Barack Obama held a press conference today. He should have stood in bed. The reviews are nothing less than brutal:
Surely, if President Obama had been scripted this afternoon he wouldn’t have let loose with such a self-revelatory rant at the end of his presser. To this point, the hallmark of Obama has been his bloodlessness and lack of emotion, in almost any circumstance. North Korea could nuke Seoul and he’d come out and coolly pronounce it a regrettable event that proves we need to ratify New START. We’ve learned today that what really gets under his skin and makes him boil is criticism, and especially criticism from progressives. Only a man of the left could care so much about attacks from the left wing. Only a president who is extremely thin-skinned would let criticism bother him so much that he’d — relative to his usual affect — erupt in anger in public about it. Only someone who desperately hates the position he’s in now, having to try to accommodate political realities in a center-right country and kiss his former messiahship goodbye, would show such peevishness. We got a good look behind the curtain for a moment this afternoon, and it wasn’t pretty.
Mr. Obama has mastered the ability to look both unprincipled and graceless at the same time. There is also a touch of bipolarity in this administration that is doing a fair amount of damage to it.
In the Washington Post this morning, under the headline “The president extends an olive branch to the GOP,” we read this:
Although his liberal supporters are furious about the decision, President Obama’s willingness to extend all of the George W. Bush-era tax cuts is part of what White House officials say is a deliberate strategy: to demonstrate his ability to compromise with Republicans and portray the president as the last reasonable man in a sharply partisan Washington. The move is based on a political calculation, drawn from his party’s midterm defeat, that places a premium on winning back independent voters.
It’s not clear to me how referring to a party that just smashed your own in an epic midterm election as “hostage takers” is going to help Mr. Obama either win back independents or appear as “the last reasonable man in a sharply partisan Washington.”
If the commenters at the Huffington Post, and the hosts and guests at MSNBC, are any guide, the Bush tax cut deal has rendered the Obama presidency a zombie. It looks alive and is even able to move and groan a bit, but it’s mostly dead.
foxinretreat—CLASS WARFARE and some civil unrest , brewing in a neighborhood near you. Hey oligarchs how it turns out is anybody’s guess. I hope Wikileaks unleashes its info on the banks ASAP, I could care less if WS has to tank to stop this madness.
mjtaylor22—THEY GOT MOR EBANG FOR THEIR BUCK, HOW BOUT INCREASE UI PAYMENTS, AND SEND EVERY CITIZEN A CHECK FOR AT LEAST 1,000..SORRY TAX PAYING CITIZEN……
Linda Mulenbach—Dear Mr. President. You had me, and then you lost me! Can we please have a democratic primary challenger! I am DONE with Obama.
Chefbob50—Wanted: One backbone and set of balls send to B. Obama c/o 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Wash. D.C.
I don’t mean just for Obama. I mean any president. Or head of state. When I wrote this morning that he doesn’t do well in defeat, you didn’t know how right I was, huh? Let’s count the ways.
Calling Republicans “hostage takers.” Not helpful. Saying Republicans opposed middle class tax cuts. Not true — they wanted no tax increases for anyone. Accusing Republicans of holding out tax cuts for the rich as the “Holy grail.” Also wrong. As Republican strategist Mike Goldfarb tweeted, and as Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell has said, beating Obama in 2012 is the Holy Grail. Then Obama started ranting at the media and bashing the left, which, if we are to believe statements from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, seems poised to abandon him on this. Obama also dragged in the “public option” for no apparent reason other than to remind everyone of the last time he disappointed liberals. Admitting he’s had a whole bunch of lines in the sand. Umm. Thunk.
On Twitter, there is shock and awe among pundits and reporters. Is Obama melting down? Has he lost control of the conversation? Yikes. Whoever let him go out there and do this rant-a-thon should be fired. Oh, was it Obama’s idea? I think his own party is indeed going to go into “riot mode.” A House GOP leadership aide pronounced the performance “angry” and out-of-touch. That’s being generous.
“Mr. Obama has mastered the ability to look both unprincipled and graceless at the same time.”
You have to love it.
[below added by Curt]
A Wall Street reader emails:
Obama’s petulance sank stocks.
Stocks were euphorically higher most of today, thanks to the unexpectedly broad tax deal the administration hammered out with the Republicans. But during his press conference, Obama’s clear anger and call to unwind the deal in 2 years opened a trap door under prices, sending them to a negative finish. We had hope, and then it changed.
