Obama: No Spending Cuts That Hurt My Ability to Piss Away Money on Pet Projects, But Hey, How’s About Some More Taxes in the Form of Eliminating Deductions?
“Our economy can’t afford more protracted showdowns or manufactured crises,” Obama warned in his weekly address, adding that “the messy brinksmanship in Congress made business owners more uncertain and consumers less confident.”
The president said he was open to seeking spending cuts generally as part of an effort to reduce the country’s deficit, but he stressed that such reductions can be made “without shortchanging things like education, job training, research and technology all which are critical to our prosperity in a 21st century economy.”
“Spending cuts must be balanced with more reforms to our tax code,” he said. “The wealthiest individuals and the biggest corporations shouldn’t be able to take advantage of loopholes and deductions that aren’t available to most Americans.”
What, because they’re not paying taxes to begin with?
We already had the “tax rich people” part of the “balanced” approach. It’s now time for you to step up and be the leader you pretend to be and permit some real spending reform, so my children can have a future.
Oh, it’s pointless. You know what? I’ve been trying to write these posts without engaging in profanities, but [a team of skilled reputation management people now rush in and pry Patterico’s fingers from the keyboard before he says something he can’t take back].
*&(%^&%^&(*^&*^&*%$
Patterico (038ee9) — 1/5/2013 @ 12:24 pmMaybe he really does want to ruin the economy, just to remake the relationship between the individual and the government in the way he wants.
I have resisted the notion, but he really, really just doesn’t care about fixing any of the real problems the country faces. At what point does deliberate indifference to my children’s future become intent to harm it?
Patterico (038ee9) — 1/5/2013 @ 12:25 pmI suspect Obama really does believe that his approach is good and he probably thinks he “cares”. But he uses industrial strength bubble wrap in his Administration, which protects them all from that odd thing called reality that the rest of us struggle with on a daily basis.
Sue (e6d02f) — 1/5/2013 @ 12:42 pmThat, and sheer stupidity and incompetence, is still enough to cause a world of harm…
Sue (e6d02f) — 1/5/2013 @ 12:47 pmWhy did he say it was ‘Reagan’s dark deeds’ that motivated him, into community organizing, the lesson is plain, in most everything he has written or said, in 20 years.
narciso (3fec35) — 1/5/2013 @ 1:09 pmWelcome back Carter!
Malaise, it’s not just a word, it’s a state of mind.
Thank you President Ultimatum.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/5/2013 @ 1:21 pmI told you, he is just getting started. He gave this speech while spiking the football after jacking up taxes. That was just the first step.
JD (5ed6bd) — 1/5/2013 @ 1:47 pmI suspect Obama really does believe that his approach is good and he probably thinks he “cares”.
Comment by Sue (e6d02f) — 1/5/2013 @ 12:42 pm
With all due respect, Sue:
This self-hating need to proclaim the benevolence of the evil doers before criticizing them is why we are in such a mess. We can’t say, “Well, he’s really a smart, no, brilliant, guy with all the best intentions, who just doesn’t realize what the impact of his actions,” just because we don’t want to offend those who will hate conservatives, no matter how lightly we tread in opposition. A truly smart, no, brilliant guy certainly sees the end to his means.
Learn the McCain lesson: You will be tolerated, and never respected, for only as long as you serve as their useful idiot and allow them to exploit and co-opt your courtesy as tacit approval.
They are dirty bastards, and they are hellbent on re-creating this nation. Period.
To Patterico’s question in #1 above:
It never, EVER, was indifference. It’s a plan, it is playing out, and those who say they are on our side are standing down.
Matador (638dbd) — 1/5/2013 @ 2:44 pmThe Democrats’ additional taxes were already pissed away in tax credits to their favorite industries.
Democrats are just brazenly lying and getting away with it.
SPQR (768505) — 1/5/2013 @ 2:48 pmObama’s sterling intentions trump everything else.
Dirty Old Man (0c7e45) — 1/5/2013 @ 2:57 pm“With all due respect,” Matador:
Sue (e6d02f) — 1/5/2013 @ 3:32 pmThere is no respect, due or undue, in passive/aggressively inserting non-existent meanings into someone else’s statements so you can rant.
You exhibit no skill in mind-reading. Try reading my comments; not assuming.
The President stated he “last year I signed into law $1.7T in deficit reduction” and “this week’s action reduces the deficit by $737B” “making it one of the largest deficit reduction bills passed by congress in over a decade.”
