.

[Better Today]

15. Conversely, how do you know it won't occur? The idea is to not wait to get our

positions known earlier than we have been, the next step is to figure out how to get them to listen, but first we have to be sure we're voicing.

If you want to give Congress and the President a pass on stuff, that's cool, but I won't be joining you.

[ClarkUSA]

17. I like to deal in facts not conjecture. If you want to presuppose events based on no proof, go ahead

[Better Today]

19. Then you clearly explain your inability to effect the future. The future

cannot be effected if we wait until it is fact. If you choose this fact concept, instead of effecting the future in a direct way, you'll be destined to reacting to the current realities. I find reactions tend to be the wrong and usually delayed way of handling things.

[ClarkUSA]

22. lol! If you want to think you can "effect the future" based on a dubious OP at DU, go ahead.

[Better Today]

25. Obama has been caving since Wednesday, it has nothing to do with this specific

OP, but if narrowing your input to one OP exclusive of any of the evidence that supports the OPs premise, then you aren't one that has any credibility to tell others how to effect the future.

[ClarkUSA]

27. Really? Name one example of GOP legislation that he has signed into law "since Wednesday".

[ProSense]

29. That's a new one

pre-emptively declaring bills have already passed.

:rofl:

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProSense]

18. Actually, this is an

excuse for people who don't like the President

Pre-emptive outrage is a waste of time. If the President ever actually announces an interest (get it: an interest) in compromise and spells out what it would look like, then making noise would be appropriate.

What has been happening is that some people have been using pre-emptive outrage to vilify the President and bolster the notion that he is weak and cannot be trusted.

The President has to govern, and you may not like all his choices, but some of the comments are not about dissatisfaction, they're indications that some people have never been willing to give this President a chance.

[Better Today]

20. I disagree, pre-emptive concern is the best way to help assure mistakes aren't

made. What you suggest only leaves after-the-fact reactionism, which I don't believe is as effective.

[ProSense]

24. Excuse.

Why not get a jump start on the outrage that the President will cave on every legislation? Time is of the essense.

[Better Today]

26. You're correct, the president has in fact given us all the evidence we need to assume

he will cave on every legislation. Are you finally realizing that?

[ProSense]

28. "he will cave on every legislation"

That reminds me of something.

[Better Today]

23. Furthermore, the president is weak and has shown he's not trustworthy to

the man that he campaigned as. He needs no help in bolstering that image, he's doing a fine job all on his own.

[Enrique]

16. we only need 41 votes

to filibuster the Boehner-Obama tax cuts for the rich.

[ClarkUSA]

21. lol! "Boehner-Obama tax cuts for the rich"? Quote the legislation you're basing your pet meme on.

Oh, there isn't any? What a surprise!

:rofl:

[ibegurpard]

30. you can't guarantee anything

we'll see what he does