PDA

View Full Version : General Politics Obama lubing up the Middle Class


ChiefaRoo
02-11-2010, 09:18 AM
Spread your asscheeks Obama voters he's coming for you.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-02-11/obama-agnostic-on-deficit-cuts-won-t-prejudge-tax-increases.html

Prejudge Tax Increases

Feb. 11 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama said he is “agnostic” about raising taxes on households making less than $250,000 as part of a broad effort to rein in the budget deficit.

Obama, in a Feb. 9 Oval Office interview, said that a presidential commission on the budget needs to consider all options for reducing the deficit, including tax increases and cuts in spending on entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare.

“The whole point of it is to make sure that all ideas are on the table,” the president said in the interview with Bloomberg BusinessWeek, which will appear on newsstands Friday. “So what I want to do is to be completely agnostic, in terms of solutions.”

Obama repeatedly vowed during the 2008 presidential election campaign that he would not raise taxes on individuals making less than $200,000 and households earning less than $250,000 a year. When senior White House economic adviser Lawrence H. Summers and Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner suggested in August that the administration might be open to going back on that pledge, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs quickly reiterated the president’s promise.

In the interview, Obama said that putting preconditions on the agenda of a bipartisan advisory commission, which he said he would soon establish, would just undermine its purpose.

“What I can’t do is to set the thing up where a whole bunch of things are off the table,” Obama said. “Some would say we can’t look at entitlements. There are going to be some that say we can’t look at taxes, and pretty soon, you just can’t solve the problem.”



Politically Risky



Many economists, including conservatives such as former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, argue that tax increases will be necessary as part of a broad package to control the deficit, which the White House projects will hit a record $1.6 trillion in the fiscal year ending on Sept. 30.

Obama said the U.S. was faced with a “structural deficit” that was in place before the recession began and that was only made worse by the deepest drop in the economy since the 1930s.



Revenue ‘Mismatch’



“Our real problem is not the spike in spending last year, or the lost, even the lost revenues last year, as significant as those are,” he said. “The real problem has to do with the fact that there is a just a mismatch between the amount of money coming in and the amount of money going out. And that is going to require some big, tough choices that, so far, the political system has been unable to deal with.”

The administration hopes the bipartisan commission will make it easier to produce a comprehensive plan to reduce the budget gap to a sustainable level, often described as 3 percent of the overall economy, by 2015.

The White House decided to set up the group on its own after the Senate blocked a measure to establish a congressional panel whose recommendations would have been guaranteed a vote by lawmakers. Opponents, including a majority of Senate Republicans, complained that the plan would result in tax increases and that Congress wouldn’t have a chance to amend the panel’s recommendations. Under a presidentially appointed commission, Congress could ignore any panel recommendations.



Republican Skepticism



House Republican leader John Boehner has expressed skepticism about the Obama commission and has sought assurances from the White House that its makeup would be bipartisan and not predisposed to tax increases. The Ohio Republican said he is still considering whether to appoint members from his party to the panel after a Feb. 9 meeting with the president.

The Obama administration’s budget already takes that route with its proposed $970 billion tax increase over the next decade on Americans earning more than $200,000 a year, largely by not extending former President George W. Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy beyond 2010.

Even with those revenues -- and a proposed three-year freeze on some discretionary spending by the government -- the administration still projects a deficit of $752 billion in 2015, equivalent to 3.9 percent of gross domestic product.

That’s above the 3 percent mark that White House budget director Peter Orszag has said is necessary to stop the rise in government debt as a proportion of the economy.



Budget Gap



Analysts say that middle-class taxes will need to be increased because the government can’t raise enough money from the wealthy alone to close the budget gap. “It’s just not possible to get the revenue you need only from this group,” said Joel Slemrod, director of the Office of Tax Policy Research at the University of Michigan.

Going back on his campaign pledge would be fraught with risks for Obama. Former President George H.W. Bush paid a steep political price when he abandoned his 1988 campaign promise not to raise taxes, losing out in his bid for a second term to Bill Clinton.

petegz28
02-11-2010, 09:18 AM
Yeah, I caught this yesterday. He is setting himself up for a "Read my lips" moment.

ChiefaRoo
02-11-2010, 09:21 AM
Yeah, I caught this yesterday. He is setting himself up for a "Read my lips" moment.

This is getting to the point of being ridiculous. What's going to happen first? Is Obama going to severely damage the US economy via punitive taxation and out of control spending or is he going to get crushed in the elections? Either way there's going to be a heck of a lot of damage. It's a lose lose for the American people.

petegz28
02-11-2010, 09:23 AM
This is getting to the point of being ridiculous. What's going to happen first? Is Obama going to severely damage the US economy via punitive taxation and out of control spending or is he going to get crushed in the elections? Either way there's going to be a heck of a lot of damage. It's a lose lose for the American people.

He just continues to display that he is in over his head. This is not community organizing. But that is the way he approaches everything. And now all of his rhetoric is going to come back to haunt him.

ChiefaRoo
02-11-2010, 09:24 AM
He just continues to display that he is in over his head. This is not community organizing. But that is the way he approaches everything. And now all of his rhetoric is going to come back to haunt him.