These statements are intentionally false. The deficit is an annual figure. Debt is a cumulative figure. Cumulative reductions in “estimated” deficits over 10 years resulting in an “estimated” total reduction in accumulated debt is the figure he stated. Not the knowingly false claim that, “this week’s action reduces the deficit by $737B.”
I did a search for sites doing fact checling on the address and none were even available to view much less catch this obvious intentional misdirection by the President of the United States.
Jerry
Jerry (713fb4) — 1/5/2013 @ 3:33 pmObama makes my head hurt, my stomach turn, and my wallet feel sad and empty.
Off-Topic: Patterico has won a Zilla Award for Awesomeness in the Dextrosphere in a very special category. I don’t know if it’s OK to leave an off-topic link here, so you can click my name to get to my place if you wanna see.
Zilla (e2ca46) — 1/5/2013 @ 3:41 pmAnyone here know what Ganjbama shot today?
mg (31009b) — 1/5/2013 @ 4:15 pmDon’t blame Obama. He is what he is. Blame some of the folks who claim to be on our side but didn’t vote for Romney because he wasn’t pure in some arcane way. Blame people who call other Republicans RINOs rather than finding their common purpose matters more than their differences.
We should be counting out the last 2 weeks of the mistake, not fearfully anticipating the next four years. And hoping it will only be four more.
And for all those true RINOs — the ones who could not vote for the actual Republican candidate — I have a hearty F U C K Y O U for your idiocy.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 1/5/2013 @ 4:45 pm12. Comment by Jerry (713fb4) — 1/5/2013 @ 3:33 pm
The President stated he “last year I signed into law $1.7T in deficit reduction” and “this week’s action reduces the deficit by $737B” “making it one of the largest deficit reduction bills passed by congress in over a decade.”
These statements are intentionally false. The deficit is an annual figure. Debt is a cumulative figure
Don’t blame Obama for originating this. It was Bill Clinton who started using the words “debt” and “deficit” interchangeably or one instead of the other.
He did that again in his 2012 speech at the Democratic National Convention.
In that speech Clinton never once used the word “deficit” and never once said the budget was not now in balance, although he did say:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/05/us/politics/transcript-of-bill-clintons-speech-to-the-democratic-national-convention.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Now Obama’s plan did not reduce the “debt”, but only the future “deficit”
Sammy Finkelman (60fff5) — 1/5/2013 @ 5:13 pmThe obvious translation: the President will not agree to any spending cuts, or perhaps just some minor ones, unless taxes are raised even more than was just done.
Now, I thought that the Republicans caved in on the tax increase because going over the fiscal cliff, raising taxes even more and cutting spending, was going to throw us into a recession. Wasn’t that what we were told? Yet, our 44th President has just said that if the Republicans agree to raise taxes even more, then the President will agree to spending cuts. Wouldn’t that be a proposal to do exactly what we were just told would cause another recession?
Of course, I don’t believe President Obama for a second. Yeah, he’d “agree” to spending cuts, if the Republicans would just cave in again on raising taxes on the top producers, but once he got those tax increases, the spending cuts would never materialize. Democrats have pulled this trick on Republicans before, and, like Lucy promising Charlie Brown that she won’t pull the football away this time, they’re perfectly willing to try it again, until they find out that the Republicans aren’t stupid enough to fall for that trick yet again.
The economist Dana (f68855) — 1/5/2013 @ 5:17 pm12. Comment by Jerry (713fb4) — 1/5/2013 @ 3:33 pm
I did a search for sites doing fact checking on the address and none were even available to view much less catch this obvious intentional misdirection by the President of the United States.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/01/05/weekly-address-working-together-new-year-grow-our-economy-and-shrink-our
It’s right there, in the 5th paragraph. You can also get video (and audio)
Speeches and other statements at public appearances by the president of the United States started being posted at whitehouse.gov by Clinton in 1993.
They will disappear from the web site as soon as he’s no longer president and then will be hard to find, but there are some places that will make it their business to archive them, and it might be available through his library.
For the fact a search didn’t work you can blame Google maybe.
I just knew where to find it and just searched for radio (and then weekly) address whitehouse.gov. Then had to click twice I think to get the tanscript.
Sammy Finkelman (60fff5) — 1/5/2013 @ 5:20 pmComment by The economist Dana (f68855) — 1/5/2013 @ 5:17 pm
Yet, our 44th President has just said that if the Republicans agree to raise taxes even more, then the President will agree to spending cuts. Wouldn’t that be a proposal to do exactly what we were just told would cause another recession?
