Patterico's Pontifications

4/13/2011

The response to Pres. Obama’s debt speech

Filed under: General — Karl @ 7:18 am



[Posted by Karl]

A speech is not a budget.

Pres. Obama’s speech on our exploding national debt, though scheduled for today, was much discussed yesterday. Much of the discussion missed both the immediate point and the larger picture. Ed Morrissey and many others on the right echoed the subtext of the WaPo piece regarding Obama’s general failure to lead. Progressives like Jonathan Cohn and Paul Krugman worried that a presidential embrace of the Bowles-Simpson commission’s work would define the center of the debt debate too far to the right. A few libs, like Greg Sargent, hoped the ambiguous statements coming out of the White House meant that Obama would propose something more progressive than Bowles-Simpson, to push the debate leftward. And Andrew Sullivan thinks Obama’s speech will prove that his decision not to back Bowles-Simpson in his State of the Union or budget “was tactical, not strategic.”

But the first key to understanding the nature of Obama’s speech was right there in the lede:

President Obama plans this week to respond to a Republican blueprint for tackling the soaring national debt by promoting a bipartisan approach pioneered by an independent presidential commission rather than introducing his own detailed plan.

Accordingly, the first response to Obama’s speech should be the one offered by the ranking member on the Senate Budget Committee, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL):

The President recently submitted a budget to Congress that was the most irresponsible spending plan any President has ever put forward. Today’s announcement that the President will deliver an address this week on deficit reduction is an apparent recognition that the budget plan he submitted to Congress, as required by law, fails to address our dire fiscal challenges. However, it will not be sufficient for the President to simply make a speech. Instead, he must fulfill his duty as president and submit a new budget plan to Congress specifically setting forth the changes he wishes to make to his previous proposal, including both mandatory and discretionary savings. The President’s vision, whatever it is, must be presented in a detailed, concrete form. CBO must be able to score it and I and the Budget Committees in the House and Senate must be able to scrutinize it. I am uneasy that this announcement has been made not by a substantive policy official such as his budget director or Treasury Secretary but by the President’s top political advisor.

Pres. Obama spent a year falsely claiming that the GOP had no health care plans. The least the GOP can do is truthfully point out at every opportunity that neither Pres. Obama nor Sen. Maj. Ldr. Harry Reid (D-NV) have a plan for reducing the national debt.

The second key in responding to Obama’s speech is to understand its political purpose, which may be found in the subtext of this Bloomberg report on the address:

Obama’s approach will draw on the findings of the Simpson- Bowles debt commission chairmen, who said tax increases had to accompany spending reductions. He will specifically reject Ryan’s idea of a voucher-like system for future Medicare recipients, the person said.

The president also will try to align his plan with the objectives of the so-called Gang of Six, a group of three Republican and three Democratic senators working on their own fiscal recommendations. That plan isn’t expected to be released until after a two-week congressional recess scheduled to begin next week, according to people familiar with the negotiations.

***

While refusing to release details about what the president will say, White House officials have offered hints of the direction he will take.

“You can’t simply slash entitlements, lower taxes and call that a fair deal,” Obama’s spokesman, Jay Carney, said yesterday.

The small takeaway here is to suggest that Senate GOP Ldr. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) pressure the Republicans in the Gang of Six to slow walk their work to death. If progressives are concerned about Obama dragging the center of negotiations rightward, the GOP ought not to be volunteering to give a bipartisan veneer to tax increases.

The larger takeaway is that Obama’s speech is not a forerunner to a serious plan, but an attempt to rerun the Clinton ’95 playbook. Obama merely means to set up the attack that the GOP plans to end Medicare as we know it to fund tax cuts for “the rich.” This underscores the importance of leading any response by pointing out that Obama and Reid have no plan. That first point leads to the second, which is that if Dems were forced to show their math, it would be clear — as even CNN has noted — that taxing the wealthy is nowhere near a solution to the debt. Republicans might add that the only Democrat budget plan out there is comprised of insanely high taxes and gutting our national defense, and that the Bowles-Simpson plan would also require record high taxes (likely a value added tax) and top-down health care rationing. GOPers could do much worse than the formulation set forth by NRO’s Kevin D. Williamson:

Our choices are: 1. raise taxes severely, and pretend that that is not going to have catastrophic economic consequences; 2. court a national fiscal crisis on the Portugal model but on a significantly larger scale, and pretend that that is not going to have catastrophic economic consequences; 3. cut spending.

Most of all, the GOP (and the right generally) needs to be confident and aggressive [in] these responses. Why? Because Obama’s position here is only partially due to his penchant for voting “present” on tough issues. And contra crazy Andy Sullivan, Obama is continuing a purely tactical approach.

The bigger picture here is that Obama would not have even formed the Bowles-Simpson commission, had it not been for the right and the Tea Party raising the political temperature on the debt. Obama did so merely to try to punt the issue past the 2010 midterms. However, creating the commission validated the debt as a serious issue in the establishment’s echo chamber. And Obama’s silence on the issue created a vacuum that was filled by the GOP and the Tea Party, first in the results of the midterms and now in Rep. Paul Ryan’s long-term budget plan. Having accepted the debt is a serious problem, even the establishment media was stuck with the narrative that you cannot beat something with nothing, which is why Pres. Obama is speaking today. In turn, that’s why the GOP must insist that a speech is not a plan.

The even bigger picture is that Obama’s lack of leadership on the debt is a miniature of the left’s larger problem. The slow death of 20th century democratic socialism and welfare statism in the West (already visible in Europe and becoming visible here) necessarily puts left parties like the Democrats on the defensive. The Democrats are the reactionary party in America today, while the Republicans are the reformers (however much some of them seem reluctant about the mantle). The broad strokes of the Ryan budget can help America move beyond the failing welfare state progressives imagined a century ago. It is the Democrats who now stand athwart history, yelling “Stop!”

–Karl

156 Responses to “The response to Pres. Obama’s debt speech”

  1. A speech is not a budget, and reading a teleprompter is not leadership. Tax the evil rich. Responsible scalpel cuts to entitlements. Demagoguery. Same old crap from the left.

    JD (109425)

  2. JD,

    I forgot the “scalpel.” That’s the same one Obama promised to use in the 2008 campaign, right? Let’s ask the public how he did with the scalpel.

    Karl (45cc92)

  3. I’m still waiting for him to “go line by line”. Maybe today is the day.

    elissa (9ebceb)

  4. He got confuzzled between scalpel and Miracle Gro.

    JD (6e25b4)

  5. Obama’s trying to ask the nation if he can have a “Mulligan” on fiscal leadership, since the public seems more interested than he thought they’d actually be in the wonkish details. He’s hoping they’re all golfers, like he is.

    But the facts are more plain. He’s only now willing to embrace his commission’s plan because Ryan has already gone out on the rhetorical limb and revealed his plans for medicare. In this manner you are completely correct, he’s merely setting up the usual and customary Democrat “medi-scare!” argument that I’ve heard my entire life; the one where Rethugs! want seniors to eat cat food until they die early.

    Now, the question is will this tried and true tactic work in the internet age? People are more informed, at least, if not more savvy. And folks are being increasingly reminded that even if all income that exceeded 250k/yr were seized we would still have a roughly 1/2 trillion dollar shortfall in the budget-at least for the next few years (and notwithstanding the immediate and long term effects on the overall economy that such a drastic tax policy would have on businesses that file as individuals and the top percentage of earners in our nation).

