7 Nov

Make sure Obama supporters get what they voted for [Reader Post]

                                       

Fiscal cliff:

“Fiscal cliff” is the popular shorthand term used to describe the conundrum that the U.S. government will face at the end of 2012, when the terms of the Budget Control Act of 2011 are scheduled to go into effect.

Among the laws set to change at midnight on December 31, 2012, are the end of last year’s temporary payroll tax cuts (resulting in a 2% tax increase for workers), the end of certain tax breaks for businesses, shifts in the alternative minimum tax that would take a larger bite, the end of the tax cuts from 2001-2003, and the beginning of taxes related to President Obama’s health care law. At the same time, the spending cuts agreed upon as part of the debt ceiling deal of 2011 will begin to go into effect. According to Barron’s, over 1,000 government programs – including the defense budget and Medicare are in line for “deep, automatic cuts.”

This was signed into law by Barack Obama on August 2, 2011.

Republicans should allow this to take effect. All of it.

democrats should understand what they elected. Obama supporters should reap what they have sown.

Among the bright spots is the AMT.

Unless Congress acts by the end of the year, more than 26 million households will for the first time face the AMT, which threatens to tack $3,700, on average, onto taxpayers’ bills for the current tax year. Because those people have never paid the AMT, they have no idea they are in its crosshairs — put there by a broader stalemate over tax policy that has kept Congress from limiting the AMT’s reach.

The Obama administration was a week late with its Sequestration Transparency Act, which was supposed to detail where budget cuts would fall:

Sequestration would impose cuts of 9.4 percent in nonexempt defense discretionary funding and 8.2 percent in nonexempt, nondefense discretionary funding. A 2 percent cut would hit Medicare providers, 7.6 percent would affect other nonexempt nondefense mandatory programs, and 10 percent would be applied to nonexempt defense mandatory programs, according to the report. Cuts in the range of 7.6 percent to 8.2 percent would affect everything from the Capitol Police to the Merit Systems Protection Board to the States Interagency Council on Homelessness.

Amusingly, Obama said the law he signed into effect “will not happen.”

When Gov. Mitt Romney pointed out the devastating $1 trillion in cuts set to hit our military via sequestration, Obama stated flatly, “[those] cuts will not happen.”

Obama is pledging that he will ignore a law he signed into effect.

Interesting.

democrats will now expect Republicans to bend over to Obama’s will.

Not. Gonna. Happen.

Harry Reid pledged not work with a President Romney

On Friday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) rejected a claim made by Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney that he would preside over a more bipartisan administration than President Barack Obama. Reid said that it is “laughable” that the Democratic majority in the Senate would work with Romney to enact his “severely conservative agenda.”

“Mitt Romney’s fantasy that Senate Democrats will work with him to pass his ‘severely conservative’ agenda is laughable,” Reid said in a statement. “In fact, Mitt Romney’s Tea Party agenda has already been rejected in the Senate.”

“Senate Democrats are committed to defending the middle class, and we will do everything in our power to defend them against Mitt Romney’s Tea Party agenda,” Reid concluded.

I trust democrats will respect the same from John Boehner

Barack Obama had a grand bargain in hand when he stiffed Boehner on the deal.

The book, “The Price of Politics,” on sale Sept. 11, 2012, shows how close the president and the House speaker were to defying Washington odds and establishing a spending framework that included both new revenues and major changes to long-sacred entitlement programs.

But at a critical juncture, with an agreement tantalizingly close, Obama pressed Boehner for additional taxes as part of a final deal — a miscalculation, in retrospect, given how far the House speaker felt he’d already gone.

The first time he was elected Obama said “I won.”

In 2010 Obama said

“We don’t mind the Republicans joining us. They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back.”

Obama shut Republicans out of the stimulus and Obamacare process.

After his victory, Obama talked unity, but he did that last time as well and it means as little this time as it did then.

Now Obama will be looking for a legacy. I have heard that several times from democrat operatives. It is not now nor has it ever been about the country. It was always about him.

Republicans have the chance to grant Obama the legacy he signed into law- sequestration.

Obama signed it. He owns it. Let it happen. All of it.

And if he tries to grant waivers to the existing law, impeach him.

This is a good time for Obama supporters to understand that sacrifice is not simply something for others to make. This is a good time for Obama supporters to understand what they have done.

I for one will enjoy watching them cry about paying their fair share.

About DrJohn

DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education. DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed. Except for liberals being foolish.
This entry was posted in Barack Obama, Baracks Broken Promises, Congress, Economy, Health Care, Law, Liberal Idiots, Obama Euphoric-Rapture Syndrome, Obamanomics, Politics, POWER GRAB! and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Wednesday, November 7th, 2012 at 10:44 am
| 2,519 views

103 Responses to Make sure Obama supporters get what they voted for [Reader Post]

  1. retire05 says: 51

    @Aqua:

    You think there is not an over abundance of idiots in Florida? The booted Alan West and elected Alan Grayson.

