Obama and PSY, the Korean rapper who sang about torturing and killing American troops and their families
If the US were a private company about to go over the cliff, you can bet that its CEO and all the VPs would be gathered in meeting rooms 12 hours a day trying to find a solution. Not so President Obama. As the deadline gets closer and closer to that fiscal cliff (January 1), our president merrily skips off to Pennsylvania (last week) to hold a photo op with some friendly Pennsylvania small business owners, and yesterday to some auto plant in Michigan to speak to his union pals just ahead of a state government vote to pass a right to work law.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/10/police-prepare-for-major-protests-in-michigan-capital-over-union-bill/
And that's not even taking into account that big Hawaiian vacation coming up.
President Obama obviously feels no need to make any concessions whatsoever to the Republicans because he won the election, and he is feeling his oats (and power). Meanwhile, the Republicans are predictably crumbling from within and will in all likelihood give Obama that tax increase on the filthy rich who make over $250,000 a year no matter what the effect on small businesses, hiring and all that. Never mind that the top 10% already pay 70% of all taxes; the government needs more. Never mind that raising the taxes on all those who earn over $250,000 will only keep the government running 8 1/2 more days. It's fair-just like Karl Marx told us it was. If you think I am implying that President Obama is a Marxist, you are right. He is.
But Obama is not dumb. He knows he is dismantling this country brick by brick. I don't think he cares if the country goes over the fiscal cliff on January 1. Let the country collapse. That way, he and his friends in the Democratic party can rebuild it the way they want it.
12 comments:
Does this guy ever WORK? He has some trip or two, it seems, every single day. There are vacations every month to six weeks. I've read that when he actually comes to the office, he strolls in late in the morning and asks "What's up?" There are all the reports of committee and briefings that he just doesn't show up for.
He reminds me of the guy who shows up at the buffet table and fills his pockets up with the dinner rolls and takes all he can while he has the chance.
Obama is an amateur! There is a book about him with that title that I recommend.
.
I cannot, and do not, claim to be any kind of economist; I must not be one, since there is just so much of this stuff I simply do not understand. Here’s one.
All this talk of tax increases for “the rich” sounds great to some. In terms of defecit reduction, given the comparatively small amount of money we are talking about, it would take 40 or more additional similar such actions in a given year just to balance the budget for that year only, and that would be “iff“ (that‘s math speak for “if and only if“, or at least used to be) there was no additional spending, which there would be.
If the additional revenues were “saved” to apply to the defecit, and again “iff” we did not increase spending by another cent, it would still take more than 40 years to balance the budget. In terms of debt reduction, it would take more than 160 years of “saving” of these revenues just to pay off the current debt, again “iff” they were all applied toward the debt and “iff” we incurred no further debt during that 160 years, which we would.
Makes the referenced tax increases only a drop in the bucket (less than 2.5% of the current Federal budget). Why bother with such a small-scale effort??
Further, the referenced tax cuts were extended in 2010 until I believe Jan. 2013, based primarily/totally on the weakness of the economy. The lame duck Congress, both houses of which were still controlled by Dems, passed the legislation and Obama, a Dem, signed it into law. What is different in 2012 contrasted to 2010?? Nothing at all. If Dems believed in 2010 that tax cut extensions were appropriate, and they obviously did, the economy has not appreciably improved, and most certainly not sufficiently, to make them really believe that expiration of the cuts is appropriate now. So their motivation is obviously elsewhere.
Here’s another one. Whenever libs/Dems are forced to consider/talk about spending cuts, they invariably associate them with tax increases in some set ratio to cuts ($1 dollar of
new taxes for every $3 of spending cuts, etc.). They appear to be insisting on this process this time, and will almost certainly get it.
The problems are at least twofold. First, the new tax revenues are usually spent on programs and the promised spending cuts very rarely, if in fact ever, kick in. Second, if you use real world eighth-grade math, a $1 trillion tax increase which is spent on programs rather on than being applied to the debt/defecit (which it would not be), coupled with a $3 trillion spending cut, is actually precisely the equivalent of a stand-alone $2 trillion spending cut. Fiscally and economically speaking, the end result would be exactly the same, no??
Why, then, would we go through the monkey-motion of having both, instead of just cutting spending and not even bothering to implement tax increases which are unnecessary to the stated objective?? To give libs/Dems the opportunity to continue to practice class/race warfare and to engage in what I call the “three Ps” (posturing, pandering, and pimping), that’s why.
Another reason to focus on the mantra of "tax the rich" instead of dealing with the spending is that Obama believes he can get the Republicans to cave and then they will have broken their pledges to their constituents. That will give them problems in their primaries. Obama also wants Republican participation on the economic disaster that is sure to follow.
As he originally told Joe the Plumber, taxing is not about revenue to the government, it is about FAIRNESS.
Tax the Rich happens to appeal to many people who don't pay any income taxes anyway so it is all to his political advantage.
.