    Beneath Obama’s rheoric lies the inconvenient truth that in order to fund the welfare state they desire, the progressives will be forced to broaden the tax base to include the middle class; no doubt a part of Mr. Ryan’s plan that O! will surely demagogue today. It’s important that the GOP point out this flaw of logic at every chance they get-force the left to at least address the facts.

    And, you know, maybe do some more astute bargaining, lest O!&Co. get the better part of the next bargain…

    Great Post as always Karl,
    My Regards

    Bob Reed (5f2db5)

  6. Great point elissa.

    “In these challenging times, when we are facing both rising deficits and a sinking economy, budget reform is not an option. It is an imperative,” Obama said. “We cannot sustain a system that bleeds billions of taxpayer dollars on programs that have outlived their usefulness, or exist solely because of the power of a politicians, lobbyists, or interest groups. We simply cannot afford it. This isn’t about big government or small government. It’s about building a smarter government that focuses on what works. That is why I will ask my new team to think anew and act anew to meet our new challenges…. We will go through our federal budget – page by page, line by line – eliminating those programs we don’t need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way.”

    -BHO, circa November, 2008

    carlitos (00428f)

  7. Very nice, satisfying to read post, Karl. There’s a minor typo in the sentence after the Kevin Williamson quote (missing word).

    Both parties have to realize by now that spending has to go down. Every one of these politicians knows what’s right. Some of them just hope to be out of office before collapse, and pass the buck, and some are just too weak to save our country.

    I personally think most of the problem is weak leadership at multiple levels, especially on the left, but not exclusively there. Obama’s deficit cut promises prove this isn’t purely ideological.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  8. It’s just words for this POTUS, he means nothing.
    He lies when he OPENS his mouth. Period. He wants to crush the middle class. Period.

    Speaking about the “Mediscare” that the dims will be parroting every hour of every day….the elderly had best get a clue here because Obummer care is what is going to kill them, NOT eating cat or dog food.

    Charlotte (dad663)

  9. They need to get the stimulus figures out of the baseline of the budget. That would be a good faith start.

    JD (f9d675)

  10. ==Obummer care is what is going to kill them, NOT eating cat or dog food.==

    Charlotte–good one! Their “old people eating cat food” narrative is past its due date. They will have to come up with a more realistic horror story to scare people. I don’t know if you are a pet owner, but these days a can of decent cat or dog food costs more than a can of Campbell’s condensed soup.

    elissa (9ebceb)

  11. I would bet that Obama’s speech will be a setup for demanding a line-item veto. The line-item veto, of course, is something that presidents have wanted for some time, because it enables them to do an end run around a hostile Congress by cherry-picking whatever the president favors from a bill.

    The line-item veto is a step towards the president as dictator and reducing the Congress to the status of a rubber-stamp body.

    buzzsawmonkey (e20a6c)

  12. For somebody who hails form the Senate, this President is loathe to send up pre-written legislation.

    Neo (03e5c2)

  13. My response to Obama’s debt speech is that I have no response.The guy is a one trick pony, his ideology and relentless pursuit in inflicting it on the American people is written in stone and will not change.
    Mt beef is with the Republicans (Democrats/Bolsheviks are dead to me) being and what seems to be the realization that not enough of these weak noodles have been replaced to make a difference bu then again we knew it would be a multiple election process to get these noodles out of office.
    So far it’s the same old, play the people for fools ploys.Now they will punt on the debt ceiling while telling us that they are going all in on the Ryan project.
    I for one am hoping that they realize that yes, they are all in and recognize that fact, maybe even put some spine into what appears to be spaghetti.

    justavoter (b003e1)

  14. The top 2% must be punished. This entire speech could have been lifted from a campaign speech. COmmissions! tax the rich! scalpel! Reduce the gifreakingnormous deficit I created. Ignore my commission until political winds force my hand. make a speech!

    JD (318f81)

  15. I’m sick of hearing this pretender tell lie after lie. Enough, I’ve heard enough. I don’t believe a single word that comes out of his mouth.

    He’s not only an enemy of the Republic, he’s also a sanctimonious, double-talking asshole.

    ropelight (ee3cd9)

  16. The top 2% must be punished.

    This is the silliest idea.

    And yet it’s the truth. Obama thinks we should raise taxes on some people to be ‘fair’. He wants to spread wealth around, not because it will make this country better, but because he thinks it’s wrong for someone to make a lot of money.

    When they asked Mccain what rich is, he simply said he wants everyone to be rich. Obama said it was a thing to tax out of fairness.

    If you have a job, thank a ‘rich’ person. Honestly, I don’t think that’s fair, but it’s certainly the case if you are talking about people earning more than $250,000. Every single job in America exists because of these people, most because of small business owners. Helping the people, and especially staying out of their way as much as possible, is the only way to get America back on track.

    But Obama doesn’t think that’s fair. Also, I suspect he realizes that Cloward Piven deficit spending will collapse America into a welfare state much faster if we have less success in the private sector. Sounds kooky when you lay it out, but that’s where he’s coming from as a Rules for Radicals professor.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  17. #15–don’t forget “shared sacrifice” and “it’s Bush’s fault”.

    Rochf (f3fbb0)

  18. He is not even an elegant liar. Just brazen.

    JD (318f81)

  19. With this glorious speech by “The Won” Barack Hussein Obama all of our problems are behind us now. In fact, he is coming over now to kiss my …

    Neo (03e5c2)

  20. bumble whined on and on about Paul Ryan and then said he’d be happy to come up with a plan to where future presidents and future congresswhores can cut some spendings but that right now we’re gonna spend spend spend and tax tax tax and that’s pretty much where we were before bumble gave his little speech, no?

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  21. feets!

    Obama picked a 12-year window, not 10, to get close to Ryan’s 4.4T total (and still fell short). What do you want to bet that if details are ever provided, all the spending cuts occur well after Obama’s gone?

    Karl (f07e38)

  22. Hey everytime obama says let me be clear i just wanna bang my head on the floor.

    DohBiden (984d23)

  23. Good point, happyfeet. A lot of Obama’s austerity promises seem to apply only before and after Obama is president.

    He actually ran on a promise to cut the Bush deficits in half under his watch. Bush’s average deficit was $150 billion, IIRC.

    I reality, he isn’t really rationalizing this at all. It’s just theater for shameless spending.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  24. Well now things are very well defined. Obama wants everyone to sacrifice for the sake of the nation. Republicans only want the middle to take a hit. Take from middle class but leave the tax cuts for the wealthiest in place! Trust Republicans to handle the economy like the did during the Bush years??!!Trust these jokers to balance the budget on the backs of the middle.

    Once again Republicans play the role of the victim but this time they have really shown where their priorities are.

    THANKS REPUBLICANS,,YOU HAVE FINALLY SHOWN US VERY CLEARLY WHERE YOU STAND…

    VietnamEraVet (35c6c1)

  25. THANKS REPUBLICANS,,YOU HAVE FINALLY SHOWN US VERY CLEARLY WHERE YOU STAND…

    AAHHHH!!!!

    LOL. Why don’t you read Ryan’s Path to Prosperity.