    Tell me those people are sane. Oh, and let’s not forget Princess Fauxchohantas in Massachusetts.

    ReplyReply
  2. Nan G says: 52

    Latest chart shows our ”recovery” has stalled.
    Will we double-dip?
    I guess revenge is not so sweet.
    Lots more folks will be going Galt in the next year as ObamaCare kicks in more and more.

    ReplyReply
  3. Skook says: 53

    Greg #28: Then Obama said, “I Won” and stepped into the Rubicon. It was his euphemism for the die is cast and he now controls everything. History will plague Obama like pit bulls hanging from his trouser legs. It was his method to attack the Republicans with such arrogance and condescension and now the ramifications of that method will work to destroy his presidency and the country. Yes, Obama crossed the Rubicon a long time ago; should we pretend he didn’t treat Republican legislators like minor annoyances to be cast aside. I think not Greg. Obama is about to reap the fields he has sown.

    ReplyReply
  4. Richard Wheeler says: 54

    RETIREO5 My comment re b. m. was directed to a T.P advocate here at F.A.
    I’m married to a beautiful,intelligent and compassionate Latina. She proudly voted for Obama as did her family and friends. She doesn’t understand how Mitt even got 29% of the vote.

    Skooks The miserable treatment afforded Obama here at F.A was much worse than any he dished out.

    ReplyReply
  5. johngalt says: 55

    @Richard Wheeler:

    The miserable treatment afforded Obama here at F.A was much worse than any he dished out.

    Rich, the treatment Obama has received here at FA is no worse than Bush received from the multitudes of liberal/progressives throughout the US, and oftentimes much better.

    Skooks was speaking about the treatment Obama dished out to the GOP members in congress. I don’t understand how you can look at someone who isolated the GOP and relegated them to another part of DC while he and the Democrats wrote up Obamacare and the Stimulus, and then turn around now and want that same GOP to work with Obama. Like they should be thankful they are even in his presence. Please. Obama has brought gridlock in DC upon himself with the cold shoulder he gave the GOP from the start.

    Never has a more divisive man inhabited the WH. And you all cheer him for it.

    ReplyReply
  6. Tom says: 56

    @Richard Wheeler:

    As I look out the window at snow pouring down, I gotta say, life in Southern California with an intelligent, beautiful wife sounds pretty good, Rich! One thing I wanted to mention is that you’ve been way too modest about your predictions. From what I’ve seen, you’ve been nailing it since the primaries.

    ReplyReply
  7. Richard Wheeler says: 57

    Thanks Tom If I could only do as well on my College Football picks.
    BTW Notre Dame 9-0 ranked 4TH plays at Boston College this Sat. Ck em out.
    I’m gonna hold Larry to his F.A. Party in Huntington Beach. Got a guest room in my house for you anytime you wanna escape the snow.

    ReplyReply
  8. Petercat says: 58

    @Liberal1 (Objectivity): #13
    I guess we’ll see come the 2014 elections, won’t we?
    Tea Party’s not quitting just because they didn’t get one thing that they wanted. There’s plenty more to go for, especially after two more years of Obama.

    ReplyReply
  9. noway says: 59

    @Richard Wheeler:

    the drive by don’t look at the lies, insults and distortion of romney as a politican, businessman and man was the most insulting bs i have ever seen in politics. the insults by the nitwits from crazywood toward ordianry americans is demeaning, insulting and has made us the joke of the world. so you try and say obama wasn’t treated right all the time ignoring the train wreck of lies and degrading of the american people by the democrats? i have to tell you i find that very insulting.

    ReplyReply
  10. Ditto says: 60

    Wall Street Wallows in After-Election Gloom: The Dow Jones Industrial Average sagged 312.95 points, or 2.36%, as investors pondered the fiscal cliff and other challenges.

    Wall Street’s hopes for lighter regulation and a better rapport with the White House were hurt by President Barack Obama’s win in the presidential race.

    The result left bankers, traders and private-equity executives facing the prospect of higher taxes, tougher rules on their activities and more aggressive regulators. Bank-stock investors were handed their biggest single-day loss in a year.

    Fitch Ratings warns of U.S. credit downgrade from fiscal cliff: Moody’s warned in September that failure to reach a deficit-reduction deal probably would lead it to downgrade the U.S. rating. And Fitch echoed that Wednesday.

    WASHINGTON — Fitch Ratings said that there would be “no fiscal honeymoon” for President Obama, warning early Wednesday that the U.S. probably would lose its AAA credit rating if the White House and Congress don’t address looming tax increases, spending cuts and the fast-approaching debt ceiling.

