Obama Signs Bill To Extend Bush Tax Cuts
President Barack Obama, center seated, smiles after signing the $858 billion tax deal into law in a ceremony in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building on the White House complex, Friday, Dec. 17, 2010 in Washington.
/ APUpdated 4:56 p.m. Eastern Time
In a display of compromise rarely seen during his time in office, President Obama has signed into law a $858 billion tax cut bill despite the misgivings of members of both parties.
"We are here with some good news for the American people this holiday season," Mr. Obama said.
The bill, which was largely worked out earlier this month between the White House and Congressional Republicans, extends the Bush-era tax cuts for all Americans for two years, extends unemployment benefits for 13 months and includes a one-year Social Security tax cut, among other measures.
The measure is not paid for, and costs more than Mr. Obama's controversial stimulus package that was harshly criticized by Republicans for exacerbating America's deficit and debt problem.
The president acknowledged that the bill's cost and the coming effort to address the deficit, stating, "In some ways this was easier than some of the tougher choices we're going to have to make next year."
Mr. Obama said the bill would create jobs and boost the still-struggling U.S. economy. He called it a "substantial victory for middle class families" who would otherwise have seen a tax increase.
"In fact, not only will middle class Americans avoid a tax increase, but tens of millions of Americans will start the new year off right by opening their first paycheck to see that it's larger than the one they get right now," he said.
The president also noted the bill included tax breaks for millions of college students and their families and extensions of the earned income tax credit and $1,000-per-child tax credit. It also includes extensions of tax incentives for businesses to invest and expand and lower taxes on capitol gains and dividends.
The 2 percent Social Security tax reduction would mean a savings of about $1,000 for a worker making $50,000 per year.
Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell was one of five Republicans present at the bill signing ceremony, along with 19 Democrats. It was Mr. Obama's 29th public bill-signing ceremony -- but the first at which McConnell was in attendance.
President Obama, joined by Vice President Biden, speaks before signing a compromise bill that extends the Bush-era tax cuts for all Americans, December 17, 2010.
/ CBSThe tax cut package angered liberals in the president's party due to the extension of the Bush-era tax cuts for the roughly two percent of highest-earning Americans, which comes at a cost of $120 billion over two years. They were also incensed at the level at which the estate tax was set in the measure, which exempts estates under $10 million for couples and taxes subsequent income at 35 percent.
But the bill passed overwhelmingly in the Senate and also got through the House, where angry Democrats eventually accepted what came to be seen as inevitable. Still, many complained that the bill was an expensive giveaway to the richest Americans at a time when America could not afford it. Some fiscally conservative Republicans also expressed concerns about the cost of bill, though most GOP lawmakers supported it.
Had Congress not acted to address the expiring Bush-era tax cuts, all Americans would have seen a tax increase on January 1st. (The average tax increase per family, the White House said, would have been $3,000.) Mr. Obama, who had long opposed extending the Bush tax cuts for America's highest-earners, has argued he had no choice but to agree to GOP demands to do so in order to avoid a tax increase on the middle class.
In his remarks Friday, however, he cast the agreement as evidence that both parties can work together.
"Now, candidly speaking, there are some elements of this legislation that I don't like," he said. "There are some elements that members of my party don't like. There are some elements that Republicans here today don't like. That's the nature of compromise. Yielding on something each of us cares about to move forward on what all of us care about."
The president said the bill ultimately reflected "a good deal for the American people."
"The final product proves when we can put aside the partisanship and political gains, we can get a lot done," he said. "If we can keep doing it, if we can keep that spirit I'm hopeful that we won't just reinvigorate this economy and restore the American dream, I'm also hopeful that we might refresh the American people's faith in the capability of their leaders to govern in challenging times."