“He’s coming across as hectoring, defensive, and not well acquainted with the facts or the policy.” Later: “Well, that was pretty bad, the kind of presser Napoleon might have given after Waterloo.”
At his press conference, the president said, “in order to get stuff done, we’re going to compromise. This is why FDR, when he started Social Security, it only affected widows and orphans. You did not qualify.” That’s not true. Ida May Fuller, who in 1939 became the first beneficiary of recurring monthly Social Security payments, had worked as a legal secretary and was single. As Noel Sheppard pointed out at NewsBusters, the president made the same false claim during his October interview with Jon Stewart. In one of many such omissions, the text of that interview is not available on the White House website.
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.
Class warfare does not work in a meritocracy. So nice to see the precedency coming apart before our very eyes. Progressives are blowing up all over the place. The Bush cuts will come up again before the 2012 election. Kaboom.
You are the USA and god bless yas. The Democratic rhetoric is hillarious.
Almost…ALMOST makes me wish I had turned a TV on and watched it.
But I had an important “Minesweeper” game going.
I called this long ago.
He’ll replicate Clinton’s ’95 to ’96 strategy and get re-elected.
Man was that an easy call.
I don’t think his controllers will tolerate that.
FROM THE LEFT:
Michael Lerner, longtime editor of Tikkun magazine, argued in The Washington Post that a primary represented a “real way to save the Obama presidency,” by forcing Mr. Obama to move leftward. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/03/AR2010120304148.html
Robert Kuttner, co-founder of The American Prospect and one of the party’s most scathing populist voices, issued a similar call on The Huffington Post, suggesting Iowa as the ideal incubator.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-kuttner/what-now-for-the-democrat_b_792301.html
Clarence B. Jones, a one-time confidant of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., suggested that liberals should break with Mr. Obama now, just as Dr. King and others did with Lyndon B. Johnson in 1968.
“It is not easy to consider challenging the first African-American to be elected president of the United States,” Mr. Jones wrote. “But, regrettably, I believe the time has come to do this.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/clarence-b-jones/time-to-think-to-unthinka_b_792237.html
the only question is WHO?
Hillary?
(When she says, ”No,” she often means, ”Yes.”)
Howard Dean?
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Somebody new?
Would even the Dems do THAT again?
As I said before, Obama totally punked the GOPer cons on this one. As for calling the GOPer cons “hostage takers”, they DID threaten to shut down Congress (including START and unemployment compensation) unless they got a tax cut deal and a budget deal. Sounds like taking the unemployment comp. programs hostage if they did not get what they wanted.
Well, if doing what we elected them to do (or a reasonable facsimile thereof) is “taking hostages” I guess they are “guilty”.
@B-Rob I want to know how that is possible, doesn’t this democratic congress still have super the majority until January? Oh and still have a week and a half left of session? So how could the GOP hold anything hostage.
Nice Try
I think Obama is getting whipped by Michelle, who sees him blowing his Presidency and his re-election aspirations. He is acting like all of his gyros have been fried. There’s nothing cool about it. He’s thrashing.
Pretty much lost it near as I can tell. Only got little bits at lunch. Had to get an F-16 ready to fly. I actually bust my ass as a federal employee. Unlike teh won and the leftards in the congress.
But the man child has been dealt a political blow that he may not recover from. Back to the private sector in January of 2013, I hope.
@ Larry Sheldon, #7:
I’ll have to take another look at their Promise to America. Apparently I somehow missed the part where they talked about adding another $700 billion to the national debt to finance tax cuts for the richest 3%.
Who do republicans suggest we borrow it from this time? The Chinese? The Saudis?
Greg, Greg… I’m putting in a repeat performance here, since your idiocy is peppered throughout the thread. The demand to add more to the national debt, in order to pay people to continue NOT working – PLUS give them a $2400 tax credit for that money, AND give them a raise – was NOT the idea of the GOP.
That onus is on you and your buds.
The GOP is guilty of not standing firm and caving. The Dems are guilty of forcing more spending. As you, yourself, said:
Now, if you could just remember who it was that demanding the increased spending for extended UI for THIRTEEN MONTHS! (conveniently a new next Christmas “Scrooge” political argument… ready for a rerun next year?), and the increased taxes.
Hint.. it was NOT the GOP. Therefore the “promises” document is a moot and desperate lib/prog talking point.