    “The economic policy challenge facing the president is to put in place a credible deficit-reduction plan necessary to underpin economic recovery and confidence in the full faith and credit of the U.S.,” said Fitch, one of the three major credit rating companies.

    The expiration of the George W. Bush-era tax cuts and the start of automatic spending cuts to reduce the deficit — a combination known as the fiscal cliff — will take place Jan. 1. Most economists believe it will trigger another recession.

    In addition, the government will hit its $16.4-trillion debt limit near the end of the year. Treasury officials said they can take steps to allow continued borrowing, but the nation would face a possible default early in 2013 if the limit isn’t increased.

    ReplyReply
  11. drjohn says: 61

    @Richard Wheeler:

    Skooks The miserable treatment afforded Obama here at F.A was much worse than any he dished out.

    ** Obama: “They Bring a Knife…We Bring a Gun”
    ** Obama to His Followers: “Get in Their Faces!”
    ** Obama on ACORN Mobs: “I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m angry!”
    ** Obama to His Mercenary Army: “Hit Back Twice As Hard”
    ** Obama on the private sector: “We talk to these folks… so I know whose ass to kick.“
    ** Obama to voters: Republican victory would mean “hand to hand combat”
    ** Obama to lib supporters: “It’s time to Fight for it.”
    ** Obama to Latino supporters: “Punish your enemies.”
    ** Obama: Vote out of “revenge”

    I have said it over and over and over; liberals have ZERO long term memory.

    ReplyReply
  12. Aqua says: 62

    @Richard Wheeler:

    Skooks The miserable treatment afforded Obama here at F.A was much worse than any he dished out.

    When you put your hand out and someone spits in it, what do you expect Rich. Obama called the leaders together that first week and said bring ideas. When Cantor offered up some ideas, Obama said, “elections have consequences Eric, I won.” That is when the war broke out and McConnell and the others declared their goal to make Obama a one term president. I would have done the same, and I’m betting you would have as well. The hand has been extended again, do we go through four more years like the last two?

    ReplyReply
  13. Aqua says: 63

    @retire05:

    You think there is not an over abundance of idiots in Florida? The booted Alan West and elected Alan Grayson.

    West has not conceded and he’s bringing suit. Plus, the military absentee vote is still being counted. West is down about 2,500 vote lead in the unofficial count. We’ll see how it goes. I’m pulling for him to win.

    ReplyReply
  14. kevino says: 64

    The GOP must not drive the country over the fiscal cliff. First, it’s a disaster for the country that’s far even worse than the Obama Presidency. The GOP is expected to put the country first — even if the country doesn’t understand the concept and even if the other party doesn’t cooperate. Secondly, the country voted for “free stuff” over “freedom”, but they didn’t vote for going off the fiscal cliff. And finally, if the GOP did any such thing, they along would be blamed for the outcome. Consider, for example, the closure of the Federal government under President Clinton. The GOP under Speaker Gingrich and the White House had serious differences, and the Federal government ran out of money. Most Americans incorrectly blamed the GOP — for all of it. The result was that Clinton was forced to compromise, and Clinton took credit for balancing the budget.

    The rule of modern politics is: if a disagreement happens, the GOP is 100% responsible for everything bad that happens, and the Democrats get 100% of the credit for everything good that happens.

    What the GOP House should do, IMHO is what the Speaker is proposing: compromise.
    1. The GOP needs to bypass the LSM and take out 30 minutes of prime time explaining that Obama’s plan won’t work: the deficit will explode and growth will be impaired. However, the election forces us to do this, so when it blows up, don’t be surprised. In fact, we’ll be amused to see who the Democrats blame for the mess, because they never take responsibility for the damage that they do in the world.
    2. Demand that the White House explain to the nation why the Democrats have refused to pass a busget. Every single GOP politician interviewed should include, “It’s been days since the Democrats allowed a budget to be passed,” in every interview.
    3. Publicly demand that the White House put together a long-range plan for the deficit. Play the tape of Treasury Secretary explaining that the White House phony numbers called for an OK deficit for five years, and then it “blows up”. Demand that the White House put together a plan that doesn’t blow up. We’ve done our home work. Now you do yours.
    4. Pass the proposed tax increases, including higher taxes on the “rich”, higher taxes on oil and gas producers, and whatever other tax increases the Democrats greedy little hearts desire. And watch the economy respond.
    5. Business leaders — from small to large — should look at the business environment and weigh the risks. I think that they will become risk-averse. I also think that the people that will be hurt the worst mostly voted for Obama. This is called “Social Justice”.

    This is a “Teaching Moment”. Let the teaching begin.