It makes me sick to my stomach.

fan4ever
02-11-2010, 09:25 AM
Yeah, I caught this yesterday. He is setting himself up for a "Read my lips" moment.

Lucky for him a large portion of his constituency can't read.

banyon
02-11-2010, 09:28 AM
Right. Open no preconditions discussion = raising taxes on the middle class.

Yeah. Somehow.

petegz28
02-11-2010, 09:36 AM
Right. Open no preconditions discussion = raising taxes on the middle class.

Yeah. Somehow.

Didn't he say he would not rais taxes on the middle class a gazillion times? Now he won't rule it out?

He said it, no one made him.

BucEyedPea
02-11-2010, 09:41 AM
He just continues to display that he is in over his head. This is not community organizing. But that is the way he approaches everything. And now all of his rhetoric is going to come back to haunt him.

Pssst! Obama is run by others.

HonestChieffan
02-11-2010, 09:42 AM
The simple fact that he may be coming to understand is that with his profligate spending and the lack of a positive economic recovery we are in deep deep poo poo.

The only way to manage the deficit and address our growing debt is to seek ways to increase tax revenue. He Has to look at the tax tables and ask why are all these taxable dollars not beeing taxed...in the case of the number of wage earners who pay zero Fed Income Tax, and He has to be looking at the under 250 grand folks and come to grips with they cannot get a pass either and see the opportunity to get money there.

That is if he continues on the current path of just throwing money out and hoping a job increase occurs.

He seeminly is not willing to look at incentives to business and removing impediments to growth as a fix. So he has to look to taxes to pay for his spending.

As we watch the fallout on state and locals this thing is getting major ugly. When states like Kansas tell School districts like Olathe that they will get cut by millions on state aid the soccer moms and the upwardly mobile dads are going to get very very upset. They will have to pay up on the tax side to keep Olathe on a level budget...and thats middle class, upper class, lower class, and no class...everyone.

banyon
02-11-2010, 09:56 AM
Didn't he say he would not rais taxes on the middle class a gazillion times? Now he won't rule it out?

He said it, no one made him.

No, he said the discussion would be open. It has nothing do with his position on anything.

petegz28
02-11-2010, 09:57 AM
No, he said the discussion would be open. It has nothing do with his position on anything.

LMAO, ok.

One day "I will not raise taxes on anyone who makes under $250k"

The next day "I will keep an open mind on raising taxes on people who make under $250k".

Sounds like a position change to me.

Chiefshrink
02-11-2010, 09:58 AM
Yeah, I caught this yesterday. He is setting himself up for a "Read my lips" moment.

Obama is then indirectly admitting he is a 1 termer and will do as much as possible to destroy "EVIL WHITE CAPITALISTIC AMERICA THE EMPIRE" he blames for all of the world's ills:rolleyes::shake:

ChiefaRoo
02-11-2010, 09:58 AM
The simple fact that he may be coming to understand is that with his profligate spending and the lack of a positive economic recovery we are in deep deep poo poo.

The only way to manage the deficit and address our growing debt is to seek ways to increase tax revenue. He Has to look at the tax tables and ask why are all these taxable dollars not beeing taxed...in the case of the number of wage earners who pay zero Fed Income Tax, and He has to be looking at the under 250 grand folks and come to grips with they cannot get a pass either and see the opportunity to get money there.

That is if he continues on the current path of just throwing money out and hoping a job increase occurs.

He seeminly is not willing to look at incentives to business and removing impediments to growth as a fix. So he has to look to taxes to pay for his spending.

As we watch the fallout on state and locals this thing is getting major ugly. When states like Kansas tell School districts like Olathe that they will get cut by millions on state aid the soccer moms and the upwardly mobile dads are going to get very very upset. They will have to pay up on the tax side to keep Olathe on a level budget...and thats middle class, upper class, lower class, and no class...everyone.

The problem with adding taxes is it's a job killer. No new jobs means less tax revenue. It's a vicious circle.

We need to stimulate the businesses that create jobs that then produce revenue for the economy. You don't do that by giving tax credits for businesses to hire. They will only hire when they have the orders required to add people to their business. It's a fine line but we must get our businesses growing again. I know several companies that employed 300 to 500 employees pre-recession that are now 200 and 350 employees strong. When the credit dried up people quit buying from them and they had to lay off good people. The first stimulus needs to be re-done to target industry. Now, the President is killing the recovery by proposing more mis-directed stimulus with dollars the treasury has to borrow. Long term this is a recipe for disaster. Private industry will lead us out of this disaster as long as the Govt. doesn't choke it to death.

KC Dan
02-11-2010, 10:00 AM
LMAO, ok.

One day "I will not raise taxes on anyone who makes under $250k"

The next day "I will keep an open mind on raising taxes on people who make under $250k".

Sounds like a position change to me.This argument is all moot. He has already raised taxes on the middle class. Ask the middle class people who smoke if he raised taxes on them.

If someone truly thinks that BO is pro-business, I have a bridge that needs a buyer.. Expecting employers to hire for a $5,000 tax credit in this economy shows how business-ignorant this admin really is.

banyon
02-11-2010, 10:03 AM
LMAO, ok.