Popular in Politics
- Immigration reform would cut deficit, analysis shows 78 Comments
- Senators: U.S. must take "more decisive" military action in Syria
- House Republicans pass 20-week limit on abortions 176 Comments
- Obama and Berlin: Faded echoes meet new realities
- Smooth, on-time Obamacare rollout no sure thing: GAO
- Bill Ayers: Obama should be tried for war crimes
- Snowden: U.S. gov't destroyed my chance for fair trial
- Obama renews push for a nuclear disarmament legacy
"Economically it was less costly to the nations economy to pay benefits to people with out a job then it was to protect American jobs and employ them."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
So you are saying that the leaders of the United States allowed jobs to be taken overseas because paying people here to work was cheaper than protecting the jobs and employing those people.
Is this what you are saying? I'm going to give you a chance to defend yourself, and I want to make sure that you meant what the sentence you wrote actually states.
It was less costly to pay people without a job than it was to protect American jobs and employ them.
Further breakdown: It was cheaper to pay unemployed people than it was to protect American jobs.
So, you are saying that it wasn't the "rich" peoples' fault for taking the jobs overseas (after all, they just wanted more profits), but it was our Federal Government's fault for LETTING them be taken overseas.
So, you are blaming the Fed Gov. Good, so am I. And that's why I don't want to punish the rich by raising their taxes.
We are, once again, on the same page.
The writing has been on the walk regarding global free market economics for a long time. Now the worst has happened its somehow the fault of some work shy "racial" types who let us recall were just as work shy through the Boom times. If the government doesn't invest in preventing a next welfare generation at least where to do you imagine the problem will go?
Protect jobs or pay welfare them's your choices. If you choice global free market you are choosing welfare.
In the fifties the salary disparity between CEO and worker in a national company was five times five fold in exceptional cases, ten fold. Now the standard is 100 fold. Currency is just a arbitrary figure with those differences it does not matter whether you pay your cleaner $1million pa the ramping inflationary pressure of the pay gap capsizes the economy.
You spend a good deal of time harping on about the problems but offer no VIABLE solutions.
I, on the other hand, spent a little while below outlining the REASONS for the problems. And I have offered solutions in nearly every article that called for discussion of solutions. I will outline them for you once again:
Cut wasteful and unnecessary administrative spending,
Cut pork barrel and earmark programs,
Cut farm and other type subsidies,
Clean up Welfare, Medicaid, and Medicare fraud on both the receivers end and the medical end,
Stop foreign aid,
Stop unnecessary conflicts with mid east countries.
Stop the Mexican border influx of illegals,
Defeat the Dream Act (which is done)
Pass the tax extension (which is done), and repeal the Obama HCA.
Don't you EVER remember what people post? No, you are too busy name-calling and spouting political rhetoric to do any actual thinking about what people really say.
A particular sector of a nation was assisted by the Federal Government at a time when they most definitely needed it. These were the times when agriculture was giving over to the industry all across the nation. These were times of depression, of the very rich and the very poor.
Then, after a few decades of this assistance by the Fed Gov, another particular sector and their offspring found that if they kept demanding in the name of racial discrimination, they could keep receiving. And the Federal Government named it "affirmative action", and kept giving, and handing out, and giving, and handing out.
And then, a very bad thing happened. Other nationalities realized that they could partake of this good-gone-bad Federal Assistance by claiming "racial discrimination" and "reverse racial discrimination". And the Federal Assistance began to be a bad thing. And that bad thing grew, and grew, and grew. And then they started calling it "entitlements" and added benefits such as healthcare, named Medicaid. And then they got schools, and education involved, with free daycare programs,and free before school programs.
And the entitlements continued to grow and grow until they got out of control, and the Federal Government did not know where to draw the line. And the Federal Government started to backtrack. Affirmative action went away.
But, alas, was it too late? Because meanwhile, strange things began to happen. Manufacturers began to realize that people didn't want to work hard...that they didn't want to do menial and mediocre jobs. They wanted unions and large wages for menial skills - to sew, and to put together, and to box, and to ship. So these manufacturers began to look elsewhere for more labor sources. These manufacturers began to realize that with modern transportation sources such as huge jet cargo planes, they could get their manufacturing done by others, overseas, at half the labor costs. And they could afford to pay the cost of shipping. So one or two of these industrial manufacturers found leaders in Congress who would provide the legislation for them to do so legally. And they did. And it was good. And their profit margins rose. And other manufacturers saw this, and were thrilled that they could do the same.