    ReplyReply
  15. drjohn says: 65

    @kevino:

    First, it’s a disaster for the country that’s far even worse than the Obama Presidency. The GOP is expected to put the country first — even if the country doesn’t understand the concept and even if the other party doesn’t cooperate. Secondly, the country voted for “free stuff” over “freedom”, but they didn’t vote for going off the fiscal cliff. And finally, if the GOP did any such thing, they along would be blamed for the outcome.

    Let me ask you a question, Kevin. This is a law passed by the democrat Senate and signed by Obama. Why would they put into law something that would be a disaster for the country?

    Surely they aren’t that cynical.

    Are you saying that democrats signed off a law that would be disastrous for the country?

    ReplyReply
  16. Richard Wheeler says: 66

    John says “Liberals have Zero long term memory”
    I’m 68 but can remember quite clearly the hatred and disrespect you personally have rained down on President Obama the last 3 years . I repeat– It’s people like you that cost Romney The Presidency. Live with it.

    Semper Fi

    ReplyReply
  17. drjohn says: 67

    @Richard Wheeler: I don’t agree, Rich. I think Romney wasn’t conservative enough. Agressive conservatism played well in 2010. This never does. Obama didn’t market himself as playing nice with Republicans. He campaigned on hate and revenge.

    ReplyReply
  18. kevino says: 68

    RE: “Are you saying that democrats signed off a law that would be disastrous for the country?”

    Short answer: YES.
    Long answer: I’m shocked — SHOCKED — that Democrats would support legislation that would be disastrous for the country. Casino floor manager comes by, “Sir, your copy of ObamaCare is on the pallet over there. Shall I wheel it to your car?” “Thank you.”

    ReplyReply
  19. Richard Wheeler says: 69

    John Obama attempted to put the fear of far right zealots running the country, into the psyche of the moderates, indies and Latinos who decided the election. You assisted him.
    Mitt had to go so far right to get the nom., he was not believable, when in the general election, he tried to project the moderate he truly is.If he had been allowed to secure the nom without propounding “self deportation” and the like, Obama would be history.

    ReplyReply
  20. alanstorm says: 70

    @Richard Wheeler:
    “I’m married to a beautiful,intelligent and compassionate Latina.”
    She may be beautiful, but if she voted for Obama the other two are non-starters.

    ReplyReply
  21. Aqua says: 71

    @Richard Wheeler:
    Check this out. I’m trying to find out the original source.
    https://twitter.com/baseballcrank/status/266570635927498753/photo/1

    ReplyReply
  22. alanstorm says: 72

    @Richard Wheeler:
    And yet, you’ve managed to forget the GWB years completely…you’re an idiot and a liar.

    ReplyReply
  23. Richard Wheeler says: 73

    alanstorm I remember the Bush years just fine. What am I lying about? You may well be the idiot Aqua Good luck to the ‘NOLES VS HOKIES” tonight. Looking forward to renewing great FSU VS ND rivalry.
    Don’t know source of the twitter.

    ReplyReply
  24. johngalt says: 74

    @Richard Wheeler:

    John Obama attempted to put the fear of far right zealots running the country, into the psyche of the moderates, indies and Latinos who decided the election. You assisted him.

    No, Rich, the media assisted Obama. You can deny it all you want, but I highly doubt that you are objective about it.

    As for demographics, do you realize that Obama only large gains were amongst Latinos, particularly the Latino women, and Asians (who make up a very small percentage of he voting block)? Blacks? Obama lost votes. Whites? Obama lost votes. Other, non-black, non-Latino, non-Asians? Obama lost votes. The most surprising, of course, is the loss amongst black voters, which dropped 8% points for black men alone.

    And overall? Obama lost 9.2% of the votes he garnered in 2008, while the GOP only lost .8%(that’s POINT EIGHT, Rich). I’d say that Romney’s campaign was, overall, more successful than McCain’s. And that is with his right turn in the primaries and left turn in the general.

    Your assertion, that Romney lost because he couldn’t convince voters he was the moderate he was, is faulty. I’d say it’s because he never convinced the conservatives, in the primary, that he was one of them. Which he isn’t. That is what Mata said at the point Romney became the presumptive nominee. As well as me. As well as any number of other conservatives here, Rich. Kinda hard to get excited about a guy you just don’t picture as a conservative. And if conservatives couldn’t get all that excited over him, independents certainly weren’t going to. Although, funnily enough, Romney gained big amongst independents compared to what McCain garnered in 2008. And that right there dispells your myth that Romney didn’t seem moderate enough.