One day "I will not raise taxes on anyone who makes under $250k"

The next day "I will keep an open mind on raising taxes on people who make under $250k".

Sounds like a position change to me.

He didn't say he would keep an open mind on it. You made that up.

He said he would not make other people in a discussion agree to agree with him on it beforehand. You stretched that to get where you wanted to go with it.

HonestChieffan
02-11-2010, 10:13 AM
The problem with adding taxes is it's a job killer. No new jobs means less tax revenue. It's a vicious circle.

We need to stimulate the businesses that create jobs that then produce revenue for the economy. You don't do that by giving tax credits for businesses to hire. They will only hire when they have the orders required to add people to their business. It's a fine line but we must get our businesses growing again. I know several companies that employed 300 to 500 employees pre-recession that are now 200 and 350 employees strong. When the credit dried up people quit buying from them and they had to lay off good people. The first stimulus needs to be re-done to target industry. Now, the President is killing the recovery by proposing more mis-directed stimulus with dollars the treasury has to borrow. Long term this is a recipe for disaster. Private industry will lead us out of this disaster as long as the Govt. doesn't choke it to death.

I agree 100%.

The really hard part for our local governments to deal with is the huge shortfalls in taxable revenue for schools, roads, and all the other things our sales taxes go for. Without spending, there is no sales tax revenue. This is sort of trickle down economics in reverse...when the federal government screws up this bad the impact on a local school is big time. What Obama is doing is saying Fed wont tax this or that, Fed wont raise taxes on this person or that....but in the end taxes will have to rise on everyone through sales taxes, property taxes, state income taxes or whatever....he transfers the blame but the result is bad for all.

ChiefaRoo
02-11-2010, 10:22 AM
I agree 100%.

The really hard part for our local governments to deal with is the huge shortfalls in taxable revenue for schools, roads, and all the other things our sales taxes go for. Without spending, there is no sales tax revenue. This is sort of trickle down economics in reverse...when the federal government screws up this bad the impact on a local school is big time. What Obama is doing is saying Fed wont tax this or that, Fed wont raise taxes on this person or that....but in the end taxes will have to rise on everyone through sales taxes, property taxes, state income taxes or whatever....he transfers the blame but the result is bad for all.

You're right. It's like an air bubble that gets put into the line and travels all throughout the free market.

The people need to put a lot of new leaders in Congress that will tackle these issues. We need free market capitalists in power in the House and the Senate. They can then put together proper budgets, bills etc that will reign in spending over time and get the US industrial base going again. Then Obama can sign it and claim victory. At this point I don't care about the politics and who gets credit. We need to get the economy moving and you can't do it with the Congress we have.

fan4ever
02-11-2010, 10:27 AM
He didn't say he would keep an open mind on it. You made that up.

He said he would not make other people in a discussion agree to agree with him on it beforehand. You stretched that to get where you wanted to go with it.

But there's a convenient disconnect there. Is he going to now defend his promise with "I didn't raise your taxes...somebody else did"? If he doesn't veto any bill that raises middle class taxes, isn't that going against his promise?

banyon
02-11-2010, 10:28 AM
But there's a convenient disconnect there. Is he going to now defend his promise with "I didn't raise your taxes...somebody else did"? If he doesn't veto any bill that raises middle class taxes, isn't that going against his promise?

There's no indication yet that any of that is going to happen. There's a convenient "jumping the gun" there.

wild1
02-11-2010, 10:30 AM
This argument is all moot. He has already raised taxes on the middle class. Ask the middle class people who smoke if he raised taxes on them.


I don't care about those idiots.

Rather than focusing on that, why don't we focus on the fact that they try to hide behind the canard that he hasn't stretched the middle class thinner through taxation, when in reality they just tax up the line and those costs get passed on to the consumer.

All roads lead to Rome; eventually, the main body of the spending forces in the economy pay all bills. Socialist medicine, cap and trade, all these things that he wants will be paid for by the middle class. All the rest is just political cover.

HonestChieffan
02-11-2010, 10:31 AM
There's no indication yet that any of that is going to happen. There's a convenient "jumping the gun" there.

That is true. It has not happened yet.

But you have to agree looking forward all taxing bodies are impacted by this economy and most cannot deficit spend. Either services are cut or taxes have to increase.

BigRedChief
02-11-2010, 10:34 AM
There's no indication yet that any of that is going to happen. There's a convenient "jumping the gun" there.Happens all the time here. Some blogger posts "this" is goona happen and its taken as fact. Obama says he's not dictating terms before any talks can even start = Raise taxes on the middle class.:doh!:

ChiefaRoo
02-11-2010, 10:35 AM
There's no indication yet that any of that is going to happen. There's a convenient "jumping the gun" there.

I don't agree banyon. The middle class is the largest group of people in the US. They have, as a group, the most money available. With these deficits it seems to me to be inevetible unless the Govt. goes on a major diet which isn't going to happen with it's current leadership.

Brock
02-11-2010, 10:41 AM
This guy is really not impressing anyone.