    Hell, why don’t you look over how the GOP handled the budget. When the GOP held the house from 1994 to 2006, we were doing much better with the budget. Do you dispute this fact? By ‘the bush years’, are you counting the years Pelosi was in control of the House? Why?

    so you want to increase taxes, VeV? SPECIFICALLY, how much money will that bring in? Make your case.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  26. Thanks vietnam era vet you have revealed yourself as a sellout to the communist dems……..

    DohBiden (984d23)

  27. Well now the line is clear. Everyone wants to balance the budget. Obama wants shared sacrifice Republicans put it all on the middle and lower income folks.

    If Democrats cannot run roughshod over the Republicans in November in spite of Republican attempts to smear and lie their way to power, then they ought to disband!

    VietnamEraVet (35c6c1)

  28. Hey Dustin I look at the years from 2000 to 2008.. Two unfunded wars, a huge prescription bill all without finding and a massive tax break for the richest. If you like the result..be my guest and vote for these same policies..

    VietnamEraVet (35c6c1)

  29. And one more thing Ryans Path to Prosperity is really what it says it is.. a Path to Prosperity …for the Richest Few..

    VietnamEraVet (35c6c1)

  30. VeV is off his meds again.

    JD (6e25b4)

  31. Hey Dustin I look at the years from 2000 to 2008.

    What’s the average deficit for those years? And why are you blaming republicans for the House’s budget in 2007 and 2008? Is that because those are by far the worst budgets?

    Of course those budgets to the budgets we have seen while Obama is president.

    You’re claiming to stand for a balanced budget, but don’t prefer the ‘Bush era’ to today? That’s asinine. Those budgets spent less money, genius.

    And one more thing Ryans Path to Prosperity is really what it says it is.. a Path to Prosperity …for the Richest Few..

    This was worth a new comment? A dumb quip?

    ANSWER MY QUESTION: how much money does your proposed tax increase bring in? How many people will be taxed, and how much?

    You aren’t serious about your proposal, are you? You don’t really care about a balanced budget at all, much like Obama.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  32. My idea of shared sacrifice: I will give up golf if the President will.

    Birdbath (19803d)

  33. Looks like Ms. Pelosi and Senator Reid gave the POTUS the middle finger when it came time to carry his budget-water.

    President Obama has never written a budget, never managed a budget, and has out-sourced budget management to Pelosi and Reid for 3 years. Why should anyone expect him to suddenly possess knowledge and experience he’s studiously avoided his whole life?

    DaveO (391b76)

  34. VeV is wailing about Republican fiscal irresponsibility and prescription drug coverage costing more than they claimed, all while supporting Obumble’s BarckyCare which is a tsunami compared to the prescription drug raindrop, and Obumble’s best possible deficit will be at least twice the size of Bush’s worst deficit. VeV is visibly ignorant.

    JD (0d2ffc)

  35. in case no one has already said this, I suspect the Dems would like to get the same “raise taxes and cut spending” deal that they got from Bush 1 in 1989, ie, first raise taxes and then insist spending can’t be cut. And was it Iowahawk or the guy at planetmoron who noted that raising taxes on the rich to 100% will only reduce the deficit by a small amount (and very likely only once?)

    Ira (27502b)

  36. == I suspect the Dems would like to get the same “raise taxes and cut spending” deal that they got from Bush 1 in 1989, ie, first raise taxes and then insist spending can’t be cut==

    Yeah, also just like in 1986 “we’ll give illegal immigrants amnesty then we’ll….” That deal worked out real well, too.

    elissa (9ebceb)

  37. The Empty Suit(tm) is a fraud.

    One of the extraordinarily annoying things about Obama is that he thinks that reading a speech is a great accomplishment. He’s read a speech about closing the deficit – so its done. His part is over.

    The Democrats intentionally dumped this problem on the Republican House, because last year – when Democrats controlled the Senate, the House AND the White House – they intentionally did not pass a FY2011 budget. They did not want to defend their FY2011 budget to voters in November of 2010. Complete cowardice and deception.

    Now they complain that the Republican House won’t cooperate in their attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of Americans. Screw them.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  38. VeV’s comments show only that he wants to continue the fraudulent rhetoric of Democrats.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  39. Obama inherited a car with the engine blown and the transmission wrecked.. so he had to spend money to fix it.. But those that wrecked it could not admit that, so they blame him for the expenses.

    Most everyone here was a big fan of Bush and supported a war for WMDs that were not there ( no problem for these armchair patriots!!) and for conservative economics that failed. You have no program and no policies and offer nothing except senseless blather about your patriotism and Obama’s failings and how everything would be just fine if only the rich had more money.,.and wish it was 1950 all over again.

    I say again.. the line is drawn the distinction is clear. Shared sacrifice vs continued tax breaks for the top earners. What else could be clearer?

    But the real issue is not economics.. Its the party of those who accept and embrace change and those that find every excuse to criticize and bitch because at heart they fear “the times they ar a changing..”

    VietnamEraVet (35c6c1)

  40. I say again.. the line is drawn the distinction is clear.

    Instead of repeating yourself in your disproven blame game, why not answer my direct question, VeV?

    back up your argument, if you can.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  41. Yes we get it obama inherited the deficit from the bush admin,ESAD traitor.

    DohBiden (984d23)

  42. VeV, the Democrats controlled Congress for several fiscal years before Obama took office. And they have controlled it for several fiscal years since. So your excuses are false.

    Further, the Democrats never brought any FY2011 appropriations bills to a vote last year.

    So your excuses are even more obviously false.

    Democrats’ economic policies have failed now for several years. Its the Democrats who fear change.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  43. Translation of Obama’s speech: “We must win the future by making sure the failed policies of the past continue to fail well into the future.”

    SPQR (26be8b)

  44. Translation of Obama’s screed-The rich need to pay their fair share in taxes unless they voted for me then they don’t get to pay taxes.

    DohBiden (984d23)

  45. This leaves out that Obama actually ‘poured sugar in the gas tank,’ with his Citibank case, that opened up the subprime gates, that caused the last collapse, and along with Dodd, Frank, Biden et al; opposed any significant reform efforts.maybe that’s why he was so well funded by AIG, Countrywide, et al, Obama’s record on the war, was curious, he was opposed before he entered the Senate, but backed funding till about 2006,when a business partner of Rezko’s was arrested over in Iraq, then he argued for a pull out just as the Anbar Awakening was happening

    narciso (8a8b93)

  46. Obama criticized his own base and insisted they give some on their demands. He referred to people of good will on both sides of the aisle. And what did he get in return? The usual conservative bs about class warfare because he wanted the sacrifice to be shared while Republicans want it to be all about cuts to lower and middle class programs and not a thing about eliminating those special tax breaks for the wealthiest.

    I am very happy the Republicans have obliged and made it clear that the distinction between Republicans is sharing the burden vs balancing the budget on the backs of the middle and lower income people.

    THANKS!!

    VietnamEraVet (35c6c1)

  47. and in off/topic news-Kobe Bryant got fined $100,000 for using a homophobic slur……….Surprised Al Shartpon hasn’t fired up a bullhorn in his defense.

    DohBiden (984d23)

  48. I’am very happy that VEV has outed himself as a sellout to the communists

    THANKS!!!