The deficit reduction is less than what would have happened if we went over the fiscal cliff.
Sammy Finkelman (60fff5) — 1/5/2013 @ 5:24 pmOr implemented slower and more gradually.
Sammy Finkelman (60fff5) — 1/5/2013 @ 5:25 pmhe likes to shove food stamps in places they don’t belong
sarahw’s right gird your loins people
happyfeet (5f7f63) — 1/5/2013 @ 5:25 pmLegitimate deductions-medical expenses, job-related expenses, charitable donations, investment expenses-are not loopholes. Further our banking and housing sectors are based on the mortgage and realty tax deductions. If you knock those out you immediately devalue home ownership.Though state income tax deductibilty does allow high tax states to be subsidizied by low tax ones.Note none of the groovy tax credits foir “working poor” like EIC are being cut.
Obama will not cut anything.The GOP has to make a stand. Borrowing 40 cents of every dollar is not going to work. ANd the best way to flank him os to readily end the wars and overseas deployments. In one fell swoop you put the onus on him to cut social spending.And you take away the entire mask on the Left. The Pentagon does waste money. But it’s a fraction of the problem.
Bugg (b32862) — 1/5/2013 @ 5:31 pmAlso, maybe it’s only taxes on the middle class that can cause recessions.
The wealthiest 2% have no use for the extra money – if taxed more they will still spend just about as much on consumer goods, and consumer spending drives the economy. (if we can tease out his economic theory)
By the way, he’s confounding here, “wealth” and “annual income.” I know everybody in Washington does it, but still…
Most people think a millionaire is someone who has a $1 million or more net worth. Obama uses the word to mean someone who reports $1 million worth of income on his or her annual tax return.
Nobody complains about this use of language, since it is to the advantage of real millionaires.
Sammy Finkelman (60fff5) — 1/5/2013 @ 5:32 pmComment by happyfeet (5f7f63) — 1/5/2013 @ 5:25 pm
he likes to shove food stamps in places they don’t belong
That started under Bush and earlier.
Now the thing is, any benefit formula, will either not cover people who need help or will cover people who don’t. If people are not applying for it, it doesn’t mean they are missing things.
Sammy Finkelman (60fff5) — 1/5/2013 @ 5:35 pm22. I don’t know what loopholes he’s talking about that “aren’t available to most Americans.”
I do know that he just took away from higher income people deductions that are available to most Americans.
The only thing he can be talking about is the lower tax rate of dividends and capital gains, if he really means that, which he probably doesn’t.
Now of course there are such things as making “carried interest” equal to capital gains, and maybe some rare deductions or credits like for wind power or something.
Sammy Finkelman (60fff5) — 1/5/2013 @ 5:40 pmBugg, that was one of his promises he made to the Iowa Peace Pledge folk in 2007, that’s like throwing bre’r rabbit, in the briar patch,
If Tom Hayden or even William Ayers were president, would they do anything different,
narciso (3fec35) — 1/5/2013 @ 6:09 pmSammy, less than half own homes, so he mean the mortgage and property tax deductions.
Since he views “most Americans” as “wage slaves” or otherwise victims of the oppressor classes, he probably means charitable deductions and other affectations of the monied few. With bigger government, who needs charity anyway?
Maybe medical deductions since since only a lucky few can afford to pay for medical care (and besides, there’s the ACA).
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 1/5/2013 @ 6:12 pmJust to prove my point, a piece in the Journal says they are considering drawing down forces in Afghanistan, down to 6,000-9,000, if you wanted to recreate the events of 1841, that would be the way to do it,
narciso (3fec35) — 1/5/2013 @ 6:43 pmMaybe he really does want to ruin the economy, just to remake the relationship between the individual and the government in the way he wants.
I’ve often attached to Obama the “Goddamn America” statements of his former close adviser, Jeremiah Wright. A person who was embraced by Obama right up until the bitter end.
Although my citing that relationship is done partly to be flippant or sarcastic, I think it really does say a lot about where the guy now in the White House is coming from. I believe his sentiments are so corrupt and ass-backwards — in which, in his mind, good is bad and bad is good — that I don’t think the paranoia of the rabid anti-Obama crowd (who believe Obama is purposefully trying to crash and trash the US) is necessarily as off-the-wall as it appears at first blush.
Mark (9032f2) — 1/5/2013 @ 7:11 pm“22. I don’t know what loopholes he’s talking about that “aren’t available to most Americans.””