Brock
02-11-2010, 10:45 AM
I'm becoming agnostic about his reelection chances.

banyon
02-11-2010, 10:46 AM
That is true. It has not happened yet.

But you have to agree looking forward all taxing bodies are impacted by this economy and most cannot deficit spend. Either ShamWow!s are cut or taxes have to increase.

Shamwows? What?

Brock
02-11-2010, 10:48 AM
Shamwows? What?

I don't know what's going on with this board.

Donger
02-11-2010, 10:48 AM
Right. Open no preconditions discussion = raising taxes on the middle class.

Yeah. Somehow.

I suppose what he said and pledged during the campaign was just, what, a guess?

He stated during the campaign that taxes would not increase on anyone making less than $200,000 (or couples making less than $250,000). Period.

banyon
02-11-2010, 10:48 AM
I suppose what he said and pledged during the campaign was just, what, a guess?

He stated during the campaign that taxes would not increase on anyone making less than $200,000 (or couples making less than $250,000). Period.

Great. He hasn't said anything contrary to that to date either.

Donger
02-11-2010, 10:49 AM
Shamwows? What?

S e r v i c e s

banyon
02-11-2010, 10:50 AM
S e r v i c e s

We need to get rid of that filter, that's too common a word.

DaFace? Anyone?

Donger
02-11-2010, 10:50 AM
Great. He hasn't said anything contrary to that to date either.

I disagree.

During campaign = no new taxes on the middle class.

Now = agnostic toward increasing taxes.

You really don't see the shift?

banyon
02-11-2010, 10:51 AM
I disagree.

During campaign = no new taxes on the middle class.

Now = agnostic toward increasing taxes.

You really don't see the shift?

It's interesting that the quote is actually "agnostic toward solutions" and then the first line of the article links that to "agnostic toward taxes" to make the conclusionary jump, much as you have done here.

Brock
02-11-2010, 10:52 AM
I disagree.

During campaign = no new taxes on the middle class.

Now = agnostic toward increasing taxes.

You really don't see the shift?

I like how he couches it in terms that the guy on the street is like WTF does that mean?

dirk digler
02-11-2010, 10:58 AM
I disagree.

During campaign = no new taxes on the middle class.

Now = agnostic toward increasing taxes.

You really don't see the shift?

This is what he said on Super Bowl Sunday, 5 days ago.

Now, the honest assessment is this. We had a big structural deficit even before the recession. The recession made it much worse. We're not gonna solve this overnight. And we don't want to either raise taxes or drastically slash government spending while the economy's still fragile. If Democrats and Republicans come together in a sensible way, putting everything on the table, not trying to position themselves politically ahead of time, then there's no reason why we can't start putting in place some serious measures that will start driving the deficit down long term.

Donger
02-11-2010, 11:01 AM
It's interesting that the quote is actually "agnostic toward solutions" and then the first line of the article links that to "agnostic toward taxes" to make the conclusionary jump, much as you have done here.

Well, what do you think he means by "solutions"? Are you suggesting that one of those solutions is not raising taxes on those he pledged not to?

Donger
02-11-2010, 11:02 AM
This is what he said on Super Bowl Sunday, 5 days ago.

Yes, Obama the Deficit Hawk.

dirk digler
02-11-2010, 11:07 AM
Yes, Obama the Deficit Hawk.

Notice he said he doesn't want to raise taxes?

He also said he wants all ideas on the table which is what was quoted in the OP. I don't see a problem with that.

Donger
02-11-2010, 11:08 AM
Notice he said he doesn't want to raise taxes?

Oh, of course he doesn't WANT to. He HAS to because of what he inherited.

Donger
02-11-2010, 11:09 AM
He also said he wants all ideas on the table which is what was quoted in the OP. I don't see a problem with that.

Because it's contradictory to what he pledged during the campaign, silly.

dirk digler
02-11-2010, 11:09 AM
Oh, of course he doesn't WANT to. He HAS to because of what he inherited.

I don't think that will work like it did with Clinton this time.

dirk digler
02-11-2010, 11:12 AM
Because it's contradictory to what he pledged during the campaign, silly.

What? You have a link to show that he campaigned on a bipartisan fiscal commission?

Donger
02-11-2010, 11:13 AM
What? You have a link to show that he campaigned on a bipartisan fiscal commission?

No, this is what he campaigned on:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/cJ5fOsyj-bk&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/cJ5fOsyj-bk&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

wild1
02-11-2010, 11:14 AM
You have to be an Olympic gymnast to act like this guy is consistent with how he's presented himself in the past, or to say he's been effective at getting anything positive done.

dirk digler
02-11-2010, 11:21 AM
No, this is what he campaigned on:

<object height="344" width="425">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/cJ5fOsyj-bk&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="344" width="425"></object>

I know what he said about taxes but he is talking about the fiscal commission and having everything on the table. You could say that means more tax cuts are possible.

Donger
02-11-2010, 11:25 AM
I know what he said about taxes but he is talking about the fiscal commission and having everything on the table. You could say that means more tax cuts are possible.

It could mean that he's going to pull a monkey out of his butt. But, which do you think is more likely?

