Posted on 12/13/2012 4:56:27 AM PST by Kaslin
President Barack Obama in 2008, and again during the 2012 election, promised absolutely, positively no tax hikes on the middle class. The rich, however, must pay more: "It's not me being stubborn, it's not me being partisan -- it's just a matter of math."
How does Obama intend to pay for our cradle-to-grave welfare state? Why, by charging the dastardly "millionaires and billionaires" who "can afford to pay a little bit more." No more extending the Bush-era tax rates for the rich. To do so, Obama tells us, would "cost" $700 billion -- over 10 years. So this "break" for the rich "costs" $70 billion a year -- or a mere 6 percent of the trillion dollar annual deficits that Obama has rung up since he became president.
This leaves us short about $930 billion per year -- just for the annual deficit, never mind paring down the ever-growing national debt. From where is the shortfall to be made up?
Lots of deluded Obama voters no doubt truly believe "the mess we're in" is due to "two unpaid for wars and irresponsible tax cuts for the rich." End the wars and slap the rich with Clinton-era tax rates, and voila, watch the deficit and debt go poof! But with Obama safely re-elected, some Democrats now speak the truth: The middle class, contrary to Obama's promise, will see substantial tax increases in order to pay for the welfare state the voters once again signed on to by re-electing Obama.
Former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, appearing on MSNBC, said: "The only problem is -- and this is, a little, initially going to seem like heresy from a progressive -- the truth is everybody needs to pay more taxes, not just the rich. That's a good start. But we're not going to get out of this deficit problem unless we raise taxes across the board -- to go back to what Bill Clinton had and his taxes. And if we don't do that, the problem is the pressure is going to be on spending even more."
Obama, however, still insists that any budget deal include tax rate hikes on the top 2 percent -- a violation of the anti-tax-increase pledge most Capital Hill Republicans signed. He's winning the argument. Several Republicans now repudiate the pledge.
The "controversial" pledge states that the signer promises to his/her constituents and the American people to: "ONE, oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax rates for individuals and/or businesses; and TWO, oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates."
But with post-election polls showing that Americans support raising taxes on the rich, House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, now places "revenue on the table" -- meaning the GOP accepts the election returns as a referendum for a "balanced approach" to dealing with our deficits and debt. By "revenue," Boehner means closing "loopholes" and "capping deductions" used by "the rich" to pay less in taxes. And more recently, fiscal conservative Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., now says he would accept a hike in tax rates, provided the Democrats present a plan to reform entitlements.
Polls show that if Congress and the President fail to come to a deal to avoid the so-called "fiscal cliff," Republicans will be blamed. And as the Democrats pin blame, expect their friends in the media to assist with joy and enthusiasm.
The Media Research Center tells us that ABC, NBC and CBS have a distorted view of the term "balance." After the election, those networks spent way more time on the issue of tax hikes than on the issue of spending cuts. ABC, says MRC, was the worst: "In the three weeks following President Obama's re-election, 'World News' devoted more than 10 minutes, 18 seconds to talk of tax hikes and just 35 seconds to spending cuts (a 17-to-1 margin)." So much for the balanced approach.
But the problem remains how to get rich people to pay for all the things voters want: insurance companies that are forbidden from turning away people with pre-existing illnesses; federal disaster relief; the placing of millions of uninsured on Medicaid; "world-class education"; "investments" in "green jobs of the future"; regulations to combat "climate change"; extending unemployment benefits again; etc.
In 1900, government spending at all three levels -- local, state and federal -- amounted to about 10 percent of national income. Government spending today amounts to 40 percent -- or 50 percent, if one places a dollar value on the unfunded mandates imposed on states and businesses by Washington. The voters re-elected a President who increased the national debt faster and by a greater amount than any previous administration. And there are simply not enough rich folks to pay for it.
Obama, on Nov. 6, won the political argument to continue to expand government. But the election did nothing to change "the math." Memo to the middle class: Get ready, you're next.
The “middle class” is the people with a job. Obviously the middle class was always the target.
The plan is to raise taxes on the “rich” then cause rampant inflation so normal people will fall into the category of “rich” and pay exorbitant taxes.
All the while the political ruling class has its pay, benefits and pension adjusted for inflation.
A tax hike on the middle class is the only thing that is going to wake people up. In some ways, I look forward to it. Obama won the last election by suckering people into believing that our bloated Welfare State could be paid for by people making over $250,000. That idea is laughable but a lot of middle class people who want an easy way out willingly fell for it. Now its time to pay the piper. Either cut spending or the middle class is going to have to pay its “fair share.” I’d rather cut spending but America seems to want Obama’s Socialism. No more having the top 10% pay 75% of all income taxes and borrowing to pay for middle class benefits.