    DohBiden (984d23)

  49. Dohbiden you just demonstrate how stupid and ignorant you are..

    VietnamEraVet (35c6c1)

  50. VeV, it’s pathetic that you keep repeating the same boring old comments while ignoring the responses.

    You said you wanted a tax hike, and I asked you specifically how much revenue that was supposed to bring in. How is your tax hike not class warfare if you don’t care how much revenue it brings in?

    If you would pause your Obama hero worship for a second and realize how drastically worse Obama’s deficits are than the 1994-2006 era, maybe you could let go of the ignorant partisanship. It’s not like conservatives were OK with the GOP deficits, even though of course returning to them would be a massive improvement.

    Tell me, what’s the average bush deficit, and what’s the average Obama deficit? Oh wait, you are too scared to have a real conversation, and will completely ignore me.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  51. It was interesting and of course appalling that bumble got through an entire speech about the budget without mentioning fetuses. He just glossed right over the fetuses as if they had no bearing on the budget whatsoever.

    Is Team R gonna let him get away with that?

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  52. why do you hate gay fetuses?

    DohBiden (984d23)

  53. They gave him Soros, PP, and the EPA funding, because you know breathing or even moving around
    is overrated.

    narciso (8a8b93)

  54. Someone should tell Obama that he already has the job. Stop campaigning and start leading!

    Rochf (f3fbb0)

  55. . He just glossed right over the fetuses as if they had no bearing on the budget whatsoever.

    Why do you hate glossy fetuses? Hell, most the kids I saw today were gleamingly snot covered. There’s nothing wrong with it.

    Anyway, Obama thinks abortion is above his pay grade, so he concedes the issue to the GOP, who thinks abortion is not something we should the federal government should pay for.

    I’m more interested in why the GOP is glossing over the spending hike than I am with abortion. It led almost to a shutdown budget, with military families missing paychecks, and over an insignificant cut. That’s how crazy the democrats are today. They refused to concede to any cut in spending over the past year, and the GOP should highlight just how hard they fought to spend so much.

    the GOP doesn’t have a record to be proud of, but they do have a record that is far better than the status quo.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  56. Stephen Hawking, Porky Pig and Barack Obama walk into a bar?

    Which one has the oddest accent?
    Irrespective of the accent, I’d imagine the surprise of having a talking pig with a speech defect with them would likely render the other two speechless. The pig would be the only one talking, so his accent would be the oddest.

    Neo (03e5c2)

  57. Dustin .. its not about specific numbers.. I am well aware of the fact that the deficit has become worse under Obama..and that Bush made things much worse than under Clinton.. Obama had to spend to correct a collapsing economy…We both agree that deficits are unsustainable but the difference is that Obama wants to share the burden of eliminating those deficits and Conservatives want to balance the budget by cutting programs for the middle class and refuse even to consider raising taxes on the rich..
    Tell me this is not a fact..

    VietnamEraVet (35c6c1)

  58. It is Obama who has been destroying the middle class with destructive economic policies designed to make lunatic extremists on the Left happy, like VeV, but actually are destructive to the economy of our nation.

    VeV’s rhetoric that Democrats have been “spending” to “fix” things broken is flat out fabrication. Not a dime of any of the trillions of dollars of pork spending has “fixed” anything that had anything to do with our recession.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  59. Dustin,, The federal government is prohibited by law from funding abortion..fyi

    VietnamEraVet (35c6c1)

  60. SPQR you ought to check with GM which was about to go broke but now has come back thanks to all that spending you decry..same with several rather large banks but dont let the facts hit you in the ass..

    VietnamEraVet (35c6c1)

  61. VeV, you are the one making up “facts” that aren’t. The GM bailout did not help the economy, only special interests. And it is hilarious that you admit that Obama’s spending on the bank bailout helped them too … more Democrat rich people getting helped by Obama.

    The middle class? No help from Obama.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  62. A lot of the bank bailout was supposed to keep people in their homes that were threatened with foreclosure. That program has been an expensive failure if the goal was keeping people in homes, it helped a hand full of people. Bailing out rich Democrat banking donors ? Big success.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  63. Final word from me.. Obama inherited a disaster and in spite of Conservative efforts to block reform and smear him in every possible way…he prevented another economic collapse.
    He is fighting for the middle class against a tidal wave of fear and bigotry and today is a landmark day in that everyone can see two distinctively different ways of dealing with the debt..Now the choice is clear..Thats all I can ask for!
    Time for a little ‘relaxer”

    VietnamEraVet (35c6c1)

  64. VeV, Obama and the Democrats helped create the “disaster” and did nothing to “prevent” another economic collapse. They created a huge pork barrel spending bill, that spend a trillion dollars to no benefit at all – when judged by their own propaganda about it. They did this because they expected the economy to recover despite rather than because of the spending and it failed.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  65. Well I just had to comment on the amazing stupidity of someone who thinks saving GM did NOT help the economy..

    VietnamEraVet (35c6c1)

  66. that Bush made things much worse than under Clinton

    Especially once the Democrats took control of Congress in 2007. Clinton at least had the benefit of a GOP-controlled Congress for his “surplus.”

    malclave (1db6c5)

  67. Obama “fights” for no one. That’s why he’s been missing in action in all of the big legislation issues. Obama was missing in action during the health care insurance legislation – leaving it to Reid and Pelosi to craft the actual abortion of a bill he claimed credit for.

    Likewise, the budget crisis. No leadership from Obama at all.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  68. SPQR you ought to check with GM which was about to go broke but now has come back thanks to all that spending you decry..same with several rather large banks but dont let the facts hit you in the ass..

    What’s enabled them to come back is going through bankruptcy. They didn’t need Obama to do that. The bankruptcy they went through was controlled by the Obama administration so that the UAW would be retained and given a chunk of the company. In a normal bankruptcy the UAW would be gone. They would be as strong or stronger now without the Obama bailout because the UAW would be gone.

    Gerald A (8e99c8)

  69. VeV, the GM bailout hurt the economy because investors now think that politically connected unions can override bankruptcy law.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  70. Obama’s brilliant “saving” of the automobile industry:

    Saturn dealerships screwed.
    Chrysler cars to be built by italian workers in the future.
    GM bondholders screwed contrary to law in favor of the politically connected unions –> undermining confidence in the rule of law in the US.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  71. VeV never did back up his claims or answer any questions.

    Not that I’m surprised, but his Obama worship sounds extremely defensive and insincere.

    and of course the GM bailout harmed the economy. As SPQR notes, the democrats have made investments less predictable. Also, GM is a failure and the government shouldn’t prop up failures to compete against successes. It was only good for unions, rather than the rest of Americans.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  72. Obama’s great “fighting” for the middle class: huge bailout to mortgage lenders supposed to help homeowners stay in their homes. Result:

    A handful of homeowners get loan modifications.

    Banks get billions of dollars in bailout.

    Who did Peter Orzag go to work for again?

    SPQR (26be8b)

  73. Dustin, a friend of mine was a car salesman at a Saturn dealership.

    He’s unemployed. Great job Obama.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  74. When was it that Obama agreed to the extension of the Bush era tax cuts? Oh, that’s right, less than four months ago. That’s Obama’s version of “fighting” – making a speech that pretends his own actions of ten weeks ago did not happen.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  75. This is another brilliant feature;

    http://minx.cc/?post=314712

    narciso (8a8b93)

  76. Tell me this is not a fact..

    Your gibberish is not a fact.