1) He's going to raise taxes in order to lower the deficit?

2) He's going to cut taxes in order to lower the deficit?

HonestChieffan
02-11-2010, 11:33 AM
One wonders what this "fiscal commission" is. Historically, commissions have been used to do study and file reports. They have no power. They make no decisions. They can do and implement zero.

Will they come forth with illumination on Cash flow? Such things as Income is a shortfall compared to the outgo leading to annual deficits. These deficits contribute to our debt.

Perhaps insight will flow regarding tax rates, taxable events, tax revenue. Or even on expences and the need to contain spending.

It seems logical that we need a commission to do this. The office of the treasurer cannot be so burdened. The Fed wouldn't have the people and staff to do this. The CBO is surely busy in other ways.

My favorite was the Grace Commission. They did an incredible job looking into how to make government more efficient and effective. Peter Grace headed it and the information they found was astounding. They showed the waste and took it to the level of reccomendation on most, many were zero cost fixes.

Muh ballyho was associated with the final report. It was never seen again.

There was the 9-11 commision. A rewarding effort.
There was the Warren commission. Much good here.


Commissions are the best example known of the old line, "look busy and maybe they won't see us doing nothing".

dirk digler
02-11-2010, 11:36 AM
It could mean that he's going to pull a monkey out of his butt. But, which do you think is more likely?

1) He's going to raise taxes in order to lower the deficit?

2) He's going to cut taxes in order to lower the deficit?

An honest answer would be 1 but I don't think it is politically feasible. This is a presidential commission so that is not going to shield him politically if he did raise taxes.

Donger
02-11-2010, 11:38 AM
An honest answer would be 1 but I don't think it is politically feasible. This is a presidential commission so that is not going to shield him politically if he did raise taxes.

Thanks for the honesty. Now, if he did work to raise taxes on those making less than $200,000, would that be a contradiction of what he promised during the campaign?

dirk digler
02-11-2010, 11:40 AM
Thanks for the honesty. Now, if he did work to raise taxes on those making less than $200,000, would that be a contradiction of what he promised during the campaign?

It would contradict everything. Like I said earlier Bill Clinton pulled it off I don't think Obama can.

BigRedChief
02-11-2010, 12:00 PM
It would contradict everything. Like I said earlier Bill Clinton pulled it off I don't think Obama can.No way. He won't raise taxes on housholds making less than $250K. It's not politically or economically neccessary at this point.

HonestChieffan
02-11-2010, 12:04 PM
No way. He won't raise taxes on housholds making less than $250K. It's not politically or economically neccessary at this point.

Will state and local governments have to?

wild1
02-11-2010, 12:06 PM
No way. He won't raise taxes on housholds making less than $250K. It's not politically or economically neccessary at this point.

You've already bought into this idea he's peddling that if he doesn't raise personal income taxes on that particular bracket, the government isn't squeezing the middle class for more money.

He's trying to hide behind layers, but it's average people who would pay the end costs of any of his major proposals.

patteeu
02-11-2010, 01:39 PM
Right. Open no preconditions discussion = raising taxes on the middle class.

Yeah. Somehow.

Do you think that everyone with incomes below $250,000 per year will be paying the same or less in taxes at the end of BO's first term as they were at the start of his term?

DJ's left nut
02-11-2010, 01:47 PM
Everything's a trial balloon.

He's not a leader, he's a politician. If he's saying this, it's because he wants to see how easily it flies under the radar.

C'mon folks, are any of you still playing dumb to this schyster?

C'mon in Jaz! Tell me how this is all just 'articles of economic faith' that I'm irrationally adhering to.

The middle class will continue to foot these bills; it always has, it always will.

patteeu
02-11-2010, 01:49 PM
Well, what do you think he means by "solutions"? Are you suggesting that one of those solutions is not raising taxes on those he pledged not to?

Clearly he means he's going to slash government spending including entitlements, LOL.

patteeu
02-11-2010, 01:52 PM
This is what he said on Super Bowl Sunday, 5 days ago.

Now, the honest assessment is this. We had a big structural deficit even before the recession. The recession made it much worse. We're not gonna solve this overnight. And we don't want to either raise taxes or drastically slash government spending while the economy's still fragile. If Democrats and Republicans come together in a sensible way, putting everything on the table, not trying to position themselves politically ahead of time, then there's no reason why we can't start putting in place some serious measures that will start driving the deficit down long term.

If Obama faced a big structural deficit as he came into office, why did he propose $1 trillion of NEW SPENDING above and beyond what the government was already spending even before the financial crisis hit in 2008 and even before the idea of Porkulus was born?

patteeu
02-11-2010, 01:53 PM
I know what he said about taxes but he is talking about the fiscal commission and having everything on the table. You could say that means more tax cuts are possible.

Would you expect him to veto any legislation that comes out of such a commission* if it included tax increases on those who make less than $250,000?


-----------------------------
*not that the commission will actually lead to legislation, of course

patteeu
02-11-2010, 01:56 PM
No way. He won't raise taxes on housholds making less than $250K. It's not politically or economically neccessary at this point.