Obama likes to talk as if there are different tax codes that apply to ordinary Americans and another tax code which applies to wealthy Americans. There is not. The same tax code and provisions apply and are available to both. He is just bamboozling people with rhetoric like that. It is the same thing when he talks about large corporations and small businesses.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/5/2013 @ 7:29 pmThis was why the notion that ‘he was in over his head’ as a strategy, seemed flawed, what did we win for that reticence, they rightly took Romney as a chump, and called him some combination of Ebenezer Scrooge and Simon Legree,
narciso (3fec35) — 1/5/2013 @ 7:32 pmI find the best way to avoid profanities when thinking about consider politics is to remind myself of the simple fact that no profanity I know – and I know hundreds in several different languages – and no combination of profanities I know adequately describes the level to which this president and his administration have sunk. His loathsomeness is beyond description.
Even Juvenal’s description of the Emperor Domitian (“When the last of the Flavians was whipping the half-dead world, and Rome was enslaved to a bald Nero . . .”) was inadequate to express my opinion of Obama.
Dr. Weevil (51d72b) — 1/5/2013 @ 7:51 pmWhat did I just write? Change “consider” to “contemporary”.
Dr. Weevil (51d72b) — 1/5/2013 @ 7:52 pmProcopius’s Secret History, suggest some angles, although it’s hard to figure as with Machiavelli, where the truth lay with him,
narciso (3fec35) — 1/5/2013 @ 7:58 pmwe tease him a lot
Colonel Haiku (31c2c5) — 1/5/2013 @ 9:16 pmcuz he put us in a spot
welcome back carter?
The best solution may be a fair tax where everyone pays the same percentage of their income. Everyone has some skin in the game, thus everyone should care how the money is spent.
And get rid of the Narcissist-in-Chief… impeach him for high crimes against the State, if necessary.
Colonel Haiku (31c2c5) — 1/5/2013 @ 9:19 pmI resolved to refrain from profanity while driving for New Year’s. In SoCal! I lasted about as long as you did, Patrick!
As for Obama…he will either overplay his hand and be as loathed as Carter or the people will get what they deserve. I for one will repeat “I told you so” to any bleeting from the Obamabots, and with perhaps some profanity too.
Patricia (be0117) — 1/5/2013 @ 9:37 pmEventually, they will find the “zero-sum game” they think they’ve been playing wasn’t that. The pie can shrink as well as grow, and 100% of 0 is 0.
htom (412a17) — 1/5/2013 @ 9:45 pmYou see, a ‘cash for clunker’ that destroys perfectly workable vehicles and contaminates the environment, good, a way to real energy independence, bad, we are on Bizarro Earth
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/01/05/nebraska-report-keystone-xl-pipeline-poses-minimal-risks/
narciso (3fec35) — 1/5/2013 @ 10:44 pmObama’s just trying to make his base jealous of all those “rich folk” making $30K a year.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 1/6/2013 @ 12:27 amI suspected Obama was so insistent on raising tax rates because he wants to eliminate deductions (aka loopholes) down the road.
During the healthcare debate, he opened the discussion by proposing a healthcare slushfund. During those speeches, he made it sound as if upper income earners got a larger deduction because their deductions were at a higher rate. So, he argued, someone making more gets to deduct his mortgage at a 29% rate while someone making less had to take the deduction at only, say, 12%. This was not fair! He didn’t mention this was because people making more are paying a higher rate.
So I expect more of that.
MayBee (17f9e7) — 1/6/2013 @ 12:39 amPlus, I hear lefties talking about how Social Security could be really easily fixed by eliminating the yearly cap. Which would be a huuuuuge increase, but they don’t mind that.
On topic, just wait for it: Drudge or someone is reporting(haven’t been to SDA or WUWT yet) December last broke the all time record for the month in Northern Hemisphere cold extent.
Russia already is seeing the coldest winter in 70 years, China is entering the deep freeze and yet here in NA snow exends into Mexico. In between, Britain is being drowned.
Last winter in the vast southern MN windfarms, windmills froze up in the cold weather. Not that there’s wind to speak of when we really need it.
Orange ya glad the Senate got us the money laundered via China for windfarms the Dhimmis fund their warchests wit in dat Cliff rescue?
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 1/6/2013 @ 4:45 am42 “Northern Hemisphere snow extent”
Just shoot me now B4 you pay for my hospice care.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 1/6/2013 @ 4:47 amMr Gulrud wrote:
What makes you think that there will be any choice in the matter; the government will have to do that for you, because they won’t be able to pay the bill. And, of course, it’ll have to be the government anyway, since our 44th President wants to take away your ability to have a gun in the first place.