    JD (318f81)

  77. ==He is fighting for the middle class==

    I would just like to take a moment to go on record here that my whole family is middle class, and none of us–not a one–feel that Obama is fighting for us.

    elissa (9ebceb)

  78. I like how the “stimulus” that stimulated nothing othr than the tingle up VeV’s leg has now become part of the baseline for Barcky budgeting.

    JD (318f81)

  79. VeV – what in Obumble’s most recent budget proposal was a direct result of a failed Bush economic policy, spending required to fix something Bush did? Be specific.

    JD (318f81)

  80. I am curious what constitutes the middle class for the leftist class warfare junkies like VeV and OBarcky. Seems like households that make over $250K are evil.

    VeV prolly thinks that if we confiscated all earnings over $250k, we could have a surplus in no time.

    JD (318f81)

  81. Two thoughts;

    1) I believe that, rather than Republicans being a reform Party and Democrats being a Reactionary Party, we have two major parties where control by a business-as-usual elite is being challenged by reform/populist elements. In the republican Party this process can be traced back to Reagan’s rise into National politics, and is moving along nicely, although the conclusion is still uncertain. In the Democrats a point of origin is harder to identify, but evidence can bee seen in the wide spread of populist candidates that ran on the Democrat ticket in 2006. With the Democrats the shift is just beginning. It will be interesting if the Populists in the party react to the high-handed behavior and spectacular failures of the Established Left by making a serious fight for control in 2012.

    We might even get two parties that wouldn’t make me vomit dayglow if I thought of voting for them, in my lifetime.

    *grumble*

    2) Bipartisan, as applied to American Politics, may be defined as any proposal so stupid, expensive, and/or deranged as to attract support from both parties.

    C. S. P. Schofield (8b1968)

  82. JD, its been shown that confiscating 100% of the wealth of the “rich” would not pay for one year of Obama’s deficits.

    And then the next year, he’d have no one to tax.

    VeV has the exact same mentality that “liquidated” the Kulaks to “save” the proletariat in the Soviet Union. Result? 30 million dead in a famine.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  83. Famous Quotes:

    “To begin with, we must be honest”
    – Barach Obama, speech on budget, 4/13/2011

    “We were in Hawaii when the murders happened”
    – Charles Manson

    “I am appalled at the thought of persecution of political prisoners”
    – Josef Stalin

    “Chiang Kai-shek is one of my best friends.”
    – Chairman Mao

    “I did not have sex with that woman”

    “Who cares if you win, as long as you have fun”
    – Vince Lombardi

    “We’ll be lucky if we can score a field goal”
    – “Broadway” Joe Namath

    “I finally got that wascally wabbit!!!”
    – Elmer Fudd

    At the moment I am responding with humor. It is sad to think about what this man says, it is even sadder to think many people who know better are going to cover for him.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  84. SPQR– I believe the Chicoms tried a little experiment along those lines as well–

    elissa (9ebceb)

  85. VeV, hey how about Obama’s favorite corporation, General Electric? Their $3 billion tax refund came from Democrat’s economic policies.

    That’s why they donate so much to his campaign coffers.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  86. “To begin with, we must be honest”
    – Barach Obama, speech on budget, 4/13/2011

    When does he plan on beginning?

    JD (318f81)

  87. JD- note the company it keeps.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  88. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/03/31/bill_whittle_on_eating_the_rich.html

    Not sure if this will work, but it references the numbers SPQR mentioned above.

    JD (318f81)

  89. Obama basically Rickrolled the entire nation with his speech and VeV comes here to tell us how he should get a Grammy for it.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  90. That’s why they donate so much to his campaign coffers.

    Yep. this class warfare anti $250k rhetoric of Obama’s is not about the hyper elite paying their fair share. Those are normal, hard working professionals or small business owners, rather than Richie Rich. The super rich own the democrat party, and it’s no coincidence that the democrat policies make it harder for the little guy to compete.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  91. Rickrolling politicians – that’s what Obama did to us.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  92. VeV,

    1. In no sense does Obama’s so-called “plan” fix the problem. Indeed, by largely ignoring entitlements, the problem explodes after his artificial 12-year window.

    2. As linked in the original post, taxing the wealthy is nowhere near a solution to the problem. The idea that Obama’s “plan” will not involve significant tax hikes on the middle class is a fantasy. And that’s if it actually worked. It’s actually a recipe for kicking the can down the road, after he’s left office. We will then be dangerously close to a debt crisis that would require a roughly 20% cut in the actual budget, which is going to be much more cruel to the poor and the weak than anything Ryan has dreamed up.

    3. Don’t take my word for it — Clive Crook, who thinks Ryan’s budget is “no good,” calls Obama’s so-called plan “Not just weak but pitiful,” “devoid of detail,” and “a waste of breath.” But you’re really not going to want to read his comments about the Medicare prescription drug benefit.

    Karl (45cc92)

  93. Karl – VeV was just demonstrating what will happen to the infirmed if there is ever a lithium shortage.

    JD (318f81)

  94. __________________________________________

    The Democrats are the reactionary party in America today, while the Republicans are the reformers

    What irks the hell out of me are the variety of liberals who are far more bothered that wealthier people aren’t paying more in taxes than that moderate- and modest-income people are paying too much. IOW, if push came to shove, and there was the option of either raising taxes on upper-income folks but also on everyone else too, or raising no one’s taxes, far too many leftists would choose the former instead of the latter.

    Mark (411533)

  95. His premises are dishonest to begin with.
    1) Gives dems credit for what the Repub Congress forced Clinton to do
    2) Ignored economic effect of “dot-com” bubble burst
    3) Ignored economic effect of 9/11
    4) Blamed Bush for growing deficit under Democratic congress in 2007 and 2008
    5) Ignored drastic rise under his own reign.

    After all of these readily falsified claims, is there any reason to bother listening to anything else?

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  96. ==Indeed, by largely ignoring entitlements, the problem explodes after his artificial 12-year window==

    This is worrisome. What with global warming and all, in 12 years will there be enough ice floes left to set us all out on?

    elissa (9ebceb)

  97. If Obama thinks not enough has been paid in taxes, he and michelle can kick in extra on the more than $250,000 they each earned prior to getting to the White House.

    And with his living expenses paid and all of the other perks he gets, he doesn’t need to keep more than, say, $75,000 a year now, right? When these people pay the amount of taxes they want others to pay, then I’ll believe them. Until then, I am certain they will find ways to keep things complicated enough so their friends never have to pay what they say they will- like GE.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  98. We elected a dishonest incompetent campaigner in chief, a small unserious man at a time where serious people are called for.

    JD (318f81)

  99. ________________________________________

    “You can’t simply slash entitlements, lower taxes and call that a fair deal,” Obama’s spokesman, Jay Carney, said yesterday.

    60 Minutes did a report a few weeks ago that I’m sure caused most of its left-leaning correspondents and staffers to shudder and squirm. But instead of getting a clue from the human nature illustrated in their report — and the law of unintended consequences — they probably sighed, “well, the government will just have to crack down on the balance of taxpayers throughout America, including smaller corporations (ie, mom-and-pop-type businesses) who aren’t clever and versatile enough to move to places like Switzerland.”