And please, while you are looking into that, tell me which hostage that is.
For that matter, where are thes “tax cuts” you are talking about? I’m pretty sure the conversation has been about out additional crippling tax increases.
Greg, see if you can find somebody to help you follow along with this explanation of what has been going on.
Not borrow, print. There isn’t enough net savings in the world any more for all of the world’s overspending governments to borrow what they need. Why do you think the Fed loaned nearly $6 trillion to various banks? Think maybe there was a little condition in there where they had to turn around and buy US bonds with it? The Fed also bought up some bonds directly, but it looks like the buying through intermediaries is much bigger. They have already begun monetizing the debt aka printing money. On the plus side, you need not worry about being in debt to the Chinese or the Saudis…
Class warfare does not work in a meritocracy.
America is becoming less meritocratic as it becomes less free (I think the election of Obama surely counts as an argument against the idea that we have a working meritocracy, at least in government). But in any case I don’t agree with your assessment; let us assume a lower class entirely lacking in ‘merit’ (however you want to define it), and they will have an incentive to engage in class warfare since a meritocracy doesn’t have much to offer them. I suppose you could argue that class warfare still does not work in this case because such a rabble has no effective organization, but the world is full of opportunists…
@ #13:
The Bush tax cuts weren’t originally written into law to be permanent, because there were concerns about how they could increase the total level of debt at the time. Entirely rational concerns, as it turns out; the Bush tax cuts have done precisely that. The total debt has more than doubled during the nine years they’ve been in effect. By the originally intended expiration point, the total debt will have nearly tripled.
What republicans persist in referring to as “increases” were simply the scheduled return to pre-Bush tax levels.
Two years from now, we’re going to be having this same discussion all over again. The total debt will be even higher by then. Republicans will be blaming everything on Obama, and arguing that the further extension of high-end tax cuts are exactly what is needed.
Greg, I will remind you one more time that Senate rules of debate with reconciliation budget legislation mandates 10 year revisiting and sunsetting if it’s deemed as affecting the “deficit”… true or not. Therefore it was never a guarantee of “… simply the scheduled return to pre-Bush tax levels”. It was only legislation that, after the 10 years per the Byrd Rule, had to be revisited. Patriot Act and other legislation is the same.
Again, thanks for playing, as Aye sez.
@ bbartlog, #15:
It’s my impression that the middle class–and certainly the working poor–are having to put in more total hours and make every hour increasingly productive to even have a chance of not losing ground. While working more and producing more during each hour of work, they’ve lost real wages, employee benefits, and much of their sense of long-term security.
I’m not sure how the concept of meritocracy fits into that observation.
@ #14:
No doubt the fast-talking dude’s story impresses a lot of guys while they’re sitting around the bar, staring into their beers. Unfortunately the example is totally bogus, because the cost of the beer–i.e., the cost of all of the things that the government is spending taxpayer dollars on–isn’t actually going down.
There wouldn’t be a problem with a disproportionate reduction in taxes, provided total spending were to go down. Maybe the ten guys in the bar need to work that little problem out first, and then divey up any savings once there actually are some. I rather doubt the bartender will agree to sell beer at a loss to make the distribution of savings among his customers possible.
Beginning to see the light at the end of the tunnel finally, Greg?
I totally agree in that trading the tax structure remaining status quo for increased taxes and extended UI benefits was folly for the US citizen, regardless of party.
Now who was it that demanded the increased taxes and UI as part of the deal? Hummm…. could it be YOUR PARTY that acquisced to more spending as the trade off?
Nice try…. thanks for playing, as Aye likes to say.
Greg,
It wasn’t the tax cuts that increased the deficit. http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/81xx/doc8116/05-18-TaxRevenues.pdf shows that the revenues from 2003-2006 went up by 35%. They started coming down due to recession. It was the SPENDING that was increased. Total federal spending in 2000 was $1.78 trillion. By 2009, spending increased to $3.5 trillion. That was mostly Bush BTW, but Obama has added even more. It’s funny how people will never acknowledge spending as having anything to do with the deficit. Truth sucks I guess.
@Greg #11:
Doesn’t the top 1% pay for 40% of the national tax burden?
Calling it “tax cuts for the rich” is a kind of political distortion to pull mindstrings, don’t you think? We’re talking about allowing Americans- all Americans- not to be given government money but to keep their own earned income; and this by keeping the tax rates the same; not by giving them new tax cuts.
