The Walkback Begins

[Exilednight]

Axelrod, talking about tax cuts for upper class "we might have to accept those for political reasons".

What happened to saying no on those tax cuts?

This administration needs to understand that letting tax cuts expire on those making over $250k a year are sorely needed to help begin taking chunks out of the deficit. The argument that letting them expire will stall the economy is complete garbage.

Wages have stalled for the working class, while pay for executives and CEOs have continually gone up. Quite a bit of CEO and executive pay and bonuses have come off of tax payer dollars.

[Jackpine Radical]

1. The Obama Doctrine

Talk big & carry a wet noodle.

[Aramchek]

11. care to tell us about the Ultra-Petty Anti-Obama Doctrine?

[Imajika]

2. I don't think that is what he said at all...

He said that the former budget director, Peter Orszag, was only suggesting continuing the tax cuts for the rich out of necessity (reluctantly and just to get a deal). Axelrod was explaining that Orszag was saying "we might have to accept those for political reasons".

Still, I agree Axelrod didn't slam the door on extending them, but his quote was about what Orszag said.

[Exilednight]

5. The devil is always in the details ...........

The way it sounded was Orszag made the argument, and Axelrod was elaborating by saying that they might have to extend them for political reasons.

[Inuca]

14. The devil is

in making up stuff between the lines.

[KittyWampus]

16. funny how you didn't manage to provide an actual quote-talking about details

and the devil.

[Arkana]

41. ...so you just chose to make some shit up.

Axelrod was pretty clear that Obama and he disagreed with Orszag.

I noticed you didn't talk about that at all, but that wouldn't fit the narrative, right? :sarcasm:

[JamesA1102]

10. Agreed

The OP is distorting what Axelrod said.

[RBInMaine]

3. Obama has been clear on this. So just hold your powder. Knee jerking as usual.

[earthside]

4. Clear as mud.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/09/obama-refuses-to-say-hed-_n_710279.html

[jaxx]

6. Very clear.

Obama didn't let George by with demanding an answer. He let it lay there and now Boner has stepped up and said he'll vote to keep the tax cuts for those making under 250k and let the tax cuts for the rich expire.

[msongs]

7. warning - FIERCE advocate alert - run the other way ASAP lol nt

[Phx_Dem]

8. No, the kneejerking begins.

[pscot]

9. We do not have to accept more tax cuts

for political reasons. Unless their goal is political suicide.

[tsuki]

12. No, Boehner, don't cave. I'll cave first. nt

[Inuca]

13. Sounds like Boehner already caved

so your point is....???

[tsuki]

20. As I see it, the President said no, the majority of the people are behind

this, the pundit class is being painted as self-interested, elitist millionaires that don't want their taxes raised, Boehner is feeling the heat and has caved, Orszag is gone, so what is Axlerod talking about? He should back the president, or is he backing the president. We need a fixed message going into this election, not some mythical, 8 dimensional chess game.

[vaberella]

36. Read post 18 and 26 and you'll realize how misleading the OP's post is. n/t

[tsuki]

38. I read them. Axlerod should have backed the president, not

oh well, but, if.

[vaberella]

44. I don't think you did. Because you would be aware that Axelrod did back the President.

Axelrod said, "David, we just can't afford it. And really, what we ought to do is, as the president said, we agree on the middle-class tax cuts. Let's not hold them hostage while we debate whether we're going to give this very small number of people at the top a, a tax cut that we can't afford."

He said we couldn't afford and that's why it's not about to happen that we reinstate those tax breaks for the rich. They're going to expire. I think you're reading what you want. I don't know how you're stating that Axelrod didn't back the President when Axelrod even says the President's name.

[Mass]

24. It does not cost anything to Boehner. It is McConnell that matters.

[tsuki]

39. Yeah, it has cost Boehner. He bowed to the pressure of his constituents. nt

[KittyWampus]

15. Please provide the actual quote in context.

[Exilednight]

19. Here you go .........

Well, if you read carefully what our budget director said, he said he'd prefer we didn't move forward on the upper-income tax cuts because he doesn't believe that they're really stimulative and he doesn't believe we can afford it, but he thought for political reasons we might have to accept it. So, you know, that--let's, let's lay, let's lay that aside. But Mr. Boehner, no one believes that Mr. Boehner--you know, they called the last set of tax cuts temporary. They're going to continue. I think we have to assume that they're going to keep pushing this forward.


This was Axelrod's chance to slam the door shut on any such idea, but instead we get "So, you know, that -- let's, let's lay, let's lay that aside."

In other words, Axel didn't walk to talk about it because it may become the new policy if Boner flip-flops on his position again.

Now, someone could argue that Bomer came out today with his statement about agreeing about the tax cuts for 98% of tax payers, but the administration already knew what was going to be said on Face the Nation, after-all, it was taped on Thursday. And if they didn't know Bomer had made that statement, then Obama needs to fire his entire political staff and replace them.

[Mass]

25. So, Axelrod talked about Orzag saying that and you forgot to inform us of this little detail.

You would fit perfectly well at Fox!

[Exilednight]

27. I've seen thise movie before. Remember the PO? n/t

[ProSense]

31. The public option?

What does the public option have to do with leaving out the fact that the quote in the OP was Axelrod making a statement about Orzag's position?

