Just so we’re clear, we all understand these tax hikes would accomplish zilch, right?

posted at 2:41 pm on November 13, 2012 by Erika Johnsen

And I quote:

But as I’ve said before, we can’t just cut our way to prosperity. If we’re serious about reducing the deficit, we have to combine spending cuts with revenue. And that means asking the wealthiest Americans to pay a little more in taxes. … That’s how we can reduce the deficit while still making the investments we need to build a strong middle class and a strong economy. …

Now, already, I’ve put forward a detailed plan that allows us to make these investments while reducing our deficit by $4 trillion over the next decade. I want to be clear: I’m not wedded to every detail of my plan. I’m open to compromise. I’m open to new ideas. I’m committed to solving our fiscal challenges.

But I refuse to accept any approach that isn’t balanced. I am not going to ask students and seniors and middle-class families to pay down the entire deficit while people like me making over $250,000 aren’t asked to pay a dime more in taxes.

Yes, by all means, let’s be serious — and acknowledge that tax hikes on the wealthiest among us is not going to accomplish anything even remotely meaningful in terms of long-term deficit reduction. Talking about how expensive the two wars have been and ginning up populist resentments (Obama likes to add the “rich people like me” bit to fend off claims of class-warmongering, but the “fairness” implication is of course still there) while consistently failing to produce any concrete plans except on how the government can spend more money, is not a solution. The hit on economic growth that will come at the cost of steepening our already graduated income tax is a much less effective way of increasing revenue than the lowered taxes that would allow the economy to grow at a more robust rate and bring more people into the middle and upper tax brackets (and with the president’s proposed arrangements, we can count on more of the same economic stagnation that only adds people to the food stamp/unemployment benefits/etcetera welfare rolls and deepens our fiscal woe).

As Conn Carroll aptly reminds us, sure, the Congressional Budget Office has projected that allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire for the wealthy could bring in as much as $824 billion over ten years (which, given that it’s from the CBO, I’d wager is a somewhat rosy estimate). But when you put that in the context of, oh yeah, Obama’s been running up trillion-dollar deficits every year of his presidency, you can see what a hugely insurmountable problem this is.

I merely highlight this all again because this is what the lame-duck Congress that reconvened today has already started fighting about. President Obama can certainly talk a good game about being open to entitlement reform and compromise, rabble rabble rabble, but his declaration that “we cannot cut our way to prosperity” is just plain wrong. We can, and we should cut our way to prosperity — not because we want to take benefits away from people who currently need them, but because we want to create opportunities for people so that they don’t need those benefits anymore. This pattern of insanely frivolous government spending, as if the Obama administration somehow knows how to spend and allocate our money better than we do in bringing about economic growth, is not the answer.

But no matter, it’s all going to be pinned on those dastardly Republicans, no matter what happens. Oof.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

GREAT! How do 2006 spending levels sound?

stvnscott on November 13, 2012 at 3:44 PM

I was thinking 1999.

You like Clinton levels of taxes, offer Clinton levels of spending.

That would mean somewhere in the neighborhood of $900 billion in cuts a year. That’s more than Obama added to annual spending, every cent of it borrowed.

Lester and Drywall- you can’t keep burying the country in debt this fast and you both know that.

Chuck Schick on November 13, 2012 at 3:47 PM

The wise (notice I didn’t say smart) will sell into this market and near the bottom of the meltdown buy back in. Let the Dem’s fret as it gets worse and take advantage of their self proclaimed smarts.

Tater Salad on November 13, 2012 at 3:46 PM

Did that with everything liquid two weeks before the election while the market was still near 14K. I only wish I could do the same with my real estate.

stvnscott on November 13, 2012 at 3:48 PM

If they don’t raise taxes the headline will be “Republicans did not raise taxes, and look at what happened!”

I wish I had answer for this but I do not. I can’t see winning either way.

maddmatt on November 13, 2012 at 3:10 PM

Obamaphones & EBT cards are not forever……

It will crumble – The government will be overwhelmed with liberal zombies.

redguy on November 13, 2012 at 3:49 PM

Awww look… the children came out to play! Look children… cutting PBS is an example of one of the MANY cuts that have to be made. Let me say that again since you’re both struggling to find two brain cells to rub together… CUTS HAVE TO HAPPEN TO EVERYTHING!