And the American people, and the Federal Government, remained complacent, eyeing their mailboxes, for revenue coming from taxpayers and checks coming from the government. And the working class who could still work just kept working, working, and paying, paying.
And then, low and behold, more American jobs started disappearing, not only in the menial capacities, but in the administrative capacities that accompany manufacturing jobs as well, such as bookkeeping, and accounting, and telemarketing, and so on and so on.
And the American citizens who were not in the minorities who no longer did menial jobs got concerned that jobs were going away, because now, their jobs were leaving as well as the minority menial jobs.
And then the unemployment came, and came, and came. And that caused a spending money shortage, and that further reduced manufacturing jobs, and service jobs, because no one could buy. And the situation got worse. And because of another condition called "living beyond their means" that was going on at the same time, people started losing their houses because they couldn't afford their huge mortgages that they shouldn't have gotten in the first place.
And so the American citizens who lost their jobs through no fault of their own, except complacency, and lost their houses because they were living in a false economy-- these people became angry, and angrier, and they voted a no-name, Obama, for President, thinking that he was the Messiah, the Savior. And they had the help of the entitlement crowd, who were entralled by this guy's "share the wealth" philosophy.
And it came to pass that this guy was elected president, and was expected to perform a miracle and make all these problems go away. But alas, he failed, because everyone knows that fiscal miracles don't happen, short of winning a lottery. And then people got angry at Obama, and they revolted, and there were others that were angry at everything, and they revolted, and alas...the midterm elections were at hand. And the people demanded change, now in the other direction, the conservative direction. And behold, since the party in control at the time happened to be Democrat, and since the other party called Republicans wanted control, they promised this reverse-change, this change-back-to-conservatism. And the people bought it. And they elected conservatism. And they elected no tax increases. And they elected cutting expenses. And now we come to today..........
'manufacturers realised people didn't want to work hard in menial jobs'
Let me enlighten you. In India children are sold into bonded servitude for up to 15 years working free of charge. Zero employment rights, no maximum hours no union add to this low living standards and colossal global currency disparity. No manufacturing company employing US citizens can compete on those terms.
Here is how America has been horribly taken in. Economically it was less costly to the nations economy to pay benefits to people with out a job then it was to protect American jobs and employ them. A strategic policy decision was made in favour of promoting a state of permanent redundancy lobbied for by 'patriotic' American business.
This is one teeny tiny line I have highlighted to reflect the entirety of this glib, banal crashingly oversimplified op ed drivel.
Unlike your postings. Tell me, what are you really saying here:
"A strategic policy decision was made in favour of promoting a state of permanent redundancy lobbied for by 'patriotic' American business."
What in the world is "a state of permanent redundancy"
ObamaCare.... Please tell me ONE thing about that nightmare that IS true.
Cap and Trade.... A Marxist plan for redistribution of Wealth.
Green Energy.. Same as above.
The Gulf of Mexico drilling moratorium.... Signatures were forged onto the report submitted to the court. Someone committed a FEW FELONIES.
The Health Care take over debate... Wasn't it great to watch all those debates just like Obamboozler said we would.
No new taxes on anyone earning less than 250k/year.... That went out the window pretty quick as the Lying Liberals ran up 5 trillion in NEW DEBT.
The man-child has ZERO experience at running ANYTHING. And it shows more and more EVERYDAY.
A corporation sent your jobs overseas, then calls you lazy for not having a job.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Or did it happen like this: A nation got too lazy to do mediocre manufacturing jobs such as sew blue jeans and shirts, so a illustrious corporate business man took his business to someone who wanted the work.
A particular sector of a nation was assisted by the Federal Government at a time when they most definitely needed it. These were the times when agriculture was giving over to the industry all across the nation. These were times of depression, of very rich and very poor.