    ReplyReply
  25. Richard Wheeler says: 75

    J.G As you know this election was 7 million votes closer than 2008 Closer demographic totals across the board would be a natural result. True– except with Latinos “SELF DEPORTATION’ hurt him in close loses in Fla Va and Col. If you don’t believe me ask Aqua’s wife or my wife. If he had IMPROVED with Latinos in a similar % to the other demographics a win in FL and in Va. Closer in Co. and Oh.
    Also, with few exceptions (MATA THE PRINCIPLED) Conservs. voted in large numbers AGAINST Obama.If not forced right of Gingrich in Fla. Mitt the Moderate would have beaten Obama, Conservs, might not have LOVED it but Obama would be HOME IN CHICAGO.
    There can be no doubt of this.It was that close.

    ReplyReply
  26. Rob in Katy says: 76

    Liberals seem more than willing to break/avoid most laws, yet wish to subjugate and enslave Conservatives with them. What I don’t think that they realize is when we decide the laws are not worth following either, there will be hell to pay.

    ReplyReply
  27. johngalt says: 77

    @Richard Wheeler:

    Not buying any of that, Rich. Yes the vote was 7 mil closer, but nearly all of that came from a loss of votes on Obama’s side of things.

    Think of it this way, Rich. If the demographics and vote percentages were identical to 2008, Obama would have had around 63 million votes and Romney 54.7 million. Instead, Romney gained votes, in nearly every demographic group represented. Women, men, black, white, young, old. You name it. Everything BUT Latinos, and in particular, latino women.

    Your assertion about Latinos I’d buy. But not about Romney’s moves right and then left.

    Why? Because the last three “moderate” Presidential candidates the GOP ran failed, two of them miserably.

    ReplyReply
  28. Tricjy Dick says: 78

    I’m all for it. I’m tired of paying for a bunch of deadbeats to have ebt cards, section 8 housing, cell phones, free medical and whatever else these worthless freeloaders can get for free. Let them starve and live under the overpass at the nearest interstate.

    ReplyReply
  29. Richard Wheeler says: 79

    J.G I AGREED Repubs. did better in 2012 than 08 in all categories (including Blacks) EXCEPT LATINOS. That’s where they lost the election. Why? Romney’s comments in Fla Primary which occurred when he was pushed Right of Gingrich.
    He was back to Moderate Mitt in general election but the damage had been done.

    Don’t buy your logic that lack of Conservative excitement necessarilly translates to lack of indie excitement.
    Seems all Conservs. here, other than Mata, voted for Mitt.

    No way he should have lost.

    ReplyReply
  30. johngalt says: 80

    @Richard Wheeler:

    Rich, the very near example of Mata not voting for Romney should be all the proof you need that Romney didn’t excite conservatives, and as a result, many of them didn’t vote for him. And if conservatives weren’t excited enough to vote for him, how could anyone expect indies to be excited enough to do so?

    ReplyReply
  31. Smorgasbord says: 81

    Under obama, everything that was, is, and will be wrong, was, is, and will be Bush’s fault.

    ReplyReply
  32. Ditto says: 82

    Update:

    Boeing Announces Big Layoffs in Defense Division

    Boeing announced a major restructuring of its defense division on Wednesday that will cut 30 percent of management jobs from 2010 levels, close facilities in California and consolidate several business units to cut costs.

    Mine Owner Blames Obama Administration for Layoffs

    Vegas Employer: Obama Won, So I Fired 22 Employees

    Election Consequences: Decline of Doctor-Owned Practices

    Energizer Holdings Inc – 1,500
    Update: Exide Technologies in Laureldale – 150 layoffs
    Southeastern Container – 15
    Yakima Regional Medical Center Washington – 10+ layoffs
    Crouse Hospital Syracuse NY – 70 Jobs
    Eagle-Tribune in North Andover – 21
    Ameridose LLC – up to 650 Layoffs
    EMD Millipore St. Charles – Some Layoffs
    Groupon – 80
    Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne – 100
    Slidell La. – Warns of Possible Layoffs
    Westinghouse Anniston – 50
    Research in Motion Ltd. HQ – 200
    Lightyear Network Solutions – 12+
    The Providence Journal Co. – 23
    Hawker Beechcraft – 240 Layoffs + Facility Closings
    CVPH Medical Center – 17 Pink Slips
    U.S. Cellular – 980
    Momentive Performance Materials – 150 Temp, Layoffs
    Brake Parts LLC – 75
    Gameforge Berlin – 20
    Vestas Wind Systems – 3,000 More Job Cuts
    Husqvarna AB – 600
    ING – 2,350
    Ericsson ( Sweden) – 1,550
    SRA International Inc – 222 in Arlington Va.
    Majestic Star Casino and Hotel – About 80
    Center for Hospice / Palliative Care NY – 40 Temp. Layoffs

    All in the last three days.