Unless, of course, you are actually a criminal.
The Dana who is not being sarcastic (f68855) — 1/6/2013 @ 5:27 amIt’s not merely stupidity, after the third example we’re talking ‘enemy action’
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/01/the_democrats_war_on_science_aids_our_enemies.html
narciso (3fec35) — 1/6/2013 @ 6:26 amThat’s incorrect. Most people think of millionaires as people who have over 1 million in liquid net worth or people who make enough that they could accumulate that liquid net worth in a few years time. Most do not think of someone that owns a 400k valued home, has a 401k currently valued at 450k, has 150k in normal investment accounts and 30k in the bank in cash reserves as a millionaire no matter what the legal terminology states. That goes even more so for a couple or a family.
NJRob (0ad8a6) — 1/6/2013 @ 8:59 amProblem with the supposed fair tax is what will constitute income? Will there be any deductions? You would be going down the same road as Obama babbling baout loopholes. Again, the entire housing, banking and construction industries are propped by by mortgage interest and realty tax deductions. If yout ake that away you immediatelyt knock down the value of the msot important assed on most middle class families.
At least we got hockey.
Bugg (b32862) — 1/6/2013 @ 9:07 amWe’re in the best of all possible hands;
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/06/opinion/sunday/social-security-its-worse-than-you-think.html?ref=opinion
narciso (3fec35) — 1/6/2013 @ 9:22 amKeep your ammo dry, and close at hand.
askeptic (2bb434) — 1/6/2013 @ 10:32 amThere’s a shiite storm coming, and it won’t be pleasant.
“At least we got hockey.”
I’ll believe it when the first puck drops.
…………………………………….
It’s time to repeal the 16th-Amendment, which will stop all of this arguing about what constitutes income.
Congress can then institute, under the Excise clause, a National Sales Tax taxing consumption of both goods and services.
A wise Congress (contradiction in terms) would pass a Constitutional Amendment realigning the entire tax structure of the country where each level of gov’t – Federal, State, Municipal – would be financed by a unique tax, and only that tax:
askeptic (2bb434) — 1/6/2013 @ 10:39 amFederal/Sales; State/Income; Municipal/Property!
There’s a shiite storm coming, and it won’t be pleasant.
And here the President is saying everything will be sunni.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 1/6/2013 @ 10:47 amBTW, the first bill to repeal the 22nd Amendment has been filed in Congress. Won’t pass this year, or next, but if the midterms are stolen….
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 1/6/2013 @ 10:49 amSF: Most people think a millionaire is someone who has a $1 million or more net worth. Obama uses the word to mean someone who reports $1 million worth of income on his or her annual tax return.
Nobody complains about this use of language, since it is to the advantage of real millionaires.
Comment by NJRob (0ad8a6) — 1/6/2013 @ 8:59 am
That’s incorrect. Most people think of millionaires as people who have over 1 million in liquid net worth or people who make enough that they could accumulate that liquid net worth in a few years time. Most do not think of someone that owns a 400k valued home, has a 401k currently valued at 450k, has 150k in normal investment accounts and 30k in the bank in cash reserves as a millionaire no matter what the legal terminology states. That goes even more so for a couple or a family.
I don’t know if there’s any legal definition. You might say “technical” definition. My dictionary says “whose wealth comes to” And there’s a second definition, just to mean somebody wealthy.
But I think you’re right, and I should correct myself. It’s “liquid net worth” or extra money available for spending. It wouldn’t include the value of a house, because you have to live in a house (unless you go traveling and never have a permanent home)
401ks arose after the word “millionaire” became common. It’s money in reserve and maybe not spendable. So maybe only 150k plus 30k should be counted in a case like that.
That is still less than $1 million of income a year (and Obama does include couples)
He’s arguing like a lawyer who’s decided to take on a case, for whatever reason, without any consideration as to the actual merits of what’s he is arguing for. He’s not reasoning or arguing like an honest person.
Everything he does on the budget is like that.
Sammy Finkelman (60fff5) — 1/6/2013 @ 11:12 amI think there is an official rebuttal to these speeches, but nobody ever argues with any of his background statements.
Sammy Finkelman (60fff5) — 1/6/2013 @ 11:13 amComment by askeptic (2bb434) — 1/6/2013 @ 10:32 am
There’s a shiite storm coming, and it won’t be pleasant.
Comment by Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 1/6/2013 @ 10:47 am
And here the President is saying everything will be sunni.
