Gibbs: President "100% committed" to ending Bush tax cuts for rich

kenteegardin www.SeniorLiving.Org

(CBS News) Obama campaign senior adviser Robert Gibbs said the president is "100 percent committed" to allowing some Bush-era tax cuts to expire.

"He is 100 percent committed to it," Gibbs said on CNN's "State of the Union."

A series of tax cuts originally passed in 2001 and 2003 during George W. Bush's presidency, and later extended, are set to expire at the end of this year. In 2010, President Obama agreed to a two-year extension, but his adviser indicated the president would not allow for another extension for couples making more than $250,000.

"We should protect the tax cuts for the middle-class, and we should let tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires expire," Gibbs told host Candy Crowley. "We have tried these different philosophies before; we know what tax breaks and tax cuts for the wealthy and [taking] financial regulations off of Wall Street mean. They mean economic calamity, they mean what we are dealing with now, versus a vision where we add jobs and build out the middle-class.

"Let's make some progress on our spending by doing away with tax cuts for people who quite frankly don't need them . . . and have them pay their fair share."

Setting up a debate likely to take place after the November elections, Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., the top Republican in the Senate, had a different take: He said on the same program that the Bush-era tax rates should be extended.

"What we ought to be doing is extend the current tax rates for another year with a hard requirement to get through comprehensive tax reform one more time," McConnell said, pointing to a sluggish economy as reason not to raise taxes. 

But Gibbs said now is the right time to allow the tax cuts to expire.

"We ought to do something about this deficit...and the best way to do that is to let the upper-end tax cuts expire, let the wealthy in this country that had been doing fine for years and years and years begin to pay their fair share," he said.

[endurorob_5]

The headline here should read "Obama commited to increase taxes for wealthy." The the make it sound it is as if the wealthy have taken something they don't deserve to have, their own money.

[sjc_1]

$70 billion tax breaks for the rich won't be going into 10,000 hedge funds investing every where but here. The $230 billion for the middle class will stay here in 401k and IRA accounts. Good move at this stage of a delicate expansion, the right call at the right time.

As for health care funding, they got it right. The excesses in an unregulated market are being pulled in. It is stocks and flows in an economy and when the rich get richer at everyone else's expense, you have an imbalance that must be corrected or you have a collapse.

[cbs4111]

Don't get confused by another one of Obama's lies.

The tax cuts enacted by George Bush in 2001 and 2003 lowered tax rates ACROSS ALL INCOME LEVELS on income, dividends, and capital gains. Bush lowered the tax burden on married couples and the working poor too. The Bush tax cuts increased tax credits for education and retirement savings. Obama is proposing to retain almost all of these tax cuts except just the small fraction that applies to individuals making more than $200K or families that make more than $250,000.

In 2007, YEARS AFTER THE BUSH TAX CUTS TOOK PLACE, the deficit was only 1.2% of the US Gross Domestic Product. The sum total of ALL of Bush's tax cuts is therefore known to have had only a small effect on the deficit; obviously if the entire deficit was only 1.2% of GDP, then the total of ALL of the tax cuts couldn't have been responsible for more than that. Therefore, the fraction of the tax cuts that applies to the "rich" is even less than that small 1.2%.

In 2011, under Obama, the deficit hit an alarming 10% of GDP. The deficit under Obama is ALMOST 10 times higher than it was in 2007 under Bush. 2007 was also the first year after the Democrats took over Congress and spending started to go uncontrolled.

Clearly, clearly, the sum total of ALL of Bush tax cuts were not responsible for even 10% of Obama's current massive deficit so just the fraction that applies to the "rich" is also not responsible.

The current massive deficit is caused by just two factors;

1) the recession's impact on taxes collected and
2) Obama and the liberal Democrat's spending spree.

[tafhdyd]

Don't forget the recession's impact on taxes is directly related to the corrupt republican deregulation of the financial industry and don't bother telling me that "Clinton signed it" because it was a repub program thru and thru.

[cbs4111]

Obama will have added over $6 trillion to the debt in Obama's first (and hopefully only) 4 years. Bush added $5 trillion in 8 years. If Obama is allowed to continue for another 4 years, he will add more debt than ALL Presidents before him combined; more debt than all Presidents from Washington through George Bush Jr. added together.