...HE DID NOT "WIN THE ARGUMENT" DAMMIT.
He was the (first) recipient of decades of the building of the welfare state begun over 100 years ago by "progressives".
FDR, LBJ, JEC, Willie Jeff, and now BHO have created conditions of easy welfare so that the welfare rolls have grown into a majority of Americans. There will never be in our lifetimes a sane government.
...the lunatics have taken over the asylum. America is a full, blown, certifiable, welfare state with all the "rights and privileges" attached.
The House of Representatives could be our "cavalry to the rescue"..but with Boehner in charge, it ain't going to happen.
The sad fact is that apparently Boehner is so untalented and uneducated that he deems that he couldn't make it outside his House job. Therefore, he is going to throw us all into the welfare state hell hole to save his "job" and the lifestyle to which he has grown accustomed. Doing the right thing for America is not on his agenda, I guess.
“The “middle class” is the people with a job. Obviously the middle class was always the target.”
It will be interesting to see how the leftist freak Hussein Heads defend this “necessity”.
All the “I’d rather see Obama re-elected than vote for Romney” “freepers” should be overjoyed.
No, Mr. President, it is not just a matter of math. It is a matter of a shakedown and humiliation of the so-called rich who are already paying their "fair" share.
If it is possible to have a rational conversation with a Democrat, the Democrat would agree that the "rich" are already paying their fair share. Killing the Bush tax cuts is equivalent to killing the economy, if you understand free enterprise and Economics 101.
The government has demonstrated time and again its incompetence, corruption, and disdain for whatever is American. What is "fair" share today will be short of "fair" share tomorrow. "Fair" share is a moving target toward a 100% tax rate, with the Democrats in charge.
ANYTHING negative that comes out of this will be blamed on Republicans.
If Republicans do nothing, if Republicans cave in to the President, if Republicans oppose the President's policies...the final and ultimate blame will be on Republicans. PERIOD
I have completely lost interest in the whole ‘discussion’ because the MSM consistently and intentionally misrepresents everything that is going on, everything that is necessary and everything that is likely to take place.
Politicians are confused and deliberately confusing... they cannot be trusted and are themselves as much of the problem as the MSM.
Politicians were present every step of the way in the decades long chain of events and record of ‘legislation’ that got the US into the jackpot it's in now.
Trust POLITIICIANS or the MSM? Not at all!
Pay attention to where your precious country is going!
“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” (Edmund Burke)
The rich....is a nebulous concept.
What is “rich”. that’s depends on where you’re standing.
Hate to say this but Obama isn’t the problem, the MSM is the problem.
We need to Alinsky the MSM. Problem with that is we work, have families, have lives. The left can afford to send 100,000 SEIU workers out for the day to protest because we pay for that.
The rich will simply (as always) hire accountants and attorneys, and move their assets around appropriately. The rest of us will get slammed by the AMT.
< sarc >How do I get MINE??? < /sarc >
We've got no one standing up for us in DC, we've got no consequential way to make ourselves heard.
With hundreds of IRS agents being hired, any kind of tax protest is highly problematic.
And I don't believe Thomas Jefferson's prescription is a possibility at this point.
Frustrated doesn't begin to describe how I feel at this point.
“All the “I’d rather see Obama re-elected than vote for Romney” “freepers” should be overjoyed.”
By the way I don’t see too many of them bragging here that much after the elections. They may have buyers remorse!
When they see their new tax rate, they will be heard.
Obama is a problem but he is not “the” problem.
As you correctly point out it is the Drive-by media. They are monolithic in their worldview which is directed by Columbia Journalism School. Columbia is without question the most Marxist of all the “Ivy” schools with Brown and Cornell being the least, of a decidedly leftist spectrum.
The fourth estate has clearly become of fifth column in that they are actively seeking to destroy the US from within.
Their advocacy for gay rights, gun control, the welfare state, global warming, ad nausea is clearly subversive activity and this goes back to the McCarthy thing When Welch declared “have you no decency...” The Right was forever cast as immoral ind intolerant and whatever else.
Until we have a “have you no decency” moment with the left, we are cooked.
“When they see their new tax rate, they will be heard.”
Or they’ll suddenly have as much respect for Boehner as Big Media does....
"Let me tell you how it will be
There's one for you, nineteen for me
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman"
- George Harrison
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.