    In the “irony is a b*tch” department: Post-Election News Business Layoffs Begin; Time and Current Lead the Charge

    ReplyReply
  33. Art says: 83

    @Ditto: Congratulations, Barry, your second term is just getting up some steam. I can’t wait till it’s up to speed. Then, and maybe, only then, will stupid Americans begin to see there is no free lunch. How dare those companies think about making a profit!

    Barry, I hope you’re in the cellar when the floors cave in.

    ReplyReply
  34. Frodus says: 84

    Give them Dims everything they want.and give it to them now.

    ReplyReply
  35. Nan G says: 85

    @Ditto:
    Ditto, one can only hope that poor people can hire folks who still want to work.
    But then, who is going to WANT to legally work?
    Everything you need (as long as you lower your wants down a bit) can be yours FREE under Obama!
    Free housing.
    Free food.
    Free energy for home heating and lighting.
    Free phone and 120 minutes.
    And on top of that there’s the UNDERGROUND economy!
    If I wanted to I could shop for food, clothing, car care, home improvements, housekeeping, and so much more while ignoring all government extra costs!
    If I wanted to I could also SELL foods at a tremendous profit!
    All while accepting all sorts of FREEBIES from ”the taxpayers!”

    ReplyReply
  36. Greg says: 86

    The point of contention is tax increases.

    Democrats want to extend the Bush tax cuts on taxable earnings up to $250,000 per year. The Bush tax cuts would expire on any amounts that exceed $250,000, with rates on that additional amount reverting to what they were during the Clinton era. (Note that the first $250,000 of annual taxable earnings would be treated the same for everyone. Even those with the highest income would still get the Bush tax cut rates on their first taxable $250,000.)

    Republicans wanted a further 25 percent cuts across the board. That’s obviously not going to happen. So now they’re back to their insistence that taxable earnings over $250,000 must also be subject to Bush tax cut extensions, or nobody will get extensions.

    In 2008, less than 2 percent of all households had income of over $250,000 per year.

    These are the facts, so far as I know them. Please feel free to point out anything I’ve got wrong.

    Democrats tend to be more attentive to information like this: American Pie: Wealth and Income Inequality in America

    ReplyReply
  37. Nan G says: 87

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2012/nov/8/picket-companies-plan-massive-layoffs-obamacare-be/

    Going Galt looks like it is going to be getting a big boost.
    I heard a financial expert say that in the 48 hours since the election over 120,000 American workers have been given notice of layoffs.
    Many more will be getting their hours cut back to below 29 hours a week….because their companies were going to cut them to 30 until Obama claimed that ObamaCare now labels 30 hours a week as FULL TIME!
    Who has ever had a job for 30 hours a week where it was called FULL TIME?

    Now, as to taxes on those in the middle class…..Obama can sit on his hands and those taxes go UP!
    He can say he’s FOR freezing these automatic tax hikes, but IF he does not WORK WITH Dems and Reps, those tax rates STILL GO UP!
    If Obama DEMANDS Republicans go along with him on a freeze in automatic tax hikes for the middle class WHAT DOES Obama GIVE in return?
    His old standard was ”I won,” it is MY way or the highway.
    So, we’ll see if he now acts more like a politician or a dictator.

    ReplyReply
  38. @Nan G: #87,

    Once again, Beohner has allowed Obama to win the sound-bite battle. Obama pulls his pen out of his pocket and pretends to demand “balance.” He will not be countered by the MSM. He will now move further left, and become even more entrenched than he was prior to the election.

    Conservatives really need to become more adept at fighting the sound-bite battle.

    ReplyReply
  39. Nan G says: 89

    @James Raider: Did you tune Obama out after that, James?
    I didn’t.
    Obama demanded Republicans in the House simply RUBBER STAMP the senate’s/Obama’s liberal bill.
    Obama has his pen ready….Sheesh!
    So much for being open to ideas.

    ReplyReply
  40. @Nan G: #89,

    That’s my point. He pretends “balance” while being even more rigid than ever. The key is in how he does the magic act. Right hand pulls out a pen, physically acting as if he is ready to act, just after he’s put the House in a corner opposing the Senate and himself. He was concise, scripted, and obviously it works on affecting the consciousness of his followers. He pretends to be magnanimous, which is an outright lie, while he acts in a diametrically opposite fashion.

    Now compare that to what Beohner did for example. He was sloppy in his presentation. Point I’m making is that we have just witnessed an election being won with sound-bites effectively delivered, and even if they were lies, people bought them. Obama has put Beohner in a tough spot.

    I’m also not suggesting that Beohner should start lying as Obama does so effectively. I’ve suggesting that Beohner needs a new PR team. In fact I’m quite confident that there are a few right here on FA who would likely do a very effective job for him.

