iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Obama Refuses To Say He'd Veto Extension Of Bush Tax Cuts For Wealthy

Obama

First Posted: 09/09/10 10:11 AM ET Updated: 05/25/11 06:35 PM ET

President Obama on Thursday refused to commit himself to vetoing legislation that would temporarily extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, even as he and his administration have steadfastly argued that such an extension would waste hundreds of billions of dollars.

In an interview with ABC News's George Stephanopoulos, the president was asked on four occasions whether his commitment to letting the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy expire was strong enough to veto even a "short term extension." On each occasion, Obama demurred.

The exchange, for what it's worth, was flagged by a Republican congressional aide who noted how little Democrats would likely feel emboldened by the remarks. It does, indeed, seem increasingly likely that Congress punts on the issue, passing a temporary extension of all Bush tax cuts with the goal of revisiting their expiration in two years. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky) has said he would be willing to discuss this compromise. And the lack of an overt veto threat from Obama suggests that the White House isn't willing to rule it out either.

Watch the interview or scroll down for a transcript:


Here is the relevant transcript from Obama's interview:

STEPHANOPOULOS: How deep is your commitment to this fight? Are you saying that if Congress passes a short term extension of all the tax cuts, you're gonna veto it?


OBAMA: George, here's what ... I'm saying is that we've got a fundamental choice about this economy. You can't have Republicans running on fiscal discipline that we're gonna reduce our deficit, that the debt's out of control, and then borrow tens, hundreds of billions of dollars to give tax cuts to people who don't need them. (crosstalk)

STEPHANOPOULOS: --everyone else, though. You don't propose a way to pay for those.

OBAMA: Look, the reason is because those folks, as I said over the last decade, at the time when the Republicans were in charge, didn't see a wage increase. Did not see their incomes go up at a time when their costs for health care, for college tuition, for everything else was going up. So, they are just barely keeping their heads above water. The one group that actually saw their incomes increase substantially when ... Republicans were in charge, were the top two percent of Americans. The folks who saw the biggest jump were the top one tenth of one percent of Americans.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Does that mean you will veto an extension of tax cuts to the wealthy?

OBAMA: What I am saying is that if we are going to add to our deficit by $35 billion, $95 billion, $100 billion, $700 billion, if that's the Republican agenda, then I've got a whole bunch of better ways to spend that money.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But you're not saying you're gonna veto it.

OBAMA: I, there are a whole bunch better ways to spend the money.

STEPHANOPOULOS: How come you don't want to say veto?

OBAMA: There are a whole bunch better ways to spend the money.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
President Obama on Thursday refused to commit himself to vetoing legislation that would temporarily extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, even as he and his administration have steadfastly argued ...
President Obama on Thursday refused to commit himself to vetoing legislation that would temporarily extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, even as he and his administration have steadfastly argued ...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 5,989
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (96 total)
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
ACLU Card Carrier
08:55 AM on 09/11/2010
Section 1;

Want to really know where our jobs went?
 
 
It all started during the Reagan Administration and it’s dogmatic adherence to neoconservatism (Clinton didn't help either, with his disastrous stances on "NAFTA”  & his repeal of "Glass Steagall")..
 
As we all should know by now, the Fed's dereliction as the regulator of the banking system is a lesson in malfeasance, but far more egregious was the central bank's failure to conduct responsible monetary policy. Driven by Friedmanite ideology, Fed governors tipped the normal balance in favor of “capital” over “labor”, the “financial sector” over the “productive economy”.
 
Jobs were sent overseas as the use of slave labor would forever render the concept of a "living wage" moot, and with that, our middle class was decimated.  This resulted in numerous disorders, including the triumph of the financiers and swelling income inequality.
 
Monetary policy became unreliable as "bubbles" inflated, followed by recession.  Instead of moderating, Fed policy swung between extremes and ultimately destabilized the entire economy.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
ACLU Card Carrier
08:55 AM on 09/11/2010
Section 2;
 
The primary reason for the Fed's failure is that deregulation by the GOP undermined the central bank's ability to manage the supply of credit.
 
 
As rules and prudential limits were abandoned or un-enforced, policy mechanisms were steadily weakened, and it lost control of its core function -- countering the real economy's excesses,  both on the upside and the downside.
 
Debt exploded, accumulating far faster than economic growth, resulting in a class of Americans relegated to indentured servitude, at the same time that Alan Greenspan was leading cheers for the new order—right up to the very day it collapsed.
 
 
When, during his State of the Union speech,  President Obama proposed taxing those corporations that keep offshoring our jobs to nations that allow slavery, the GOP stayed silent. 
 
They still are.
 
I hope that ALL of those who are struggling now remember precisely WHY they are in trouble come this November.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
ACLU Card Carrier
08:15 AM on 09/11/2010
Let's say you show up at your job tomorrow morning & your employers inform you that, from that moment on, you will work TWICE as many hours per week as you have.. & receive HALF as much pay for your labor.

Let's ALSO say that they inform you that they have already COLLUDED with ALL of the other employers in the country & they all have agreed to the SAME POLICY.