Besides, since Sesame street IS THE RICH… why are you trying to remain unfair by keeping their free money? Or is millions and millions of dollars still on the “poor” scale for you? Let’s face it, you like your pork. You like your rich lobbyists.

Oh, and it’s not tax rates that matter… it’s tax REVENUE that matters. The Bush tax cuts increased revenue, not decreased it. Thus… (say it with me children)… increasing taxes will CUT REVENUE, not increase it.

dominigan on November 13, 2012 at 3:38 PM
——–

the bullshit is strong in you

don’t ever stop believing

Dave Rywall on November 13, 2012 at 3:49 PM

We lost because a whole bunch of idiots thought that 1 Trillion raised over ten years will cover 1 Trillion borrowed each year of that ten years.
The lower threshold will be dropping from $200,000 quite quickly.

Jabberwock on November 13, 2012 at 3:36 PM
——

You lost because you continue to choose your own facts and ignore the rest.

Dave Rywall on November 13, 2012 at 3:37 PM

Very well.
Will 1 Trillion raised over ten years cover principle and interest on 1 Trillion borrowed tomorrow ?

Jabberwock on November 13, 2012 at 3:50 PM

The Democrats’ aim is to get the Republicans to break their pledges not to raise taxes. This worked really well against Bush the First. A Republican House-approved tax rate increase will likely send the Republican Party into the ash heap of history.

Let it burn!

Ceteris Paribus on November 13, 2012 at 3:51 PM

I will only feel better if Dave Rywall’s taxes are increased.

Tater Salad on November 13, 2012 at 3:43 PM

He’s an f’n Canadian, none of this matters to him, ay?

slickwillie2001 on November 13, 2012 at 3:51 PM

Lester and Drywall- you can’t keep burying the country in debt this fast and you both know that.

Chuck Schick on November 13, 2012 at 3:47 PM
——–

Agree 1000%.

Raise taxes on the rich, make enormous cuts.

Dave Rywall on November 13, 2012 at 3:51 PM

“Rebuild it closer to the heart’s desire”

If it works for Fabian Socialists, why can’t it work for Libertarians?

tdarrington on November 13, 2012 at 3:52 PM

Teaching remedial history gets very tedious…

1. Clinton did not raise taxes during a recession
2. Clinton presided over the tech bubble

So does teaching basic ecomonics…

1. Slight tax increases during economic booms can be beneficial to the treasury, however taking rates too high slows growth and proves detrimental to the treasury
2. The tax increases proposed by Obama will slow growth and shrink the economic pie for everyone
3. The rich do not have enough income (or enough cash on hand if you want to get authoritarian about it) to affect more than a tiny fraction of the deficit
4. Entitlement spending is so high that eliminating the military and all other discretionary spending would still not be enough to balance the budget

stvnscott on November 13, 2012 at 3:42 PM

Great post… The liberal fools really think that paying more taxes during the Clinton years led to the better economy… Of course as you mentioned they forget about the engine of the economic growth in the 1990′s which was the dot.com/tech bubble and had nothing to do with increasing taxes. Moreover Clinton with the push from the Republicans in Congress cut the capital gain tax from 28% to 20% and this lead to massive boom in the stock market… So yes the Clinton/Republican tax cut on Capital gains led to the stock market boom in the second half of the 1990′s…

mnjg on November 13, 2012 at 3:52 PM

Very well.
Will 1 Trillion raised over ten years cover principle and interest on 1 Trillion borrowed tomorrow ?

Jabberwock on November 13, 2012 at 3:50 PM
——

I never said it would.

So now, how many jobs have the Bush tax cuts created?

Dave Rywall on November 13, 2012 at 3:53 PM

the bullshit is strong in you

don’t ever stop believing

Dave Rywall on November 13, 2012 at 3:49 PM

This isn’t a plan, Drywall. This is just your typical petulance. You can see as clear as the rest of us Obamanomics is a failure, and we need to start paying back all the money you guys wasted.

You cranked up spending so much you have nowhere to go but set off a new recession. And we’ll still have trillion dollar deficits despite it all.