Gary, when you have read more than ten pages of Karl Marx, come back to your idle, intellectually lazy characterization. Although excessive focus on the particular writings of Karl Marx is badly overdone (Marx once said "I am not a Marxist), I WISH Obama was the socialist he is claimed to be.
Republicans have been psychopathically obstructionist at every turn. Our President needs to wear them down and press them to the wall, although he will have to give them some concessions. We could go over the fiscal cliff, then introduce a bill to REDUCE taxes at lower income rates. Let them oppose THAT.
elwood: Never mind the fine theorizing. You're right that its hard to make sense of it. Take a simple fact: Before the Bush tax cuts, we were starting to pay DOWN our national debt. We would do well to get back to that position.
True, EVERYONE was paying more back then. Perhaps its politically untenable to honestly announce that we ALL have to pay more. But starting with those who benefited most from the bubble is a start. You don't impress me as a man who owns three luxury homes and two yachts... why does your heart bleed so for those who do? They can well afford to pay more.
My idea of a thorough reform would be:
EVERYONE gets the first $20,000 of income tax free.
Income over $2 million a year is taxed at 50%.
Have three to four brackets in between, graduated roughly at 10% 20% 30% 40%.
In time of war, authorize a surcharge of 1-3 % on EVERYONE.
A graduated surcharge of 1-5 percent dedicated exclusively to paying down debt.
The federal budget must balance over a period of 25 years. (Deficits during downturns must be compensated by paying donw debt during more prosperous times.)
I haven't heard any Republicans talking like that. Not much from Democrats either.
Siarlys,
I'll bet you've read more than 10 pages of Marx as had Obama.
Do you really think anybody in Wash will pay down the debt with more $$? You could confiscate all the wealth of the millionaires, and billionaires and it won't come close to paying down the debt.
I should hate people who earned their $$ honestly? I think you have fallen for Obama's class warfare.
Siarlys--no theory, just facts.
If we are to go over the fiscal cliff and then reduce taxes, why would we simply not just reduce taxes immediately and not, as I said, go through the monkey motion. Fine example (classic, actually) of the aforementioned three P’s at work again.
Try this. I don’t see what could possibly be fairer or more equitable than to have people such as yourself, who want higher taxes and more government, pay higher taxes than people like me, who would like to see lower taxes and smaller government. It is entirely self-serving, not to mention intellectually dishonest, for people to to demand higher taxes and have me pay them rather than themselves. Given the fairly equal distribution of ideologies/political positions, the revenue generated from this change should be close to what is now raised, so there would be little if any change in that regard.
My idea of reform is, not too surprisingly, quite different from yours. To demonstrate, instead of all paying more, suppose that we keep the tax brackets just as they are and use the 15% bracket as an example. Generally speaking, and not without exception (what is??), those who vote Democratic support the concepts of higher taxes/more government spending, while those who vote Republican support just the opposite.
So, in every presidential election year, let those who do not vote pay at the 15% rate, those who vote Democratic pay at 18%, and those who vote Republican pay at 12%, for the next four (4) years, until the next election. Treat the other brackets similarly. Simply explain these options on the tax forms and instructions. As stated above, the revenue generated should essentially be the same. Those who do not care would pay at their current rate. Those who want higher taxes would get what they want, as would those who want lower taxes. Again, as stated above, what could be fairer??
The only problem I see is that the results would MOST LIKELY indicate either massive tax fraud and/or equally massive voter fraud. For example, in a year when a Democrat was elected as president, far fewer people would voluntarily file at the 18% rate, and would instead file at the 12% rate, than voter records would show actually voting for the victor, meaning that either the Republican was actually the winner or that Democrats were criminally evading (not avoiding) taxes.
This would easily be handled by having Social Security numbers, which are Quite frequently currently used as identification for other than Social Security matters also serve as voter registration numbers. This would ease comparison of who voted for what.
Oh, I know it might infringe a little bit on the secret ballot. As far as I can determine, none of our rights are either absolute or, the Declaration of Independence notwithstanding, unalienable. Given how other rights are infringed (voting, gun ownership, abortion, free speech, etc.) this would appear to be a small price to pay to finally have a fair and equitable tax code. As a secondary effect, it might even actually help to reduce voter fraud separate from tax issues.
Lastly, you are correct that it is politically untenable to honestly announce that we ALL have to pay more. However, we are fast approaching, and will soon, reach the point where more people will not pay Federal income taxes than do. I happen to believe this is intolerable. We fought one bloody revolution in part due to “taxation without representation”. Where we are headed is the exact opposite, namely “representation without taxation”. If one is worth a war, is not the other equally worth it??
No. It's racism that's still alive in America!
Bush was a worse liar. Bush Jr AND Sr. Reagan too. Clinton lied about the affair. But when Clinton lied, no one died.
Barack does not lie every time he opens his mouth. He breaths sometimes. And he has to eat, like everyone else.