Like it?

You think AMERICA would like it?

Because THAT is EXACTLY what this country would BE like if not for COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.... without UNIONS.

Without unions, there would still be CHILD LABOR..

Without unions, there would be NO WORKPLACE SAFETY...

Without unions, there would be NO MINIMUM WAGE..
 
Without unions, there would be NO 40 hour work week..
 
Without unions, there would be NO OVERTIME…

Without unions, there would be NO "WEEKENDS"..

Without unions, there would be NO paid vacations.. or ANY vacations (if you wanted to KEEP your jobs)

Without unions, there would be NO pregnancy leaves..

Without unions, there would be RACIAL & GENDER discrimination on hiring & pay..

Without unions, there would be NO MIDDLE CLASS..

Without unions, there would be NO AMERICA.
.
05:14 PM on 09/10/2010
If President Obama permits the Bush tax cuts to extend one day beyond their cut off then he will lose me and 5 million loyal voters who will have lost trust in his promise when he chose to go after the corruption and easy money for the Bush campaign donors. Actions, in word and deed are what we seek. Not another con job from another politician. The Democrats better get up and fight for their jobs. If they lose this time they will never recapture the gains they have made. The Republicans have no platform that cannot be washed away with the truth. Cold, hard facts and constant reminders of what they have done and will do to America again. Stand up to them.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
02:05 PM on 09/10/2010
who does this guy think he works for?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
FidelNegro
Disgustingly progressive and have an overblown sen
01:37 PM on 09/10/2010
Let the tax cuts expire on everyone and rewrite the tax code.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
beauboy
01:03 PM on 09/10/2010
Pastor Jones put a face on the "Christain" opposition to building the rec. center in NY. It doesn't look good follks. He certainly comes across as a seedy little riverboat gambler, out to garner as much attention as he can during his "15 minutes." He's supposed to have between 30-50 members belonging to his church, there's no sign of such large numbers during photo times.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Disciple1
To err is human;To disagree with me is ignorant.
12:23 PM on 09/10/2010
" President Obama on Thursday refused to commit himself to vetoing legislation that would temporarily extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.."

And he was correct in not showing his hand to the Republican adversaries prior to the November elections. He has decided what his action will be, but there is no need to give the "enemy" more fodder than is necessary. "Enemy"--that's what it has come down to. How sad that the rightwing is nothing but an enclave of selfishness and powerhungry elitists. But what's even more pathetic is that American citizens still vote for these republican fools even after we've been royally screwed by them for 8 years! Go figure..
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Sarad
01:29 PM on 09/10/2010
Despite what we would like to believe, Republicans are not stupid and they are able to work out strategies to counter whatever Obama may do.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Disciple1
To err is human;To disagree with me is ignorant.
01:44 PM on 09/10/2010
Let me reconsider...nope, republicans and conservatives that want to return to the policies of the previous decade are STILL stupid. Obstructionism is not a CONSTRUCTIVE alternative. Sorry.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
beauboy
08:35 PM on 09/12/2010
there's no strategy in saying no, and you know that! Let's leave stupid for the folks who vote for them. Obama might have a few tricks up his sleeves like signing bills to extend unemployment benefits to people who lost their jobs and are hurting. That was pretty cool, having the repubs say no(what kind of strategy was that)He's talking about giving a tax break to all who earn 250,000.00 or less. That's a great one to strategize about. Go ahead and do your thing, just say no. How you'll able to get so many poor white people to go along, and vote against their own interest boggles the mind. Could it be a steady diet of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck? Nothing else seems to make any sense. he people who are steadfast republican can recite Limbaugh and Beck talking points like a bible student reciting the Bible......
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ipanemagirl
progressive
11:47 AM on 09/10/2010
Tax breaks for the average american, ok. Tax cuts for the rich is a waste of money and should be fased out ASAP. Dont wait uanother 2 years when you have a repug president which willre instate it permanently , thus permanently screwing the middle class in this country!
If Obama does not keep his promse to elliminate tax cuts for the rich, He will disapoint all dems and not get re-elected.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Sarad
01:28 PM on 09/10/2010
How about just months, when we may have a Republican House and/or Senate? You can bet the tax cuts will be made permanent, if Obama doesn't veto.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Disciple1
To err is human;To disagree with me is ignorant.
02:19 PM on 09/10/2010
I think voters need to stop focusing on whether you can influence his "reelection" or not. I sense that this intelligent, honorable man doesn't even CARE about being installed for an additional term. He wanted to kickstart this crony-fed political machine by getting as much done for the people as he coud, as SOON as he could. I would definitely vote for him again and I often wonder what he could have done if some in his OWN party had not backstabbed him during legislative battles. He has made mortal, political enemies among conservative voters--in general--and his democratic base that, UNREALISTICALLY, wanted him to do even more.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
travlindr
10:21 AM on 09/10/2010
I am waiting for this president to straighten up his spinal column and DO what he talks. I thought in Wednesday's speech that he had finally gotten the idea, but no, he is floundering AGAIN.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ipanemagirl
progressive
11:52 AM on 09/10/2010
yeah, stop being mr. nice guy, and start being mr. tough guy that gets things done!
Remember , the opposition is out to destroy you! Get it yet????!!!!!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
02:06 PM on 09/10/2010
im sick of it
02:52 AM on 09/10/2010
As titular head of the Bolshevik-Maoist-Guevara-extremist-liberal-"progressive" wing of the democratic regime, the concept of fleecing the rich in order to benefit the willfully unproductive is just too sweet a lure for Obama to resist. Even the prospect of increased governmental revenue from lowered taxation will not deter Obama from his incompetence in suppressing the job-creating sector of the economy. He insists on driving the tow truck, the Democratic Party, and the American economy off a cliff after taking his own sweet time to get to the ditch. After he bungles everything he will try to blame it on George Bush!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Velvetus
socialists & communists & marxists, oh my!
06:03 AM on 09/10/2010
So......in your book the *entire* middle class is "willfully unproductive", asking the rich to pay another 4% of their millions upon millions is "fleecing them" and the uber-wealthy create ALL the jobs? Man, those must be some good drugs!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ipanemagirl
progressive
12:08 PM on 09/10/2010
what a bunch of bullcrap! "Fleecing the filthy rich" who wont even notice the 2 % more they have to pay, as they have aways ways to re invest into their businesses.You are talking out of greed or ignorance on the subject.By the way, George Bush is more than enough to blame for the 8 years he totally damaged this country with his lousy ideas.there is absolutely NO doubt about that!
The Clinton era was very prosperous and they were paying the higher tax rate, so your logic sucks. The rich do not e re invest on the masses, they just get greedy and spend it on themselves, many homes yachts, cars vacations fancy this and that. Isnt the money better spent filling up the coffers of the government so it can supply adequate services for all? Even the wealthy benefit from parks education, roads, infrastructure, police, firemen, and a clean and safe sity to live in w/o crime. If people are despreate they will prey on the rich and make their lives miserable too. Look at all third world countries for ex.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dave Thinkster Paulson
A concerned American moderate
10:06 PM on 09/09/2010
What’s President Obama supposed to do on this issue? Like he said in his speech yesterday in Cleveland, the Republicans are holding the cuts for the middle-class hostage in order to get the cuts for the top 2% passed. Obama doesn’t have the power to get the middle-class cuts through without them, so a veto of a full extension could likely be a show stopper for cuts for 98% of Americans.