What the government needs to do is tighten its own belt and reduce government spending on programs and bloated bureaucracy we don’t need and can ill-afford.
The next Wikileaks story coming soon is the Obama files! ROFLMFAO! Long form COLB, College applications as a foreign student listing “Barry Soetoro, Indonesian Citizen” Etc……
Oh,crap! I just WOKE UP!! Sorry, I was dreaming… Gotta get ready for WORK! He He!
Now POTUS B.H. Obama gets unloaded on by his Base, the hard left Progressives in his Party (Which is most of the remaining survivors of the Nov. 2nd massacre btw). He now sees clearly who he has been in bed with, but it’s too late! The only he has to blame for this mess is himself…. Now he is close to toast now. There will be dozens lining up to primary him now in 2012. The question is; when will he wake up and smell the coffee and make this announcement; “I regret to say that I will not be seeking the nomination for POTUS in 2012”
@ MataHarley, #22:
Sorry. I keep forgetting that the GOP hasn’t actually got any specific ideas–other than cutting taxes, of course.
Hey, maybe they’ll surprise me. Maybe they’ll roll out a detailed list of spending cut proposals that actually add up to something significant.
Greg
Do a search for Paul Ryan. He’s in Congress. Maybe you’ve heard of him.
Lets start with this liberal friends….someones money/property is NOT yours to play with, use at your discretion or “redistribute” based on your own priorities. A tax “cut”…. means you keep your own money that you earned, and spend it the way “you” see fit. Extending a tax cut means you are keeping the rate of taxation the way it is. There is no added cost for that…unless you intend on spending more than you are making. The argument that extending these tax cuts “for the rich” will cost taxpayers billions…is a BS argument. By that argument…taxes should really now be “50%” to cover what the gov wants to spend…and therefore…not doing that has cost us trillions of dollars. Horsepockey. Gov is not an excuse to put your hand in other people’s pocket to spend their money or redistribute “wealth” because you aren’t happy with your station in life, or nobody wants to buy your Christ in Piss concept art or you want to “promote” your own ideas that nobody will pay you for, or do your own social experiments……as if it’s your personal bank account. “What’s in YOUR wallet”?? Gov should serve us all, and help to promote/support the free thinking and interaction of people and entities. It should not serve as a wedge between people or sectors of our economy.
If gov spending was the answer to all this…we’d be in happy land by now. But, it doesn’t work that way. When you buy the things “you” want with your own money, you pay taxes on the stuff you buy, but most of that dollar goes directly into the economy without increasing gov debt. When the gov spends the same dollar much, or even all, of that dollar can be wasted on incestuous internals and it adds directly to the debt. It’s even “worse” when you use debt to prime or create gov (taxpayer) funded entities (which is what Obama’s stimulus mainly did) because that only creates more demand for even “more” taxpayer money while increasing the debt at the same time! Thats not to say there isn’t “some” stimulus effect, but it is very minor part of every dollar spent compared to same dollar spent directly from the private sector side.
Having realized this, its almost laughable (if it were not so sad) to see Pelosi and others now suggesting that unemployment benefits and food stamps are our best hope for more stimulus (ie., jobs). I guess they forgot that these things “DO” add directly to the debt as compared to some future tax increase that hasn’t happened yet. One can argue what is the right tax rate…particularly in regards to the debt. But, the reason for the debt is not because the gov is paying rich people to be rich….it’s because the gov is spending more money than it takes in with entitlements being far and away the largest sponge. Continually screaming for tax increases, while not addressing spending…is entirely counterproductive and unsustainable.
Chris in NC #21,
Excellent post. I’ll be printing that report off and showing it to some of the lefties in these parts who continue to claim that tax cuts are primary reason for the deficit. Chances are there would be a similar scenario for Reagan’s tax cuts. Of course they’ll still be in denial as they never let facts get in the way of an argument.
Mata,
I agree we need to prevent UI from becoming another long term welfare program but having been there, I have no problem giving some assistance to those who worked their entire lives and have fallen on hard times. However to continue extending it without trying to fix the problem is just turning it to another long term welfare program. There is a fine line between helping people in hard times and making them dependent on hand outs which when you look at the overall direction this administration and Congress have taken, is exactly what they are trying to do. The solution is going to be to get this economy going and growing government and spending more is not the solution. It failed in the ’30’s and it will fail again.