Then what?

Chuck Schick on November 13, 2012 at 3:54 PM

Did that with everything liquid two weeks before the election while the market was still near 14K. I only wish I could do the same with my real estate.

stvnscott on November 13, 2012 at 3:48 PM

Do you have jumbo loans or commercial real estate and have a deficit equity position? You can get right side up and still keep the property. No short sale or a hit on your credit.

Vince on November 13, 2012 at 3:56 PM

Like it or not, the whole is so deep you only have two choices:

Dollar devaluation or a national sales tax. Federal spending will never fall below $2.7 trillion a year again.

can_con on November 13, 2012 at 3:56 PM

The Democrats’ aim is to get the Republicans to break their pledges not to raise taxes. This worked really well against Bush the First. A Republican House-approved tax rate increase will likely send the Republican Party into the ash heap of history.

Let it burn!

Ceteris Paribus on November 13, 2012 at 3:51 PM

——

Let’s have a look at how all those Norquist humping candidates fared last week:

House: 55 losses

Senate: 24 losses

Yeah that’s workin’ out great for you guys – keep it up and you’ll lose congress next

Dave Rywall on November 13, 2012 at 3:57 PM

So now, how many jobs have the Bush tax cuts created?

Dave Rywall on November 13, 2012 at 3:53 PM

Go back to May 2003 when the taxes on investments and top 2 brackets went into effect.

Unemployment was rising for 3 years. It peaked the month after at 6.2% (compare that to Obama) then dropped continually for 5 years.

GDP grew at 7+% the next quarter- highest in 19 years.

Deficits peaked at $450B and dropped 3 fold over next 3 years as tax revenues shot back up to just above the historical average. This was the fastest rate in US history.

Now compare all that to the Stimulus.

Chuck Schick on November 13, 2012 at 3:57 PM

Oh and it wouldn’t hurt to start reminding people every chance you get, government workers are not an investment. They are an expense! Every teacher you hire takes the taxes of 5 to 6 private sector workers to pay for. The ultimate ponzu!

can_con on November 13, 2012 at 3:59 PM

So now, how many jobs have the Bush tax cuts created?

Dave Rywall on November 13, 2012 at 3:53 PM

You mean how many jobs did the tax cuts keep. The tax cuts were instituted during a recession and after 9-11.

Also, you do understand that when you make the cost of doing business more expensive by tax and regulatory increases those costs are passed onto the consumer which is mainly the middle class and low income … right?

That’s the dirty little secret the democrats won’t tell their voters. When they raise taxes on business and “the rich” it’s actually a tax increase for them.

darwin on November 13, 2012 at 3:59 PM

So are you saying that those folks Weren’t Intelligent enough to realize what they were doing?

Chip on November 13, 2012 at 3:35 PM

No. What I’m saying is the enough with the “X hate America and that’s why they voted for Y”.

People don’t vote out of self-hatred. They vote differently because of different views, preferences and priorities.

lester on November 13, 2012 at 4:00 PM

I am impressed by your knowledge of our Norther Neighbor’s economy.

Here I thought the only things they sent south were fat comedians and wet goose farts.

Bruno Strozek on November 13, 2012 at 3:40 PM

Are you calling Rywall fat? I’d think he’d be the goose fart.

kim roy on November 13, 2012 at 4:00 PM

I was thinking 1999.

Chuck Schick on November 13, 2012 at 3:47 PM

I was thinking 1899…

PatriotRider on November 13, 2012 at 4:00 PM

Yeah that’s workin’ out great for you guys – keep it up and you’ll lose congress next

Dave Rywall on November 13, 2012 at 3:57 PM

You won’t ever have Congress again under Obama, so you will need to learn how to start scaling back all this failed spending.

Chuck Schick on November 13, 2012 at 4:00 PM

I never said it would.

So now, how many jobs have the Bush tax cuts created?