    ReplyReply
  41. johngalt says: 91

    @James Raider:

    A simple explanation to the people would suffice, I’d think. Of course, being able to get that to the people is another matter, although Boehner does have some clout, being Speaker.

    Maybe something like this;

    We all want jobs to be created. Rich people, and the high income earners, are the ones that create those jobs. From the point that they start out small businesses, creating just that one job for themselves, and continuing as they grow into bigger companies and businesses, first creating the lower wage jobs and moving to higher income jobs, they create jobs.

    When you take away larger portions of their earnings, you hamper their ability to create those jobs. As well as their ability to create the higher paying jobs, that eventually lead to others starting on their own path as job creators.

    And, what’s more, we are all, those of us who invest our earnings, either through bank deposits in savings accounts, to those contributing to 401k’s, and on up to those wealthy financial investors, we are all job creators. We supply the capital necessary for the person starting off in a business to be able to do so. We supply the capital necessary for a business to grow in their own particular market. We supply the capital necessary for the large companies to embark in new endeavours, new products, and improve the ones they already make. We supply the capital necessary for job creation.

    Why on earth would anyone want to hamper the ability of people to create the jobs everyone claims they want? And for what? What does it accomplish? It doesn’t pay down the debt. It can’t. We, the federal government, spend too much for it to be anything more than a pittance in comparison.

    Tax increases, or jobs. That’s the choice we face. I know what I’ll vote for.

    ReplyReply
  42. Greg says: 92

    @johngalt, #91:

    When you take away larger portions of their earnings, you hamper their ability to create those jobs. As well as their ability to create the higher paying jobs, that eventually lead to others starting on their own path as job creators.

    For most of the 20th Century—and certainly during the periods of the most rapid economic expansion and the widest reaching national prosperity—high end tax rates were much higher than they are now, and much higher than the rates that prevailed during the Clinton years.

    Excessively high tax rates on the highest earners are obviously not the reason for our current economic problems.

    Excessively low rates, on the other hand, might be a contributing factor.

    Excessively low rates have contributed to rising deficits and growing debt. They have also allowed an unprecedented and still growing concentration of wealth at the top end, which has diminished the buying power of the working and middle classes—otherwise known as consumers.

    ReplyReply
  43. johngalt says: 93

    @Greg:

    Excessively high tax rates on the highest earners are obviously not the reason for our current economic problems.

    Conversely, I’d say that the low tax rates at present are obviously not the reason for our current economic problems.

    ReplyReply
  44. johngalt says: 94

    @Greg:

    Excessively low rates have contributed to rising deficits and growing debt.

    I disagree, Greg. But, of course, this is the debatable point, isn’t it. Whether or not lower tax rates, particularly on the higher income earners, led to the increased growth and job creation immediately following their implementation, or whether that was just a factor of the economic cycle. I argue in favor of the lower tax rates.

    As well, your insistence on the higher tax rates is overshadowed by the numbers involved. When the expected gains, assuming no negative consequences (a BIG assumption to make), are but a pittance in comparison to the overall annual debt we’ve been seeing, the overwhelming factor contributing to the federal government’s budgetary problems then becomes their spending. Fix that, and then talk about tax rates. Otherwise, you are simply prolonging the inevitable.

    ReplyReply
  45. retire05 says: 95

    @Greg:

    Where you are wrong, Greggie, is to continue to call tax rates “tax cuts.” There are no cuts. There are only rates.

    You also never mention that in 1976, 1977 and 1980, the tax rates were lowered considerably. Gee, I wonder who was president when those rates were implemented. Do you know, Greggie?

    ReplyReply
  46. @johngalt: #91,

    What I’m driving at, JG, is that the “sound-bite,” needs to be just that, . . . simple few words that get repeated. That’s not easy to do. Takes work and strategizing.

    What you present here is a rational common sense explanation in support of lower taxes. Most people glaze over when the discussion gets into ’cause and effect’ on use of money by those who have any to spare. Sad but reality.

    ReplyReply
  47. Smorgasbord says: 97

    @Nan G: #85
    I’ve said this before. If a person is young enough (I’m retired), they could move to Mexico, become a Mexican citizen, sneek across the border into the USA, then they would have it made. Let’s not forget the free education and medical care others will pay for. The USA will change from, “Land of the free,” to, “Land of the free stuff.”

    NEW SIGN ON THE STATUE OF LIBERTY
    Give me your tired of working, your poor by choice, your huddled masses yearning to receive free stuff….

