Obama: Public Is Sold on Tax Increases or Something

Spread the love

Loading

You know, it’s almost as if he believes his own lies.

President Obama on Friday kept up the pressure on Republicans to agree to revenue increases in a deal to raise the debt ceiling, claiming 80 percent of the public supports Democrats’ demand for tax increases.

“The American people are sold,” he said. “The problem is members of Congress are dug in ideologically.”

Obama said 80 percent of Americans are on his side in the debate over what to include in the debt package.

Read more

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of

10 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

The public is sold on the need for a balanced approach to deficit reduction. They’re not going to accept draconian spending cuts to programs benefiting middle-to-low income Americans in the absence of increased revenue collections on the high end, let alone in conjunction with even deeper high-end tax cuts.

@Greg:

They’re not going to accept draconian spending cuts to programs benefiting middle-to-low income Americans in the absence of increased revenue collections on the high end, let alone in conjunction with even deeper high-end tax cuts.

-One, federal spending can be cut enormously without cuts to the majority of social programs that middle-to-low income families benefit from. I suggest you look at each individual department’s budget tables and most likely you will find numerous items that could, and should, receive massive cuts.

-Two, any desire, by anyone, to increase taxes on the “rich” without any hikes in taxes on the other classes, is pure envy. If the concern is that federal revenue must be increased, then anyone willing to talk about tax hikes on anyone must be willing to incur tax hikes on themselves, otherwise it is nothing more than one group of people saying that another group has too much. Then where will it end? Who decides what is too much? How low will that “too much” figure drop?

-Three, when a large portion of workers do not even owe taxes, and a large portion of them gains money from the government, any calls for higher taxation on the “rich” is as I said above. Pure envy. People that have no “skin in the game” calling for others to place more of their own skin in the game is outrageous.

This man is delusional. He has been smoking in the closet for far too long. of course him being a narcissist, what can you expect.

re: #2

Envy has little to do with the old observation that blood can’t be gotten out of turnips.

The contribution that lower income people would have to make toward a solution would take the form of lessened entitlements: a gradual phasing in of lower Social Security benefits, an older retirement age, etc. They aren’t in a position to pay higher taxes.

Everyone else might expect their effective tax rates to return to Clinton-era levels, and expect to see the closing of loopholes and a simplification of the tax system that results in those rates actually being paid. Clinton-era tax rates didn’t stop the rich from getting richer.

The overall size of government should be reduced by attrition. Critical vacancies should be filled to the greatest extent possible by moving personnel from non-productive agencies, which should be systematically phased out.

And we should stop pissing away trillions on military adventures that aren’t a matter of obvious necessity, having clearly defined objectives and end points. We should use the savings at home, to rebuild our national infrastructure and strengthen our borders. We should spend enough to maintain the ability to effectively respond to direct threats to ourselves and our allies. We should demonstrate that capability only when it’s actually necessary.

It will take us at least as long to get out of the mess we’re in as it did to get into it. There is no quick fix. But stability will return when it’s obvious that we’re genuinely and continuously moving in that direction.

Hey, I’m sorry if people don’t like the observation made in #1. It’s an observation about political reality. Not liking it won’t make it go away. If republicans don’t believe that a majority of Americans feel that way, they can test their theory.

@Greg:

And we should stop pissing away trillions on military adventures that aren’t a matter of obvious necessity, having clearly defined objectives and end points. We should use the savings at home, to rebuild our national infrastructure and strengthen our borders. We should spend enough to maintain the ability to effectively respond to direct threats to ourselves and our allies. We should demonstrate that capability only when it’s actually necessary.

I agree with that. However, one’s idea of necessary is another person’s idea of frivolity or non-necessity. Whose to judge what is, or what isn’t, necessary, when it comes to our defense. I, for example, believe that making the borders stronger is absolutely necessary to our defense, to include more personnel on the border, and an actual border fence. Many of the liberals in our country see that as unnecessary, however.

Envy has little to do with the old observation that blood can’t be gotten out of turnips.

No, it is envy when one group looks at another, and claims that since they have more, then more should be taken from them to pay for things which in all likelihood do not benefit those who have more.

They aren’t in a position to pay higher taxes.

No, many of them aren’t. But that, in itself, is not a justification for those who make more to pay more.

And yes, it is envy, when people call for higher taxation on the “rich” only. What’s more, many of those are calling for higher taxation on the “rich” as an equalization of outcomes, to reduce the “rich” person’s holdings, and to allow the government to take that and give to the “poor”.

All your arguments about taxation boil down to that very simple idea, even if you do not realize it yourself. You advocate that the outcomes of people’s lives must be equalized by the government, hence your discussion of income disparities. The government’s job, as outlined in the Constitution, and the founder’s writings, is to ensure that equal opportunity to all is preserved. And everything from social engineering programs to crony capitalism are nothing more than an attempt to equalize the outcomes of people’s lives, and, in opposition to the Constitution, ends up creating disparity in the idea of equal opportunity.

Our government does not have a revenue problem, Greg. It has a serious spending problem, and a serious problem with favoring one entity over another, resulting in needed extra spending to attempt a correction at a problem the government created in the first place.

@Greg:

If republicans don’t believe that a majority of Americans feel that way, they can test their theory.

Unfortunately, it doesn’t take a majority of Americans for one group to impose their will on the country. It takes just enough to create a majority of those who care enough to argue the issue. And your claim that the majority support tax increases on the “rich” is arguable.

80% huh?
No wonder Rep Boehner says trying to reason with Obama is like trying to pin down Jello.
Can Obama sit there with a straight face and lie right to the senators and Congressmen in the room with him, like he does to the American people?
Astonishing!
Rasmussen:
34% think a tax hike should be included in any legislation to raise the debt ceiling.

58% of Democrats want a tax hike.
82% of Republicans do not want a tax hike.
35% of unaffiliated want a tax hike.

#7:

Ah yes, the Rasmussen question

I guess it produced poll results that make for a usable conservative header line. Whether or not the conclusion the results are claimed to support corresponds with actual majority opinion is another matter entirely.

@Greg:

The public is sold on the need for a balanced approach to deficit reduction.

If you mean balanced in the sense of no new taxes, yes. Otherwise you’re dreaming.

Some pundit said that the Obama finger-in-the-wind’ers found that the phrase, ”Balanced approach,” polls well.
Obama uses that phrase incessantly now.
But, as was said in the movie, The Pricess Bride, ” You use that word, but I do not think that word means what you think it means.”
Obama KNOWS he doesn’t mean what Americans think ”balanced approach” means.
It is another one of his empty frames.
He only hopes you will put into his empty frame what YOU want ”balanced approach” to mean and thus ”agree” with him.

Looks like he’s fooled a few people.
With the same trick.
Again.