    Or…

    “This dilemma caused by greedy big business is the reason why instituting the value-added tax and raising personal incomes taxes and sales taxes in general are a necessity! Let’s get to it!!”

    cbsnews.com:

    One major way [American corporations] avoid paying the tax man is by parking their profits overseas. They’ll tell you they’re forced to do that because the corporate 35 percent tax rate is high in relation to other countries, and indeed it seems the tax code actually encourages companies to move their businesses out of the country.

    When President Obama threatened to clamp down on tax dodging, many companies decided to leave the Caribbean. But instead of coming back home, they went to safer havens like Switzerland.

    Several of these companies came to a small, quaint medieval town in Switzerland call Zug. Hans Marti, who heads Zug’s economic development office, showed off the nearby snow-covered mountains. But Zug’s main selling point isn’t a view of the Alps: he told Stahl the taxes are somewhere between 15 and 16 percent.

    “And in the United States it’s 35 percent,” [CBS News Leslie] Stahl pointed out.

    With Japan slated to lower its rate in April, the U.S. will soon have the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world.

    One CEO who would talk to us was [Cisco’s John] Chambers. Cisco is the giant high tech company headquartered in San Jose, Calif. He says our tax rate is insane. It’s forcing companies into these maneuvers, especially when many other industrialized countries including Canada are busy lowering their tax rates in order to lure our companies and our jobs away.

    Every other government in the world has realized that the U.S. has it wrong. They’re saying, ‘I’m going to have lower taxes, period.’ That’s what you see all across Western Europe, that’s what you see in Asia in the developed countries,” Chambers said.

    Mark (411533)

  100. ___________________________________________

    One would have to be an ultra-liberal to believe parts of the federal budget as shown below couldn’t have been cut just a wee bit more. The reality of “emerged unscathed” also illustrates just how phony and un-serious is the current process of reducing the deficit. It indicates just how leftwing is the rhetoric from the martyrs — including nitwits like Obama — who cry “oh, woe is us! These cutbacks, thanks to the mean ol’ Tea Partiers, will destroy us!!”

    Washingtonpost.com:

    Despite Republican-led calls to strip funding from NPR, public broadcasting emerged largely unscathed in the federal budget compromise hammered out in Congress over the past week.

    The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), which passes federal funds to public radio and TV stations, is slated to receive $445 million from Congress — essentially the same amount it received in its last appropriation, according to details of the continuing federal budget resolution released Tuesday.

    Mark (411533)

  101. Exactly, Mark. Obama is not fighting for the middle class, he’s fighting so that rich Liberals can get their Masterpiece Theater paid for.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  102. Progressivism is a fabulous dream, until the inevitable occurs.
    It will be an interesting study to determine at just what point we ran out of “OPM”.
    The Left/Lib/Progs in Govt are just Dead-Men-Walking;
    the money’s gone, they just don’t (or won’t, or can’t) admit it!

    AD-RtR/OS! (f37a71)

  103. We didn’t even defund NPR?

    I’m getting pretty discouraged with the GOP. And if I’m feeling this way, most people are already rowing away from the sinking ship, since I’m a pretty hardcore GOP cheerleader.

    Vote is when? Tomorrow? The GOP doesn’t have to go along with current spending levels. It’s a mistake.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  104. @91

    I think Obama’s plan is less of a “rickroll” and more of a “two girls, one cup”.

    malclave (1db6c5)

  105. My advice … those who don’t understand malclave’s reference should NOT try to find out what it means.

    You don’t want to know.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  106. Dustin, I try not to be too cynical, but that’s where I saw this was going, if the MSM is trumpeting something, run away from as if it is a charging
    RINO

    narciso (8a8b93)

  107. Dustin, I can be pretty disgusted with the Congressional wing of the GOP too.
    But, I have to remember what the consequences were when we walked away from the GOP and embraced the Perotista’s.
    The alternative IS sometimes worse than the status quo.

    AD-RtR/OS! (f37a71)

  108. Turns out that their cuts, draconian as they were, really were not all that substantial. Buncha unserious tools.

    JD (318f81)

  109. Would 352 million dollars make that big a difference, I’m reminded of the ending to ‘Trading Places’

    narciso (8a8b93)

  110. The sad thing is that our current First Occupant is doing his very very best that he can do as President …

    And the arrogating “VietnamEraVet” seems not only to be happy to have elected him to that high office, he even seems eager to repeat the prescription for failure … (by the way, do we think that VeVet is associated with small animals or large animals ? Which does he take care of ? Cuz he sure doesn’t sound like a military veteran … my own guess is that he ministers to poodles and gerbils and the like) …

    Alasdair (e7cb73)

  111. Mommy, we didn’t have debt in 2000. Where did all the money go?

    Dear, after President Bush started wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and cut taxes at the same time, the Democrats spent it all.

    Yeah, huh.

    Larry Reilly (0e1b2d)

  112. @107

    Yeah, usually when I reference the video (a few times in just the last couple of days, in fact), I apologize for the reminder to those who have seen it and warn other people not to look for it. I forgot this time, sorry.

    It’s okay to try to find out what it means… but you do NOT want to see the video. And if you do want to see the video, the rest of us don’t want to know that.

    malclave (1db6c5)

  113. Thank you for the drooling JournoList perspective, Mary.

    JD (318f81)

  114. Yep. this class warfare anti $250k rhetoric of Obama’s is not about the hyper elite paying their fair share. Those are normal, hard working professionals or small business owners, rather than Richie Rich.

    Dustin, I don’t object to your bashing Barack, but it works better if you keep your facts straight. The 250k we’re talking about is not assets (which would include most of the “middle class” however you define that term) but annual income; and the number of people who have annual incomes in that amount is relatively small, even when you don’t take out owners of subchapter S corporations. I don’t have the time tonight to look up the exact statistics, but people in that bracket amount to something like 1% of the population, and far more likely to be connected to a Fortune 500 company than any small business. Small businesses owners are the core of the middle class, in a way, but it’s the seriously rich who live in that income level.

    I’ve had enough experience with one specific small business to know how much income its owner got (a subchapter S corporation), and while he was wealthy enough for anyone’s satisfaction but his own (sending two sons to college and then medical and law school; month long vacations in the French Riviera; a Mercedes for everyone in the family; etc.) his income, which included investments outside his own business, could be honestly reported to the IRS as well under the 250k mark.

    kishnevi (9995b3)

  115. We are not seriously rich. To suggest what kiss did above is an exception, rather than a rule. I would love to be able to claim a lifestyle like that, but just earning $250k a year in a household does not make one rich.

    JD (318f81)

  116. Larry once again demonstrated that he’ll happily post false comments all day long.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  117. I don’t have the time tonight to look up the exact statistics, but people in that bracket amount to something like 1% of the population, and far more likely to be connected to a Fortune 500 company than any small business.

    That’s about 1% of families or individuals?

    malclave (1db6c5)

  118. You don’t have to be a small business owner or a lawyer, or a dentist, or a CPA. In my city a union plumber or electrician with some overtime, whose wife is a teacher, an office manager, a programmer or some such, can get darn close to $250,000 per year. Maybe not in Topeka or Knoxville–but in Chicago or suburban NYC and in a lot of other places that’s middle class. Sorry to bust anyone’s bubble.

    elissa (9ebceb)

  119. Kish,

    “Small businesses owners are the core of the middle class, in a way, but it’s the seriously rich who live in that income level.”