    ReplyReply
  48. Ditto says: 98

    @Smorgasbord:

    The flaw in your plan is that it’s not that easy to become a Mexican citizen:

    At a time when the Supreme Court and many politicians seek to bring American law in line with foreign legal norms, it’s noteworthy that nobody has argued that the U.S. look at how Mexico deals with immigration and what it might teach us about how best to solve our illegal immigration problem. Mexico has a single, streamlined law that ensures that foreign visitors and immigrants are:
    in the country legally;

    have the means to sustain themselves economically;

    not destined to be burdens on society;

    of economic and social benefit to society;

    of good character and have no criminal records; and

    contributors to the general well-being of the nation.

    The law also ensures that:
    immigration authorities have a record of each foreign visitor;

    foreign visitors do not violate their visa status;

    foreign visitors are banned from interfering in the country’s internal politics;

    foreign visitors who enter under false pretenses are imprisoned or deported;

    foreign visitors violating the terms of their entry are imprisoned or deported;

    those who aid in illegal immigration will be sent to prison.

    Mexico welcomes only foreigners who will be useful to Mexican society:
    Foreigners are admitted into Mexico “according to their possibilities of contributing to national progress.” (Article 32)

    Immigration officials must “ensure” that “immigrants will be useful elements for the country and that they have the necessary funds for their sustenance” and for their dependents. (Article 34)

    Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence upsets “the equilibrium of the national demographics,” when foreigners are deemed detrimental to “economic or national interests,” when they do not behave like good citizens in their own country, when they have broken Mexican laws, and when “they are not found to be physically or mentally healthy.” (Article 37)

    The Secretary of Governance may “suspend or prohibit the admission of foreigners when he determines it to be in the national interest.” (Article 38)

    Mexican authorities must keep track of every single person in the country:
    Federal, local and municipal police must cooperate with federal immigration authorities upon request, i.e., to assist in the arrests of illegal immigrants. (Article 73)

    A National Population Registry keeps track of “every single individual who comprises the population of the country,” and verifies each individual’s identity. (Articles 85 and 86)

    A national Catalog of Foreigners tracks foreign tourists and immigrants (Article 87), and assigns each individual with a unique tracking number (Article 91).

    Foreigners with fake papers, or who enter the country under false pretenses, may be imprisoned:
    Foreigners with fake immigration papers may be fined or imprisoned. (Article 116)

    Foreigners who sign government documents “with a signature that is false or different from that which he normally uses” are subject to fine and imprisonment. (Article 116)

    Foreigners who fail to obey the rules will be fined, deported, and/or imprisoned as felons:
    Foreigners who fail to obey a deportation order are to be punished. (Article 117)

    Foreigners who are deported from Mexico and attempt to re-enter the country without authorization can be imprisoned for up to 10 years. (Article 118)

    Foreigners who violate the terms of their visa may be sentenced to up to six years in prison (Articles 119, 120 and 121). Foreigners who misrepresent the terms of their visa while in Mexico — such as working with out a permit — can also be imprisoned.

    Under Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony. The General Law on Population says,
    “A penalty of up to two years in prison and a fine of three hundred to five thousand pesos will be imposed on the foreigner who enters the country illegally.” (Article 123)

    Foreigners with legal immigration problems may be deported from Mexico instead of being imprisoned. (Article 125)

    Foreigners who “attempt against national sovereignty or security” will be deported. (Article 126)

    Mexicans who help illegal aliens enter the country are themselves considered criminals under the law:
    A Mexican who marries a foreigner with the sole objective of helping the foreigner live in the country is subject to up to five years in prison. (Article 127)

    Shipping and airline companies that bring undocumented foreigners into Mexico will be fined. (Article 132)

    ReplyReply
  49. Smorgasbord says: 99

    @Ditto: #98
    It looks like obama couldn’t become a Mexican citizen: No birth certificate, and of no useful purpose to the USA.

    ReplyReply
  50. Aqua says: 100

    @Greg:

    For most of the 20th Century—and certainly during the periods of the most rapid economic expansion and the widest reaching national prosperity—high end tax rates were much higher than they are now, and much higher than the rates that prevailed during the Clinton years.

    What would you say if they could generate the same revenue by adjusting the tax code? If they closed loopholes and pulled the freebies on upper income groups and could generate the same revenue as they would by raising the rates, would you think of that as a good compromise?
    Here are my thoughts on this whole tax thing. Do it, raise the taxes on the rich. I believe there is going to be some pain involved and there will be a new normal. But the uncertainty of the current tax situation is much worse than actually raising the taxes.
    On a personal note, I don’t believe in raising taxes because the feds are just going to spend the money and cut nothing. Name one government program that has been cut in the last 50 years. The GAO has said we could save billions by “reducing or eliminating duplication, overlap, or fragmentation” in federal government programs. “
    http://www.govexec.com/oversight/2011/03/gao-report-eliminating-program-duplication-could-save-billions/33427/

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>