Or, rather, we only have to worry about China.
Sammy Finkelman (60fff5) — 1/6/2013 @ 11:16 amThe money wasted isn’t the problem. The continued abuse of power and its harmful effects are definitely a BIG problem.
Dirty Old Man (0c7e45) — 1/6/2013 @ 12:21 pm…worry about China.
askeptic (2bb434) — 1/6/2013 @ 12:31 pmIf our economy collapses, it will wipe out most of the foreign assets held by the Chinese.
China should be one of the greatest advocates for a sound, expanding, American economy as that is the only way they will be able to redeem the bonds they hold without taking a severe haircut.
Comment by askeptic (2bb434) — 1/6/2013 @ 10:32 am
There’s a shiite storm coming, and it won’t be pleasant.
Comment by Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 1/6/2013 @ 10:47 am
And here the President is saying everything will be sunni.
Did these sail right over Sammy’s head?
askeptic (2bb434) — 1/6/2013 @ 12:32 pm48.. Yes I saw that article. The projections by the Social Security Department’s Office of Chief Actuary contain patent absurdities.
For instance.
1. In the year 2028, every person then between the ages of 55 and 59 will die. (that is, before they can collect Social Security benefits)
These would be people born between 1969 and 1973.
What are they predicting: A biologically re-engineered smallpox epidemic?
2. People aged 60-64 will also have a somewhat higher then now, and it will exceed deaths in the 65-69, 70-74 and 75-79 age brackets.
3. For all those except those between 55 and 65 death rates will continue to decline. While over 80% of those aged 99-99 now die every year, in the year 2028, it will be barely over 50%. (they all got vaccinated for smallpox)
4. Mortality from strokes and other vascular diseases will drop faster for those aged 65-69 than those aged 60-64 to the point where the lines will cross around the year 2060. Now this contradicts human nature. In general the risk of death doubles for every 8 years gained in age.
Sometimes of course special causes causes fewer deaths proportionally among older people than younger – usually this could happen with some infectious diseases.
5. The actuary does not notice that fewer people are smoking (this costs Social Security money as more people live) and more people are obese (if this leads to deaths, this saves Social Security money)
6. Retirement itself may cause an increase in mortality.
Their calculations are explained at:
http://gking.harvard.edu/gking/publications/statistical-security-social-security
What I say, is that we should assume that the current (dismal) economic projections are any better.
Congressman Jerrold Nadler has said for years Social Security is overfunded (or he used to say it) because it projects low rates of economic growth over time, but this article discusses other peculiarities.
It;s kind of ridiculous to assume that the on;y errors are in regard to health and that they all make the Social Security system look more solvent.
Sammy Finkelman (60fff5) — 1/6/2013 @ 12:49 pmAccording to the Social Security actuary, deaths for people aged 55-59 begin climbing dramatically like a hockey stick, at about the year 2017 or 2018, about the time Obamacare is fully implemented.
The death rate reaches 100% in 2028, but only for that age group.
They rise slightly for those aged 60-64, reaching abut 18% by 2030, at which point the death rate for those aged 75-79 are lower.
I guess the “death panels” will only affect people not receiving Medicare.
Sammy Finkelman (60fff5) — 1/6/2013 @ 12:55 pmSammy disputes the actuary, the Death Panels will confirm.
askeptic (2bb434) — 1/6/2013 @ 1:22 pmI didn’t think the Terminators would be so narrow in their focus,
narciso (3fec35) — 1/6/2013 @ 1:26 pmGraphs and numbers confuse Sammy. He is better with sooper seekrit intelligence.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/6/2013 @ 1:41 pmI agree wholeheartedly.
NJRob (fe68e7) — 1/6/2013 @ 3:07 pmJust remember though that all sides play games with terminology in order to make their side look reasonable and the other side wicked. It just happens that the policies of the President will lead to more economic inactivity and the need for greater government roles in our lives. If you feel that’s appropriate, vote for his party. If you feel otherwise, you’re stuck at the moment.
NJRob (fe68e7) — 1/6/2013 @ 3:09 pmNo, it won’t, because Congress has always had the power to tax wages. The 16th amendment is only about taxing income derived from property, which the Supreme Court decided amounted to taxing property itself; I think today’s court would reject that theory 9-0, but even if it didn’t the vast majority of people get their income from working, and there’s never been any question that Congress can tax that, 16th or no 16th.
Milhouse (15b6fd) — 1/6/2013 @ 8:06 pm