Then, after a few decades of this assistance by the Fed Gov, another particular sector and their offspring found that if they kept demanding in the name of racial discrimination, they could keep receiving. And the Federal Government named it "affirmative action", and kept giving, and handing out, and giving, and handing out. And then, a very bad thing happened. Other nationalities realized that they could partake of this good-gone-bad Federal Assistance by claiming "racial discrimination" and "reverse racial discrimination". And then, the Federal Assistance began to be a bad thing. And that bad thing grew, and grew, and grew. And then they started calling it "entitlements" and added benefits such as healthcare, in the name of Medicaid, and then they got schools and education involved, with free daycare programs and the entitlements continued to grow and grow until they got out of control, and the Federal Government did not know where to draw the line. And the Federal Government started to backtrack. Affirmative action went away. But, alas, was it too late?
Because meanwhile, strange things began to happen. Manufacturers began to realize that people didn't want to work hard. They didn't want to do menial and mediocre jobs. They wanted unions and large wages for menial skills - to sew, and to put together, and to box, and to ship. So these manufacturers began to look elsewhere for more labor sources. These manufacturers began to realize that with modern transportation sources such as huge jet cargo planes, they could get their manufacturing done by others, overseas, at half the cost. And they could afford to pay the cost of shipping. So one or two of the industrial manufacturers found leaders in Congress who would provide the legislation for them to do so legally. And they did. And it was good. And their profit margins rose. And other manufacturers saw this, and were thrilled that they could do the same. But the American people, and the Federal Government, remained complacent, eyeing their mailboxes, for revenue coming from taxpayers and checks coming from the government. And the working class who could still work just kept working, working, and paying, paying.
And then, low and behold, American jobs started disappearing, not only in the menial capacities, but in the administrative capacities that accompany manufacturing jobs as well, such as bookkeeping, and accounting, and telemarketing, and so on and so on.
And the American citizens who were not in the minorities who no longer did menial jobs got concerned that jobs were going away, because now, their jobs were leaving as well as the menial jobs. And then the unemployment came, and came, and came. And that caused a spending money shortage, and that further reduced manufacturing jobs, and service jobs, because no one could buy. And the situation got worse. And because of another condition called "living beyond their means" that was going on at the same time, people started losing their houses because they couldn't afford their huge mortgages that they shouldn't have gotten in the first place.
And so the American citizens who lost their jobs through no fault of their own except complacency,and lost their houses because they were living in a false economy, these people became angry, and angrier, and they voted a no-name, Obama, for President, thinking that he was the Messiah, the Savior. And they had the help of the entitlement crowd, who were entralled by this guy's "share the wealth" philosophy.
And it came to pass that this guy was elected president, and was expected to perform a miracle and make all these problems go away. But he failed, because everyone knows that fiscal miracles don't happen, short of winning a lottery. And then people got angry at Obama, and they revolted, and there were others that were angry at everything, and they revolted, and alas...the midterm elections were at hand. And the people demanded change, now in the other direction, the conservative direction. And behold, since the party in control at the time happened to be Democrat, and since the other party called Republicans wanted control, they promised this reverse-change, this change-back-to-conservatism. And the people bought it. And they elected conservatism. And they elected no tax increases. And they elected cutting expenses. And now we come to today..........
Glad I could help you relieve some stress with a good belly laugh! I laughed myself when I went back and read it and looked at the funny side!
This is the sentence that brought on the "cat" remark:
"If all the jobs go to the people who don't demand the products because they can't afford them, and the people who used to be able to afford them can't any longer because they lost all those jobs, global demand will plummet."
Not to agree with ANY of his "philosophy", but doesn't he realize what a blundering idiot he made of himself within this sentence?
Bottom line is the Repubs are in for a lot of headaches.They will have to actually do something other than throw rocks at the traffic, while keeping the foaming mouth tea baggers at arms length.
They are NOT some NEW LAW or measure! So, arguably, they could still be consider to be called Bush tax cuts! As much as that might bother those on the far right, we wouldn't want to rush out and TOTALLY re-write history on this point!