When he does, will that finally be the breaking point for your support?

dirk digler
02-11-2010, 02:00 PM
If Obama faced a big structural deficit as he came into office, why did he propose $1 trillion of NEW SPENDING above and beyond what the government was already spending even before the financial crisis hit in 2008 and even before the idea of Porkulus was born?

IIRC because they believe in a recession they need to have deficit spending to help stop the recession. Does that sound remotely correct?

Would you expect him to veto any legislation that comes out of such a commission* if it included tax increases on those who make less than $250,000?


-----------------------------
*not that the commission will actually lead to legislation, of course

Yes but as you said this commission has no authority.

Chief Henry
02-11-2010, 02:08 PM
[QUOTE=dirk digler;6524810]IIRC because they believe in a recession they need to have deficit spending to help stop the recession. Does that sound remotely correct? [QUOTE]


Thats right, when your house is on fire, throw more gasoline on the fire.

Thats brilliant, about like how he wants bsn. owners to borrow money to make payroll. :spock:

BigRedChief
02-11-2010, 02:09 PM
When he does, will that finally be the breaking point for your support?nah, I knew he was possibly making promises he couldn't keep. You can't say no new taxes. No president should evah promise no tax increases, they all raise taxes. Regan, read my lips, Clinton etc. As long as he goes after the banks, big oil, pharma and the wealthy along with us middle class...these are the times we live in. But, like I said he's not going to do that anytime soon.

What the hell are we going to do? Cut services, programs and raise revenue. How else is it going to happen? Magic?

wild1
02-11-2010, 02:10 PM
When he does, will that finally be the breaking point for your support?

No, it'll be conflated in some way to where he can excuse it, or he'll simple state that he doesn't care.

This is how they do things, it's a perpetual campaign where just like before he tries to be everything to everyone. He gets up in the state of the union and trumpets a 'spending freeze' after he's already increased spending ~30%. He's at deficit hawk, and at the same time, he's the guy who thinks FDR didn't spend enough and he didn't spend fast enough. He's a blank canvas onto which you project an idea of whatever you want him to be, in his words.

The tax hikes for the middle class will be on the way if he can ever find the political aptitude to get any of his policies passed, because all the costs will be passed on to the "middle class".

But there will be some duplicitous fig-leaf, such as with the "spending freeze", that true believers can believe in and that can be used for sound bytes.

patteeu
02-11-2010, 02:14 PM
IIRC because they believe in a recession they need to have deficit spending to help stop the recession. Does that sound remotely correct?

No, not even remotely correct. Oh, there was talk about fixing all the damage that Bush had done and reversing the years of domestic neglect that had happened under Bush and there was also talk about funding the spending by ending the war in Iraq too, which obviously hasn't happened, but it wasn't intended as stimulus spending.

patteeu
02-11-2010, 02:19 PM
nah, I knew he was possibly making promises he couldn't keep. You can't say no new taxes. No president should evah promise no tax increases, they all raise taxes. Regan, read my lips, Clinton etc. As long as he goes after the banks, big oil, pharma and the wealthy along with us middle class...these are the times we live in. But, like I said he's not going to do that anytime soon.

What the hell are we going to do? Cut services, programs and raise revenue. How else is it going to happen? Magic?

It doesn't seem like there's anything the man can do to turn you against him. If he personally comes to your house, bends you over your living room couch and ass rapes you, you'll thank him for the prostate exam. :)

banyon
02-11-2010, 02:21 PM
Well, what do you think he means by "solutions"? Are you suggesting that one of those solutions is not raising taxes on those he pledged not to?

It may or may not be. Or it may be an idea raised by another participant in the meeting. All he's said here is he isn't kicking that person out of the room beforehand for suggesting something like that.

dirk digler
02-11-2010, 02:21 PM
No, not even remotely correct. Oh, there was talk about fixing all the damage that Bush had done and reversing the years of domestic neglect that had happened under Bush and there was also talk about funding the spending by ending the war in Iraq too, which obviously hasn't happened, but it wasn't intended as stimulus spending.

I mis read your question. Alot of what he proposed is what you listed above, basically fixing alot of things that have been neglected not just under Bush, but Clinton, Bush, and Reagan.

patteeu
02-11-2010, 02:21 PM
No, it'll be conflated in some way to where he can excuse it, or he'll simple state that he doesn't care.

This is how they do things, it's a perpetual campaign where just like before he tries to be everything to everyone. He gets up in the state of the union and trumpets a 'spending freeze' after he's already increased spending ~30%. He's at deficit hawk, and at the same time, he's the guy who thinks FDR didn't spend enough and he didn't spend fast enough. He's a blank canvas onto which you project an idea of whatever you want him to be, in his words.

The tax hikes for the middle class will be on the way if he can ever find the political aptitude to get any of his policies passed, because all the costs will be passed on to the "middle class".

But there will be some duplicitous fig-leaf, such as with the "spending freeze", that true believers can believe in and that can be used for sound bytes.

This is gospel.

patteeu
02-11-2010, 02:24 PM
I mis read your question. Alot of what he proposed is what you listed above, basically fixing alot of things that have been neglected not just under Bush, but Clinton, Bush, and Reagan.