Barack isn't evil. Of course Romney's base wants us to believe that because they love the principle of stealing from the poor and giving to the rich that Romney represents.
Obama cannot be impeached for Benghazi. However, he may give Lindsay graham a career upgrade which he has badly needed for years now.
It’s no mystery here that I’ve been critical of many of Obama’s policies, however, I have spoken out when he has been unfairly characterized or treated by the right-wing media or absurd wing-nuts (some of whom post on this blog) in a variety of ways which contradict each other, and NONE of which Obama is: Liberal, Marxist, Communist, Socialist, A Muslim, anti-American, not American, gay, traitor, Usurper, an Enemy of America, a Racist, a Narcissist, a Liar, and on and on.
You disgusting hypocrite racists have called this man Saboteur in Chief, filthy Muslim, communist, socialist, dictator, gay, anti-America, un-American, evil man, (since when did we start referring to our President in this manner?) yet he has been re-elected by majority electoral votes as well as popular vote. He was dealt a very difficult hand in 2008 but fulfilled many promises — Bin Laden is dead, creation of jobs, our troops are coming home and his greatest promise fulfilled — health care for all Americans. And he accomplished this while having to listen to constant doubts about his birthplace and his religion.
I mean, if you listen to the implications of opponents of Obama, he’s out to destroy America and make us all dependent on the government. Who, in their right mind, believes this? It’s nonsense. He has a different view of government’s role in society than his opponents, that’s it. I’ve seen nothing in his actions, or his words, that suggest or even hint towards his desire to become a dictator, his belief that he knows better than everyone, or that he wants to see America fail.
It's obvious t you racists Conservatives that if anyone doesn't think, or look like you that must mean they hate America? That can't be further from the truth!
Neither ME or Barack Obama are racists. He had a white mother he loved. YOU a-holes are the racists.
So in closing, you hypocritical racists are in NO position to be calling Barack Obama a liar of any kind, when for the last four years, he has faced constant, unrelenting, mean-spirited, dishonest criticism since before he took office and every day since. His patriotism has been questioned by every member of the right wing echo chamber especially FoxNews and Rush Limbaugh, every single day he has served. He has been called a socialist, communist, Nazi, Marxist, traitor, foreign, un-American, liar, magic negro, halfrican and worse. He has suffered innumerable lies about his ideology, religion, family and even his place of birth. No other president in the history of this country has faced such unfounded open hostility and disrespect. No other president has ever been called a liar by a member of congress during a State of the Union, no other president has had to show his birth certificate…repeatedly.
These ignorant, baseless and hateful attacks on Obama have led to him winning two elections - you guys aren't real quick learners are you?
'But when Clinton lied, no one died.'
Wow. There have been a lot of lies about Benghazi and Fast and Furious, and people did die.
But, of course, any time somebody criticizes Obama, it's racism.
PS to Anonymous
I orirginally didn't realize you had such a long-winded comment, so I will address a couple of your other "points".
1 You have never seen me write anything doubting that Obama was born in the US or that he is a Muslim.
Secondly, you really overplay that racist tag to the point that people don't pay attention to it anymore. The criticism of Obama, at least by me, is that he is leading this country down a Marxist path that will destroy this country and our freedoms. His cabinet members are incompetent boobs, and things like what happened in benghazi and Fast and Furious at the very least border on criminality.
But any criticism of Obama's policies is instantly met with charges of racism.
Don't put any tags on me because of what others out there have said. I will stand by and defend whatever I say on this blog and sign my name to it. (Unlike you). If you can point to something I have said about Obama or Eric Holder or anyone else, bring it on and I will defend it. Same goes if you want to call me a sexist for my criticisms of H Clinton, Janet Napolitano, nancy pelosi and whomever else you want to talk about.
Oh, and that Magic Negro stuff was coined by a black LA Times writer. Rush Limbaugh picked it up and played a parody song of it.
Y'all should read more history instead of contemplating the inside of your own minds. Cry me a river about the "honest" income earned by those who grew rich on the bubble, then grew rich again on the collapse.
Yes, I've read volumes,of Marx, also Lenin, so I know far better than you in what manner each is flawed. I also know better than you what might reasonably make a man fairly characterized as a Marxist. There's not much you've accused Obama of that wasn't pioneered by Otto von Bismarck. Not my favorite guy. but no Marxist, and more a persecutor of Catholics than Jews.
Before FDR, income taxes were paid by about 20% of the population. Nobody suggested disfranchising all the rest.
elwood: the monkey motion is emanating from the Republicans. After going over the cliff, they will have less room to dither.
Do you really think anybody in Wash will pay down the debt with more $$?
Clinton did exactly that. What truly embarrasses my mother, a life-long Republican, is the flagrant deficit spending by every Republican administration since 1981. But "Reagan proved deficits don't matter," right?
We have a Dem in the White House, the Dems control the Senate, but Siarlys will blame the Republicans.
Yes, Gary, those who obstruct and lie are generally the more blameworthy.
Post a Comment