[vaberella]

23. Look at Post # 18 to get the full context. n/t

[Exilednight]

35. Actually, see post #19 to get the full context and see what I am talking about. n/t

[vaberella]

45. Dude, you're seriously reaching.

Because in continuation of the same dialogue found in post 18 it clearly shows that Axelrod did shut the door on the issue. You're wanting to read something different to run on this negative stance that has no evidence.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

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

[ProSense]

18. Axelrod: "we just can't afford it"

MR. GREGORY: All right, so let me ask you a more specific question about this debate about tax cuts, for instance. You mentioned Leader Boehner for the Republicans, who is saying in an interview that, in fact, he would support the middle class tax cuts if--the extension of which, which is what the president wants. He said on Friday, don't hold those hostage. What I'm asking is, is there any room to compromise with Republicans to extend, even if it's for two years, as your formerly departed budget director called for, those on upper-income Americans, those tax cuts from the Bush era?

MR. AXELROD: Well, if you read carefully what our budget director said, he said he'd prefer we didn't move forward on the upper-income tax cuts because he doesn't believe that they're really stimulative and he doesn't believe we can afford it, but he thought for political reasons we might have to accept it. So, you know, that--let's, let's lay, let's lay that aside. But Mr. Boehner, no one believes that Mr. Boehner--you know, they called the last set of tax cuts temporary. They're going to continue. I think we have to assume that they're going to keep pushing this forward.

But let me make one point clear. What we're proposing is a tax cut for 100 percent of Americans up to $250,000 of their income. So if you make under $250,000, you'd get a tax cut on all your income. If you make more than that, you'd get it up to $250,000. So if you're a millionaire, you'll get what everybody else gets up to $250,000. Not the $100,000 a year that Mr. Boehner wants to give it. David, we just can't afford it. And really, what we ought to do is, as the president said, we agree on the middle-class tax cuts. Let's not hold them hostage while we debate whether we're going to give this very small number of people at the top a, a tax cut that we can't afford.

link

[vaberella]

21. Dear God...that is wholly different than what the OP provided.

I'm tired of misinformation by posters. I really am. We yell at the Obama admin for having a knee-jerk response without getting all the facts. When obviously this seems to be an affliction that many have and definitely those on DU.

[vaberella]

22. Pleas edit your post by adding Prosense's text. Your post is utterly misleading. n/t

[jenmito]

26. Wrong. He was explaining ORZAG'S quote and how Orzag was NOT saying it would

be best to extend the tax cuts for the rich, but Congress might have to for political reasons. :eyes:

[BlueIdaho]

29. All congress has to do is what congress does best

Nothing at all. Let all of the tax cuts expire and then force the r's vote against targeted tax cuts for the middle and lower classes. Force them to go on record against tax cuts for a majority of Americans.

win win really.

[jenmito]

30. That's what will probably happen,

I hope.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

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

[jenmito]

32. The "knee jerk Obama followers"?

:eyes:

[vaberella]

33. What are you talking about?

The administration is going to bat on this issue and are trying to win public perception. If you see post 18, you'll notice that's the case when you take the statement in full context since this is a part of a rebuttal from Axelrod towards Orszag, so for you to claim we're missing something is false. You're basing something on what you view might happen---while as the case may be there's noting leading to that.

And as stated before the OP's post is misleading because it pushes a false meme.

[golfguru]

34. The rich should get BIGGER tax breaks

but only those who OWN their business and employ lot of people.
CEO types are NOT included in that category...they are just skimming off
money which belongs to stock owners. Neither do rich athletes, rich show
business people, Wall street traders, condo flippers,...you get my drift.

But for those small/medium business owners who actually risk their own
money to run a business and employ whole bunch of people, they are the real
job creators, and they should get tax credits for every employee, and for any
health care benefits they subsidize for their employees.

[vaberella]

37. Read 18 and 26. n/t

[golfguru]

42. I read both and both are dumb

If you read my post carefully, you might realize that 80% of high earners
should be taxed more.

The other 20% are the real job creators and it is asininely stupid to
increase their taxes. Doing that will make the unemployment rate shoot up
even higher. In fact their taxes should be reduced. WE NEED MORE JOBS.
We don't need class warfare with that 20% who create jobs.

[ProSense]

43. They don't need anymore tax breaks

They're sitting on billions and intentionally not creating jobs.

"The other 20% are the real job creators and it is asininely stupid to increase their taxes."

No, this is just another attempt to claim some wealthy people need tax cuts.

[golfguru]

47. You are confused

The outfits sitting on Billions are mostly LARGE corporations.
Small businesses earning under 1 million a year are the most
prolific job creators. They plow those profits back into expanding
their business which results in hiring more people. It is asinine to take
more money from them and spend it on things which create no
permanent jobs.

If the 800 Billion dollar stimulus would have gone to incentivize
those small/medium businesses, unemployment would be 6 or 7%,
not 9 and 10% right now.

The stupid policies of this administration is prolonging this recession
and hurting millions of people who can't find jobs.

Where is Hillary when we need Clintonomics? Obamonics sucks.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

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

[Exilednight]

48. I distorted nothing. See post #19 for details. n/t