This is all really non-news. The entire debate is a line drawn in the sand. Obama made that case yesterday: http://technorati.com/politics/article/obama-comes-out-swinging-in-cleveland/ and will continue to use the distinction to drive the conversation until the election. The entire issue of the tax cuts is merely political fodder, not news.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
FGW
Republicans, You Don't Speak For Me, So Stop Lying
11:33 AM on 09/10/2010
He dam sure don't need to show his hand to give them any thing.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ipanemagirl
progressive
12:10 PM on 09/10/2010
why dont they vote separately on these issue , pass one and deny the other?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dave Thinkster Paulson
A concerned American moderate
01:22 PM on 09/10/2010
That's exactly the tack the Democrats need to take. They need to start with a bill that extends the cuts along the lines proposed by Obama and force the Republicans to take a stand. I can't see the downside in such a maneuver -- it's a win-win for the Democrats.
09:14 PM on 09/09/2010
the news reporter asked Obama the same question repeatedly. obviously, he and his advisers havent made a clear decision and its made known by Obama's way of turning from the question. so why would the question be asked so many times if no answer is given? the president is leaving himself room to wiggle out of any question asked of him. what is clear is that he personally thinks that the government should keep the money because only they can properly use it, therefore vetoing law.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:56 AM on 09/10/2010
That's a stretch. I don't like that he didn't give a straight up yes or no answer.

The facts are that we had the least amount of jobs created ever in the first 7 years of the Bush administration, with the largest tax cuts ever on record for the very rich. While during the Clinton years, the tax rates that were in place (before the cuts) gave us the largest surplus in history, 22 million new jobs were created, and income distribution was more varied.

In other words, the American dream was available to more people.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ipanemagirl
progressive
12:11 PM on 09/10/2010
exactly, so the argument pro keeping tax cuts for the wealthy, is totally bogus!
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Dunkleberger Karl
Historian,Humanitarian,Hedonist.
01:44 AM on 09/11/2010
How young are you? george was the reason Clinton was soo awesome!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Reno Fickler
Head Lifeguard/Dead Sea Marina
09:05 PM on 09/09/2010
Maybe Commander Soros got his boy in DC aside and explained how things like money work. When those in power speak, they are NOT making suggestions. Those in charge are also DCs biggest contributors. Don't bite the hand that feeds you.
08:47 PM on 09/09/2010
I can support the President—SURPRISE, SURPRISE! but I have to give him credit for not answering that question (Does he still beat his wife?).
Please answer how he can veto what does not exist? And WOW what a loaded question! I wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole or even a one foot pole.
Why make another promise that he can't keep?