    What we’re disagreeing about is the term rich. If you’re merely earning 250k per year then yes, you’re quite successful. No, you are not rich. At least by my meaning, where you can live off your wealth itself. You still need to work. I guess these terms have shifted in meaning (thanks largely to class warfare), and some don’t think rich means ‘your money works for you’, but in my view, if you work for the money, you are not rich. Most people earning $250k work hard for the money.

    anyway, you’re right this is a small fraction of the population, but I insist that all jobs in this country are thanks to such people. Sure, many fledgling small businesses don’t net their owners much in the first few years, so I have to dial back my hyperbole a bit, but indeed, these people, who have a few employees, are those who are impacted the hardest by many of the tax increases we’ve been hearing about (Especially those that include ending the Bush tax policy).

    These ‘upper middle class’ to ‘upper class’ people are the lifeblood of our employement situation as a nation. Either their taxes pay for government jobs, or their investments pay for opportunities for lower income earners.

    anyway, for the record, I do stand corrected.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  120. “but it’s the seriously rich who live in that income level.”

    kishnevi – You can call it whatever you like, but people at that income level still typically have mortgages and car payments, college expenses, etc., just like the “non-super rich”. With respect, your story about the small business owner’s income and expenditures sounds like complete BS.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  121. _________________________________________

    We didn’t even defund NPR?

    Oh, hell, forget about the idea of defunding and deleting such things. How about at least cutting back SOME of the monies allocated for that most discretionary, most non-essential, of items in the Congressional budget?!

    BTW, I like to watch PBS’s “Nova” science show (they had a very interesting episode on the Japanese earthquake a few weeks ago) but if the federal budget can’t reflect even a modest reduction for something as tangential and non-mandatory as public broadcasting, much less a reduction that would be far more drastic, then we really are going to be a future version (but a much bigger version) of a Greece, Spain or Portugal, with a bit of Mexico/Venezuela thrown in for good measure.

    Mark (411533)

  122. It was interesting and of course appalling that bumble got through an entire speech about the budget without mentioning fetuses. He just glossed right over the fetuses as if they had no bearing on the budget whatsoever.

    Yes, that’s because he’s a barbarian who considers them subhuman and not worth considering. Their interests and rights count for less than nothing to him. Are you like that too?

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  123. Paul Ryan’s excellent rebuttal is, well excellent: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WT30c5qbk90&feature=player_embedded
    Otherwise, he is looking at a new commission, to confer with the old commission, to see if in 7 years we will need a new commission. Most excellent.

    sybilll (1d1fda)

  124. I enjoy Nova, too, Mark. I was happy to see it’s on Netflix (as is Twin Peaks, now!).

    In other words, I’m willing to pay for the program, so, as I’m sure you’d agree, there’s no reason to force the US Taxpayer to support PBS.\

    But, I have to remember what the consequences were when we walked away from the GOP and embraced the Perotista’s.
    The alternative IS sometimes worse than the status quo.

    AD, you’re right. The best hope America has is the GOP, but after reading over Ace of Spades last few posts, I think he’s making a lot of sense. It’s ridiculous if the GOP votes for this budget (which it will).

    What we both know is that the Larry Reilly argument, that the GOP had a deficit at all, has somehow granted the left an ability to throw this country’s future away with deficits far worse than any this country has ever seen. on the one hand, the GOP could have made this much harder for the left, politically, by having a balanced budget, but I know I have no choice but to support them in general elections.

    But I keep getting to this point where I believe the GOP has gotten back on track and will cut spending (by the trillions, not the billions). and I’m wrong. I’m not sure that’s going to happen before an actual Greek style collapse.

    So the GOP hopefully calculated that a shutdown now would make it harder to get somewhere on cutting the deficit later, but they are running out of chances to show this country some progress.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  125. Instead of helping out illegals and muslims from their 3rd world hell holes who abhor us with their health problems why not focus on americans who like us.

    DohBiden (984d23)

  126. Øbama is fighting for the middle class… to merge with the lower class, so we can all ‘come together’ to fight the rich.

    I listened to him speak a couple times, early on. Don’t waste the time now, it’s always the same.

    The only time he is “for” the middle class is when he wants us to vote for him. He’s made it too obvious, though, that he thinks we’re stupid.

    jodetoad (0e079d)

  127. There is a far left wing guy who writes our local paper and refers to himself as a Vietnam era Vet.
    Which means he served in the USN on a destroyer posted in the Phillipines. He claims to have suffered PTSD from.. what The hookers at Subic Bay overcharged him?

    SteveG (cc5dc9)

  128. Yep, jode. Obama thinks we’re stupid, and I can’t blame him. This:

    Via the weekly standard.

    was his argument in 2008. Just asinine ‘we are the ones we’ve been waiting for’ nonsense, personal deification, and constant contradictory promises like lower spending and more programs. Basically, Obama won a creepy popularity contest. This guy has no leadership skill, but he’s not uninformed to continue promising people he’s “for” them. This country has given Obama every reason to think dumb and simple beats a harder truth.

    sybill: I suppose Paul Ryan can’t be effective in the House if he’s endorsing primary opponents to congressmen who are failing us. Still, I wouldn’t be surprised if his endorsement is a bit of a game changer in the presidential primary.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  129. The left oppose Governor Christie’s voucher plans because they are racist…………..there i said it.

    DohBiden (984d23)

  130. “Mommy, we didn’t have debt in 2000.”

    Yeah, right.

    Debt was 56% of GDP in 2000.

    63% in 2006, when the Dems retook Congress.

    Now, it’s 92% of GDP.

    We’re almost at WWII levels of debt.

    Dave Surls (b31cd3)

  131. Mommy we didn’t have debt in 2008.

    Exactly those waaaaaaaaaacist wascally wingnuts inflated the numbers to make the first black president look like Mugabe.

    DohBiden (984d23)

  132. Mommy, we didn’t have debt in 2000.

    Now, now, Larry, you know what happens to little boys who tell lies.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  133. Trying to cover the various responses to my comment–
    First off, the 250k amount comes from Obama’s tax proposals. It’s the people above that income level who would be directly affected by higher taxes.
    I’m not talking about whether they are rich. In my book, they are, but of course I was raised by a mother whose paycheck was approximately $100 a week, at a time when that sort of income still qualified as middle class. Mentally I’m probably guilty of comparing 250k now to 5.2k then, even though the intervening inflation has made that a comparison of apples to oranges. And while they assuredly have mortgages, kids in college and the rest–well, to be blunt, anyone who can’t do that on 250k will get no sympathy from me.
    My real point was simply this–the majority of job creators (ie small businessmen) are to be found at levels under the 250k income mark, and would presumably be not directly affected by Obama’s tax changes–until of course Obama decided to lower the income level.
    Elissa–you seem to be talking about total household (ie, married couple) income exceeding 250k. If we’re talking about couples, the appropriate figure would be 500k. Does your statement still hold true with that figure?
    And please remember we’re talking not about gross income but net income, the figure which the tax tables use to tell you how much income tax you should be paying.
    Daley–it may sound like BS, but it was true. I should probably have added that he charged as much as possible to the business (leasing the cars through the business instead of under his own name, for example), thereby making them expenses deducted from gross income, instead of personal expenses to be paid out of after tax income.

    kishnevi (a6ffde)

  134. “Vietnam era vet” is at least honest about not having served in Vietnam, unlike Senators Tom Harkin and Richard Blumenthal, who claimed to be Vietnam vets until they were exposed as lying liars.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  135. Kish, try supporting a family of 8 in NYC on that kind of salary, including school fees.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  136. Meant to add–one obvious point is that the smaller the number of people who would be affected by the tax increases, the more ridiculous the assertion “we can solve our deficit problem by taxing these people” becomes.

    kishnevi (a6ffde)

  137. My real point was simply this–the majority of job creators (ie small businessmen) are to be found at levels under the 250k income mark, and would presumably be not directly affected by Obama’s tax changes–until of course Obama decided to lower the income level.