@Greg #16:
I’m glad the Bush tax cuts aren’t made permanent. They shouldn’t be. The top tax rate under Reagan was 28%. Under Bush it’s 35% due to tax increases under Bush #41 and Clinton.
How can anyone take seriously Obama’s rhetoric and reputation as Mr. Bipartisan/Post-partisanship president? A uniter and not a divider when he is talking about itching for a fight on a host of issues? For Republicans to “go sit in the back”? When he likens Republicans to terrorists by “hostage-taking”? He talks of working together with Republicans right after November Election results; but moments before, he calls for “punishing your enemies”, referring to Republicans? On the stimulus bill? 2 Republican votes count for bipartisan support? On ramming through healthcare? Exactly when has Obama ever reached across the aisle in a spirit of bipartisanship and compromise? Now, you say? Well that’s only because Republican majority and gains can now “hold him hostage”….his idea of working across the aisle and bipartisanship is “now it’s time for Republicans to try it my way and we’ll have bipartisanship support. No, you’re not getting the keys back; now shut up and go sit in the back!”
We could save a lot of energy and hate if we could just learn to say something like “BGP”[1] instead of fretting over whether it was Obama or Bush, and which Bush…
The silly little clip really does describe the tax “cut” misinformation quite well. (I meant to suggest that the people that arrive in the little buses get some help following it–there is some pretty complicated math in it.)
and for those that were not able to keep up, the cost of the bear to payers did go down. (And no, I am not stepping into the trap–I don’t remember that it says what kind of booze was involved–I’ll just go along with “beer” because that doesn’t really matter, just as it doesn’t matter if beer nuts or pretzels was involved. The only substantial difference between the little video clip and the tax situation is, in the clip, the people got something for their money that didn’t carry the risk of an STD.
Thank you, smart folks, for straightening out the causes of the huge debt.
I don’t remember where I saw it, but I’ll look for it after awhile (probably on a Glenn Beck program), there was a demonstration that if we are all taxed at 100% that showed that the interest on the debt would not be covered, or maybe that if we took all of the money on the M1 there would not be a significant reduction in the debt, or something like that–of that magnitude.
My wife and I discovered a long time ago that it was not a matter (by several orders of magnitude) of me not earning enough (or bringing home enough of what I earned, or both).
Our accumulating debt was a function of spending more than we made. Period. End of story.
[1] Big Government Progressive
Oh, and a couple of other housekeeping items….
I wish that said:
Seems like I’ve read something like “40% of the people pay no taxes at all” and “1% of the people pay 70% of the taxes”, or something like that. I’ll keep an eye open for that.
And, if you pay people for not working, and pay people to be “poor”, guess what REASONABLE people are going to do! another one for me to try and find: There are numerous situations here in Omaha (I think it was) where people have to take a pretty nasty pay cut to go to work. If that is right, it is just wrong.
@DC:
I forgot to mention that I love this point!
@Larry Sheldon:
Seems like I’ve read something like “40% of the people pay no taxes at all” and “1% of the people pay 70% of the taxes”, or something like that. I’ll keep an eye open for that.
Here ya go:
Why is it that, even though Congress controls all spending, every deficit chart on the internet compares deficits to the party of the president in office? Can anyone find a chart showing deficit spending by party affiliation of Congressional majorities?
i’ll never forget the deal between the repubs and dims during the closing days of bush’s term. it was purported to save the american and world financial communities and scheduled for a vote that afternoon. what does the most stupid woman i ever saw do? she gives a far leftie speech full of so much stupid bs i thought obummer’s speech disaster mischief makers had done it. the repubs said “to hell with you and your deal nancy” and the stock market almost crashed.
then under ole zero we get more stimulus which is another word for pork for the dims’ bestie friends. it wasn’t shovel ready. the only shovels used were the ones the dims’ bestie buddies used to shovel tax payer funds into their accounts.
the far left hates everybody except their bestie friends and they aren’t too sure about them, so excuse me with being amused with his peevishness’ latest stupidity. actually i am glad he does it. it should remind all of us how much he despises us and vice versa.
@Greg, truly a waste of bandwidth, that come back was.
@another vet, please note carefully the months the Dems required for the UI extension. It will be next year’s “Christmas Scrooge” talking point yet again. This is a set up for yet another extension, or the opportunitiy to portray the GOP as evil and heartless. And the GOP fell into it like Bambi.