He faced what he's now calling a big structural deficit and instead of proposing the kinds of remedial actions that he seems to think are so necessary now, he promised $1 trillion NEW SPENDING and said that the vast majority of Americans would NEVER face a tax increase on his watch. What was he thinking? What were the people who voted for him thinking? Was there any thinking going on at all?

Donger
02-11-2010, 02:26 PM
It may or may not be. Or it may be an idea raised by another participant in the meeting. All he's said here is he isn't kicking that person out of the room beforehand for suggesting something like that.

In that scenario, he should be kicking him out of the room. You see, he pledged that no one who makes under $250,000 would see their taxes increased. Unless he is open to that idea now, that shouldn't even be considered.

And, if he is open that idea now, it is a clear violation of his pledge during the campaign.

dirk digler
02-11-2010, 02:29 PM
He faced what he's now calling a big structural deficit and instead of proposing the kinds of remedial actions that he seems to think are so necessary now, he promised $1 trillion NEW SPENDING and said that the vast majority of Americans would NEVER face a tax increase on his watch. What was he thinking? What were the people who voted for him thinking? Was there any thinking going on at all?

I can't speak for anyone else but you go back and read my posts I clearly stated many times I was for this spending because this country has neglected so many things and kicked the can down the road all to often. At some point we are going to have pay the piper.

banyon
02-11-2010, 02:32 PM
In that scenario, he should be kicking him out of the room. You see, he pledged that no one who makes under $250,000 would see their taxes increased. Unless he is open to that idea now, that shouldn't even be considered.

And, if he is open that idea now, it is a clear violation of his pledge during the campaign.

He didn't say he was open to the idea, but he wasn't going to set preconditions on the meeting.

What is it with conservatives and needing preconditions on meetings.

You know, if the country wasn't so obsessed with playing semantic "gotcha" over crap like this, maybe these issues could've been addressed a long time ago.

petegz28
02-11-2010, 02:37 PM
He didn't say he was open to the idea, but he wasn't going to set preconditions on the meeting.

What is it with conservatives and needing preconditions on meetings.

You know, if the country wasn't so obsessed with playing semantic "gotcha" over crap like this, maybe these issues could've been addressed a long time ago.

Because this is a prelude to doing saying one thing and doing another. And please, spare me the Cons playing "gotcha" when we had 8 years solid of it from Dems.

banyon
02-11-2010, 02:39 PM
Because this is a prelude to doing saying one thing and doing another. And please, spare me the Cons playing "gotcha" when we had 8 years solid of it from Dems.

So, that's a reason to keep playing "gotcha"? They did it first?

Please, spare me.

And you're assuming it's a prelude.

Donger
02-11-2010, 02:43 PM
He didn't say he was open to the idea, but he wasn't going to set preconditions on the meeting.

What is it with conservatives and needing preconditions on meetings.

You know, if the country wasn't so obsessed with playing semantic "gotcha" over crap like this, maybe these issues could've been addressed a long time ago.

“The whole point of it is to make sure that all ideas are on the table,” the president said

Is raising taxes not part of all ideas?

Surely you'd agree that at the very least, Obama has moved away from his campaign pledge (not going to happen versus all ideas on the table/agnostic toward solutions)?

patteeu
02-11-2010, 02:45 PM
I can't speak for anyone else but you go back and read my posts I clearly stated many times I was for this spending because this country has neglected so many things and kicked the can down the road all to often. At some point we are going to have pay the piper.

What we've been kicking down the road has been solving the entitlement problem not extra deficit spending.

patteeu
02-11-2010, 02:47 PM
Right. Open no preconditions discussion = raising taxes on the middle class.

Yeah. Somehow.

Do you think that everyone with incomes below $250,000 per year will be paying the same or less in taxes at the end of BO's first term as they were at the start of his term?

:shrug:

wild1
02-11-2010, 02:51 PM
Because this is a prelude to doing saying one thing and doing another.

Well, I don't think that is wholly accurate.

To his credit, I think Obama is the same thing yesterday, today, and forever. He is pretty far left. The only thing that changes is what he makes himself out to be, just how he ices the cake.

Imagine him as a car, say a Geo Tracker. It is what it is. It's a known quantity. Now, imagine a car dealership running advertisements that variously portray the Tracker as a great family car, a great economy car, a top notch race car, great for towing your cabin cruiser, a fantastic off-road vehicle, something you can pile a whole soccer team into, the safest car on the road, the most reliable car money can buy, and anything else you can claim.

That's how he markets himself. He is whatever you want him to be. You want to believe he's a deficit hawk, for example, he gave you a line to help you convince yourself even though the truth is radically different.

His aims and beliefs have always been the same, the only difference is the packaging

dirk digler
02-11-2010, 02:53 PM
What we've been kicking down the road has been solving the entitlement problem not extra deficit spending.

Health care reform should be part of that solution.

But our roads are shit, our general infrastructure is shit, our education system is shit...honestly the only thing we do really well is Defense.

patteeu
02-11-2010, 03:00 PM
Health care reform should be part of that solution.