    I noticed you underestimated the number of households at this level by about 2/3rds.

    And the average small business owner earns $233k per year according to salary.com, and there is a huge portion of them who earn more. And you have to take into account that these numbers are tilted down by small business owners whose businesses don’t succeed, or are in their infancy.

    I think it’s actually clear that you’re in error. Obama’s tax proposals would badly affect a huge number of small business owners, who you rightfully note are where the jobs come from. This is a very direct problem for employment considerations.

    Another problem is that the instability in our government, thanks to the deficit level, leads to risk averse investments, instead of trying to expand that business.

    Of course, the plain truth is that these people can adjust their salary if Obama adjusts the tax rate. They can also go Galt. I think it’s hardly unfair of me to note that Obama’s tax proposals will have a real impact on where most of the jobs come from.

    Elissa–you seem to be talking about total household (ie, married couple) income exceeding 250k. If we’re talking about couples, the appropriate figure would be 500k. Does your statement still hold true with that figure?

    Obama talks about households earning $250k, so the appropriate figure is Elissa’s.

    I can make a firm pledge, under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.
    Barack Obama

    Dustin (c16eca)

  138. Meant to add–one obvious point is that the smaller the number of people who would be affected by the tax increases, the more ridiculous the assertion “we can solve our deficit problem by taxing these people” becomes.

    Yes, that’s certainly a great point.

    It’s unfortunate that this argument breaks into three directions, but I guess it has to for clarity’s sake.

    One the one hand, we have this ‘are they too rich’ crap that few here care about. second is this idea of taxing a special tiny category, which leads to the objection I quoted Kish making.

    Third is the question of what negative impact tax hikes will have on job makers. Kishnevi initially objected that I was talking about people working for the Fortune 500 rather than small business owners. There are a few reasons I think this is unfair. First, those people who earn a lot, but don’t own their own business, are probably the ones most likely to invest in other companies that can use that money to grow. Second, it doesn’t matter if most of the people in my category aren’t small business owners. What matters is if a lot of small business owners are in this category.

    Am I being unclear? Kish thinks (and he’s probably right) that most of the philosophers aren’t Socrates, but all Socrateses are Philosophers. A higher tax burden on small business owners might mostly impact other people, but it still hurts the people we want to hire more workers.

    I do think Kishnevi corrected me legitimately in a comment I shouldn’t have made so absolutely (and why shouldn’t Kishnevi correct this?), but I think the details still show the point I want to make. Obama’s tax hikes will hurt employment and the economy.

    BTW, according to Obama’s recovery plan, the USA has 6.5% unemployment today. Winning!

    Dustin (c16eca)

  139. Comment by Milhouse — 4/13/2011 @ 9:58 pm
    Doesn’t NYC have one of the highest cost of livings in the country?
    And living in NYC, and having 8 children, and sending them to private schools instead of public schools, are all freely made choices. Such a family (are you thinking of an Orthodox Jewish family that sends all their kids to Orthodox parochial schools?) chose to live there, chose to have that many kids, chose private over public schools.

    kishnevi (a6ffde)

  140. Oh yeah, and this is why we should reduce or eliminate the cap gains tax, so long as we’re talking about investments that are themselves taxed (such as a corporation’s profits are).

    Let’s free that money for more investment in more business growth instead of double dipping. Once we retax, a lot of people stop seeing the point in bothering, and just put the money into a vacation or their house, which has a lower benefit to the economy.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  141. Nevertheless, they are very far from rich.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  142. Dustin, thanks for the response, and the correction on what Obama promises. I’ve seen that 1 percent figure somewhere, and other data that conflict with what you’re referring to about small business income levels. If I can dig around and find them in the next day or so, I’ll let you know.

    kishnevi (a6ffde)

  143. Thanks sybill for the link at 125.

    If the Repubs in Congress don’t make progress with the budget battle, Ryan for President.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  144. Nevertheless, they are very far from rich.
    Doesn’t matter if they are or are not rich. I’m only saying that it’s their own freely made choices which make it difficult to live on that sort of income. Hence my lack of sympathy.

    kishnevi (a6ffde)

  145. Sorry Ryan supported the bailouts can’t vote for him unless I needed to.

    DohBiden (984d23)

  146. Dustin, thanks for the response, and the correction on what Obama promises. I’ve seen that 1 percent figure somewhere, and other data that conflict with what you’re referring to about small business income levels. If I can dig around and find them in the next day or so, I’ll let you know.

    Comment by kishnevi

    Honestly, I think we’re basically on the same page, and just quibbling over what the details are.

    Let’s just boil this down: if we return to the pretax rate on people earning more than $250k (rich or not), that brings in an estimated $41 billion in annual revenue. A drop in the bucket.

    It also takes some of the money away from at least a large portion of people who hire people and invest.

    Tax increases on those below $250k would make a much larger dent in the deficit, but I doubt that’s feasible.

    So Obama is specifically making a tax proposal that does the worst damage to the economy and also doesn’t really help the deficit much. Or maybe he’s just a demagogue who wants a talking point for the suckers.

    Either way…

    Dustin (c16eca)

  147. Sorry Ryan supported the bailouts can’t vote for him unless I needed to.

    Comment by DohBiden

    He’s not running for President anyway. His budget is righteous, and we should support it instead of making it about the man and his virtues or flaws, right? I don’t care if Hillary Clinton proposed this budget.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  148. “Dear, after President Bush started wars in Iraq and Afghanistan”

    And President Bush didn’t start wars in Iraq, or Afghanistan, or anywhere else.

    You’re boy Slick was bombing Iraq once or twice per week for years before Bush came into office.

    Fired a few missiles into Afghanistan too.

    Dave Surls (b31cd3)

  149. “Your boy” not “you’re boy”

    57 years old, and still can’t get them straight.

    Dave Surls (b31cd3)

  150. Do those damn “Bush years” include, in toto, the Obama years as well? Do you realize that if Obama wins a second term that functionally means the Bush administration ruled for four terms? (at least substantively…)

    Californio (987cd2)

  151. It’s not a matter of increasing the taxes for the rich, but for them to pay taxes to begin with. Yes the rich get tax breaks while the middle class carry’s the country. I’m all for it!

    Reene (a42c6a)

  152. Your brilliance is amazing Reene. Thank you for spitting out the same talking point as every other leftist. Brava.

    JD (109425)

  153. It’s not a matter of increasing the taxes for the rich, but for them to pay taxes to begin with.

    What universe do you live in? In this one the rich pay almost all the income tax.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1719 secs.