As far as living on a hand out, with all the extensions, unemployment checks can be received for up to 99 weeks, depending upon specifics. That’s over a year and a half. I’d say we’ve moved way beyond helping over a hump, and are now creating a new class of dependents who’d rather stay home and collect a bigger unemployment check than go to work for less.
Extending UI is going to be a drain on individual employers. Because as the states borrow from the FUTA, that’s a loan with interest that has to be paid. So they’re busy trying to suck that out of employers with state UI increases. And, as I pointed out, FL has figured out that’s a job killer in itself.
Perpetual idiocy… ’round and ’round we go. Two old time sayings come to mind here. You still can’t get blood from a turnip, and if your head hurts from banging it against that brick wall, then *stop banging your head against the brick wall*.
Mata,
Perhaps this could similar to what transpired back in the 90’s with the government shut down that helped in portraying the Republicans as evil and helped get someone else reelected?
On one of the other threads I posted a possible solution to this that being that whatever you get in UI you lose when it’s time collect SS. They are still throwing money around like there is an endless supply of it. Case in point, I looked at buying a house for investment property to rent out. The thing had serious structural issues to the point where it would be a candidate for a tear down and even at that, there was obviously something wrong with the soil and drainage to the point where rebuilding on the lot would be a risk as well. The house is owned by Fannie Mae (i.e. U.S. Govt.). What are they doing? Putting a new roof on there and fixing the eves. No one in the private sector or their right mind would waste the money on what they are doing but since they have tax $$ to spend……..
Obama had surrounded himself with tons of young Turks, men and women with no experience in the real world of business.
Until today.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Obama has met with Michael Duke, chief executive officer of Wal-Mart Stores Inc.,
Alan Lafley, a former CEO of Procter & Gamble Co., and
Steven Reinemund, former chairman and CEO of PepsiCo Inc.
More discussions are on the way.
“Over the next several weeks I’m going to be meeting with my economic team,
with business leaders and
others to develop specific policies and budget recommendations for the coming year,” Obama said.
Administration officials say they expect a gradual rollout of staff changes.
In addition to corporate chiefs, Obama has sought counsel from former Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle; John Podesta, director of the Center for American Progress; and former chief of staff Rahm Emanuel.
The president is considering whether to bring someone from the business community as a point person on job creation.
“They’re going to have a big debate with the Republicans on how to create jobs and how to cut taxes and the deficit,” said Stan Greenberg, a former pollster for Clinton. “They need an economic team that’s up to that.”
~~~~~~~~~~
Much more here:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-07/obama-brings-ceos-to-white-house-huddle-as-44th-president-changes-himself.html
@ DC, #28:
That’s arguably true of the wealth and property we’ve accumulated. It’s not necessarily true of the income that contributes to one’s hopefully-growing accumulation. I’ve never imagined that my gross yearly income is in the same category of ownership as my total accumulated wealth. Since I got my first paycheck, it’s been totally obvious to me that the wealth isn’t truly mine until the taxes on the income have been paid. This isn’t a recent historical development. It’s a fundamental fact of life, dating back to times long before the days of ancient Rome.
Actually, it’s not BS. It was reported by Shepard Smith this afternoon on FOX Cable News that the latest estimates for how much further the compromise bill will put us in the red are running up to $900 billion over the next two years. A significant portion of that represents high-end tax cuts. A significant portion represents what republicans are willing to allow democrats in exchange for those high end tax cuts. From the fiscal conservative’s view, perhaps that makes a majority of democrats and republicans partners in crime.
Advocates of high-end tax cut extensions never seem to tire of asserting that they don’t have to be paid for. This is wishful thinking. Given the enormity of the debt we’re already carrying, it’s wishful thinking expanded to the point of total lunacy. Of course revenue shortfalls have to be paid for. Unless we’re living in fantasy land, there are only two real, workable options. You can choose one, the other, or some balanced combination: To pay for tax high-end cut extensions, you can raise taxes somewhere else, or you can cut the overall level of spending. Failing to do one, the other, or some combination of both, has a totally predictable outcome: even more rapid growth of the national debt.