The biggest part of the entitlement time bomb is medicare so yes, health care is intimately involved.

banyon
02-11-2010, 03:08 PM
:shrug:

Yes I do, so long as you're talking income taxes and not cigarettes or some other distorted way of looking at it.

banyon
02-11-2010, 03:08 PM
“The whole point of it is to make sure that all ideas are on the table,” the president said

Is raising taxes not part of all ideas?

Surely you'd agree that at the very least, Obama has moved away from his campaign pledge (not going to happen versus all ideas on the table/agnostic toward solutions)?

I don't recall Obama making a campaign pledge not to talk to people who might have different ideas than himself.

Guru
02-11-2010, 03:15 PM
I suppose what he said and pledged during the campaign was just, what, a guess?

He stated during the campaign that taxes would not increase on anyone making less than $200,000 (or couples making less than $250,000). Period.He damn well better stick to that too. I'm sick of DC spending out of control and then asking us to pay for their indiscretions.

DJ's left nut
02-11-2010, 03:48 PM
He damn well better stick to that too. I'm sick of DC spending out of control and then asking us to pay for their indiscretions.

If he raises it on the wealthy and businesses, you'll still be the one paying for their indiscretions, just indirectly.

Focus on spending; worry about revenue later.

The Mad Crapper
03-10-2010, 04:08 PM
http://thepeoplescube.com/images/Obama_Coin_ExactChange_160.gif

go bowe
03-10-2010, 04:39 PM
It doesn't seem like there's anything the man can do to turn you against him. If he personally comes to your house, bends you over your living room couch and ass rapes you, you'll thank him for the prostate exam. :)or thank him for his time...

i don't know about brc, but short of becoming a republican or choosing sarah palin as his running mate for his next term, i won't turn against the president...

HonestChieffan
03-10-2010, 05:23 PM
Health care reform should be part of that solution.

But our roads are shit, our general infrastructure is shit, our education system is shit...honestly the only thing we do really well is Defense.

The state has no income. Start there. So, you roads are as good as they are gonna be for a long time. Unless we raise taxes or fees. Bend over bubba, Obamanomics are coming home to roost in MO.

We need to cut the waste out of education. Maybe this will be a good thing in the long run if we take the path of cutting waste before we raise taxes.

patteeu
03-10-2010, 06:01 PM
or thank him for his time...

i don't know about brc, but short of becoming a republican or choosing sarah palin as his running mate for his next term, i won't turn against the president...

Uh oh, you may be getting senile. :p

HonestChieffan
03-10-2010, 06:37 PM
Before we ever raise a single tax we should review every program and department and clean house. No one should be immune from reductions in spending and shrinking government. We could cut 30% and never know it if we cut the goofy crap government does at every level.

ChiefaRoo
03-10-2010, 07:05 PM
Before we ever raise a single tax we should review every program and department and clean house. No one should be immune from reductions in spending and shrinking government. We could cut 30% and never know it if we cut the goofy crap government does at every level.

yes.

The Mad Crapper
04-26-2010, 10:24 AM
Spread your asscheeks Obama voters he's coming for you.

The estimated budget for this year falls between $1.4 and $1.6 trillion-- next year $3.8 trillion. This could consume 22% of GDP.

But if you include Fannie and Freddie debt (CBO projections don't), we're already at 90% of GDP.

On top of the VAT being trial floated, the (IMF) would like to impose its own international tax on you--- to the tune of about $300 billion.

All this hope and change just gets better and better.

banyon
04-26-2010, 11:27 AM
The estimated budget for this year falls between $1.4 and $1.6 trillion-- next year $3.8 trillion. This could consume 22% of GDP.

But if you include Fannie and Freddie debt (CBO projections don't), we're already at 90% of GDP.

On top of the VAT being trial floated, the (IMF) would like to impose its own international tax on you--- to the tune of about $300 billion.

All this hope and change just gets better and better.

Why would we include GSE's in the federal budget? They are privately traded and can issue their own debt securities.

The Mad Crapper
04-26-2010, 11:33 AM
Why would we include GSE's in the federal budget? They are privately traded and can issue their own debt securities.

Heck, why include them in financial "reform" as well?

:drool:

banyon
04-26-2010, 11:42 AM
Heck, why include them in financial "reform" as well?

:drool:

Great answer. It's like talking to a sponge.

The Mad Crapper
04-26-2010, 11:52 AM
Great answer. It's like talking to a sponge.

So go away, I didn't ask you to talk to me.

banyon
04-26-2010, 11:55 AM
So go away, I didn't ask you to talk to me.

I have a right to participate in whatever thread I want to here, bub. I know it's been difficult the last couple of days with me pointing out your BS all over the place, but i intend to continue to do it. I know you're not smart or stable enough to handle it. If you continue to run away or cry about it, then so be it.

The Mad Crapper
04-26-2010, 11:55 AM
I have a right to participate in whatever thread I want to here, bub. I know it's been difficult the last couple of days with me pointing out your BS all over the place, but i intend to continue to do it. I know you're not smart or stable enough to handle it. If you continue to run away or cry about it, then so be it.

Go away little girl
Go away little girl
I'm not supposed to be alone with you