To make things MUCH worse, Obama is borrowing about 1/2 of all the money he borrows from foreign countries; China, Japan, Taiwan, and others. LISTEN UP. Americans have to pay all that money back, WITH INTEREST. The interest on Obama's debt will continue to grow until 10 years from now the interest will be the #1 Federal budget item. If Obama continues, we will soon be paying more interest to China and the others than we pay out to our own senior citizens through Social Security. We will be paying more to China than we pay for our National Defense. Obama is headed toward a catastrophe. Because of Obama, Americans will have to cut back on EVERYTHING, and we will suffer just like the Greeks.

[jmn122736]

by prof_robinson July 8, 2012 7:26 PM EDT And Obama spending 3 times what Bush did, in 1/4 the time probably wasn't the brightest of things, right?
---------------------------

The National debt increased $6.1 under President Bush, so for President Obama to spend 3 times more then President Bush spent the debt would have had to increase by over $18 trillion, instead of the actual $4 trillion.

Do you have a problem with math or something else?

[MichelOuellette]

The people That got tax cuts under Bush were the people that ........paid income taxes. Go figure. Call them 'rich' because 50 Percent pay no income tax. Obozo really has a problem with math.

[CaptainSmollett]

He's already raised taxes on the rich...AND THE MIDDLE CLASS, in the ObamaCare legislation. What, you didn't know that? Yep, he raised the tax rate on capital gains, dividend income, and payroll taxes. Despite his campaign promises, YOUR taxes have been increased by Obama.

[prof_robinson]

Hope and change 2012: being 100% committed to doing something idiotic and useless, simply because you can make it popular.

[jmn122736]

National debt at end of fiscal year 2009 (end of bush 's last budget effect) #11.9 trillion
National debt at end of fiscal year 1981 (end of Carter 's last budget effect) $.997 billion
Increase of $10.9 trillion.


year amount of debt

9/30/2009 11,909,829,003,511.70
9/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912.40
9/30/2007 9,007,653,372,262.48
9/30/2006 8,506,973,899,215.23
9/30/2005 7,932,709,661,723.50
9/30/2004 7,379,052,696,330.32
9/30/2003 6,783,231,062,743.62
9/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.16
9/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
9/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
9/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
9/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
9/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
9/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
9/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
9/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
9/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
9/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66
9/30/1991 3,665,303,351,697.03
9/28/1990 3,233,313,451,777.25
9/29/1989 2,857,430,960,187.32
9/30/1988 2,602,337,712,041.16
9/30/1987 2,350,276,890,953.00
9/30/1986 2,125,302,616,658.42
9/30/1985 1,823,103,000,000.00
9/30/1984 1,572,266,000,000.00
9/30/1983 1,377,210,000,000.00
9/30/1982 1,142,034,000,000.00
9/30/1981 997,855,000,000.00

[prof_robinson]

Why go back to Carter, of all people? Congress - which controls the spending - didn't change hands until 1994; at which point the GOP balanced the budget. It was all Democrat, solidly, for almost 50 years prior to that point.

And regardless of how much Bush spent or Carter spent or Clinton spent - it's too much, isn't it? And Obama spending 3 times what Bush did, in 1/4 the time probably wasn't the brightest of things, right?

[jmn122736]

type error should be $997 billion

[prof_robinson]

You can take all the money, from all the rich people, and you still don't even have enough to pay the interest on our social debt for one year. The only thing taxing and demonizing rich people will do is 1) make them hate you, 2) make you hate them, and 3) if you're a hater anyway - you'll vote for Obama.

Those libs with tears in their eyes over this, weeping with joy, need to take a moment and explain to all of us how taking away the Bush tax cuts will magically result in "mo money" in your pockets. These horrible Bush tax cuts, we are told, are responsible for all the evils that befell our economy. Forget about Barney Frank, the CRA, Fannie Mae... yes, it's 180billion in tax cuts that FORCED the Democrats to borrow 4.6TRILLION from your great grandkids and spend it on a wishlist of liberal programs and projects - all of which failed, as they usually do.

In 2008, we voted for Obama to prove we weren't racist - in 2012, we have to vote for someone else to prove we're not stupid.

[prof_robinson]

Gary Johnson? Is he even running? You don't have to love Romney; but you really should be less willing to hand it to Obama for 4 more years...