The automatic conservative choice is spending cuts. The catch is that you actually have to make them, and make them to a sufficient degree to rebalance the budget equation. Republicans won’t actually do that. They may have said they would, and you might have elected them with that in mind, but it’s not going to happen. They know that any serious proposal to cut spending to a degree that would actually have a significant remedial effect on deficit spending is going to negatively impact a large numbers of voters. They certainly don’t want that. What they want is to hang onto and expand their power in 2012. Accomplishing that entails saying one thing convincingly, but actually doing something else.
All I can say to what you just wrote, Greg, is KELO.
They can take away anything they desire.
Anything.
No matter when it became ”yours.”
@ Nan G, #42:
I can’t deny there’s truth to that. I worked hard to pay off my modest home early, and finally managed to do so around 10 years ago. Yet I continue to pay the state annual property taxes for the privilage of keeping it. If I fail to do so they’ll remove me–by force, if necessary–and auction my property off to the highest bidder to get whatever they can.
For whatever it’s worth, it’s my opinion that the SCOTUS decision on Kelo v. City of New London was fundamentally un-American.
BS
You can stop spending money.
If somebody comes up with a NEW idea, one that makes at least rudimentary sense, please drop me a line.
In the mean time, I’m out.
Cut spending to 2008 levels for starters. Is that so radical and evil?
We could have a total breakdown of society, then it’s every man for themselves.
IBD has this (with a nifty chart, btw)
When you subsidize something, you get more of it.
@ IBD quote in #47:
I’d appreciate a link to that Department of Labor or Bureau of Labor Statistics report. The linked article doesn’t provide one. After searching through the DOL and BLS websites for a report containing that statistic, the most pertinent comment I turned up was this:
Call me a skeptic. I’m wondering if the anonymous author of the IBD editorial simply made the number up to support his or her premise.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/jolts.nr0.htm
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
Official enough for you?
Sure, IBD just makes this stuff up.
And
Business Week
Boston Globe
Wall Street Journal
Reuters
NYTimes
The Atlantic
MSNBC
Bloomberg
and more!
All used that same figure.
What do you read?
Nan G #47,
Now I’m getting confused with these extensions. Are those 13 months in addition to the 99 weeks available or is it included in the 99? Unless I’m misreading it, “99 weeks and counting” means in addition to which is insane and like Mata said is way over the hump.
another vet, my exact words about UI benefits were:
Therefore, there was no “…and counting…” included that can be attributed to me. Tho I would not be surprised were 99 weeks not the end of the grace freebie period … were it left to the Dims.
However, I remain by my original analysis… 99 weeks is way over the hump of the grace period for finding re’employment.
AV, (Thanks for your service.)
No, this extension allows more people to reach 99 weeks (or a bit less, depending) before being cut off of unemployment.
No one can legally get more than the 99 weeks Obama extended unemployment to back in April.
There has been some misreporting.
Here’s a clear statement:
Las Vegas Review-Journal
Nan G,
That makes it more clear. Thanks for your info as well. There has been some good data posted on this thread like Chris’ #21 and Aye’s #34. I wonder how many times it’ll have to be repeated on other threads in order to counter the same types of arguments.
@ Nan G, #49:
Thanks. I’d just tracked down where the 3 million figure had came from myself. It is, indeed, from the BLS’s Job Openings and Labor Turnover (JOLTS) survey. It presumably came from this table.
I’ll give the author of the editorial the benefit of the doubt, and assume that he or she has honestly misinterpreted, rather than deliberately misled.
Apparently the author thinks that the number is a count of unfilled jobs actually waiting out there in the real world; of the number of Help Wanted signs that the lazy millions on unemployment are ignoring, or some such.
It isn’t.
What the figure actually represents is the anticipated number of positions that will need to be filled within the the next 30 days. The figure is projected by BLS based upon a statistical sampling of employers, who report their own business’s anticipated needs over the next 30 days as of the final business day of each month.
The reason the figure is misleading is because the biggest portion of the total anticipated openings reported don’t actually represent net job creation. JOLTS is primarily a measure of worker turnover, not additional jobs available. The figure in question is largely a reflection of employee mobility. It goes up markedly if a higher percentage of jobs are of brief duration, for example–something that’s certainly not indicative of stable employment situations. Many employees who have just lost a short-term position promptly fill one of those anticipated positions that was recently reported as needing to be filled on the Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey. The suggestion of a second, new job waiting for some second person who’s been on unemployment was only an illusion. The first job is now gone. The number on JOLTS simply doesn’t reflect that fact.