Dave Rywall on November 13, 2012 at 3:53 PM

It created millions of jobs from 2003 to 2008… When business people have more money in their pockets they use it to expand their business in order to make profit and by doing so they hire more people… It is basic economics 101 but you communists would never understand this…

Take a business person who makes 1 million dollars a year and employes 6 people. Increasing his tax rate from 35% to 39.6% means that he has to pay an extra $ 40,000 a year… For certain he is not going to take a loss of $ 40,000 a year but instead he is going to lay off one of his employees to make up for the loss… So now you have an additional unemployed person collecting tax payers money and living a miserable life… At the end communism only leads to poverty and misery and that is what you communists want… 99.9% of the people living equally poor and miserable and the communist elite has all the money and power… Well we are not going to let is happen…

mnjg on November 13, 2012 at 4:02 PM

Yeah that’s workin’ out great for you guys – keep it up and you’ll lose congress next

Dave Rywall on November 13, 2012 at 3:57 PM

You mean like the socialists in Canada who are now at the whim of the people in Quebec?

How’s that working out for them?

Canada’s starting to reject socialism. Is that why you’re here?

Go take an economics class or read a book and then come back.

kim roy on November 13, 2012 at 4:03 PM

Do you have jumbo loans or commercial real estate and have a deficit equity position? You can get right side up and still keep the property. No short sale or a hit on your credit.

Vince on November 13, 2012 at 3:56 PM

I am rightside-up on my real estate positions. I just wish I could sell some and buy again at the bottom, but no one is in the buying mood right now. At least all the QE should help my debt positions, but that assumes incomes rise with inflation, which they probably will not.

stvnscott on November 13, 2012 at 4:05 PM

Yeah that’s workin’ out great for you guys – keep it up and you’ll lose congress next

Dave Rywall on November 13, 2012 at 3:57 PM

Perhaps you don’t understand what “Let it burn” means?

Ceteris Paribus on November 13, 2012 at 4:05 PM

You mean like the socialists in Canada who are now at the whim of the people in Quebec?

How’s that working out for them?

Canada’s starting to reject socialism. Is that why you’re here?

Go take an economics class or read a book and then come back.

kim roy on November 13, 2012 at 4:03 PM

If not for the Big Oil Provinces, these Canadians would have 20% unemployment rates… So basically the Big Oil Provinces are feeding the parasites in Eastern Canada but a majority of the dwellers in the Eastern provinces are very ungrateful about it… however what else do you expect from communists beside ungratefulness and envy…

mnjg on November 13, 2012 at 4:07 PM

Very well.
Will 1 Trillion raised over ten years cover principle and interest on 1 Trillion borrowed tomorrow ?

Jabberwock on November 13, 2012 at 3:50 PM
——

I never said it would.

So now, how many jobs have the Bush tax cuts created?

Dave Rywall on November 13, 2012 at 3:53 PM

Good. So you’ll agree that a lot of idiots think that it will. They voted for Obama. I did not make up a fact.
We are talking about tax rates and tax revenue. Not jobs.
Bush’s rate cuts raised the tax revenue.
Tip to Chuck Schick on that.

Jabberwock on November 13, 2012 at 4:08 PM

Just so we’re clear, we all understand these tax hikes would accomplish zilch, right?

Wrong. Tax hikes accomplish one thing… they grease the skids for all the following tax hikes.

Eventually the government owns everything – even you!

An entertaining tale… a bit reductio ad absurdium, but possible?

Marcola on November 13, 2012 at 4:09 PM

This country will not stop borrowing money until it cannot borrow any more. When they hold a T-bill sale and nobody buys, THEN we’re in real trouble.

When will that happen? Next quarter? Next year? Next decade? Nobody knows, but everybody knows it WILL happen. What can’t go on forever won’t.

Socratease on November 13, 2012 at 4:09 PM

Dave does not speak for all us northern folks (nor do I).

can_con on November 13, 2012 at 4:11 PM

If not for the Big Oil Provinces, these Canadians would have 20% unemployment rates… So basically the Big Oil Provinces are feeding the parasites in Eastern Canada but a majority of the dwellers in the Eastern provinces are very ungrateful about it… however what else do you expect from communists beside ungratefulness and envy…

mnjg on November 13, 2012 at 4:07 PM
——

I see you know nothing about all the oil off Newfoundland.

Or what makes up our economy.

And you’re such a clown you used the word “communist”.

Thank you.

Keep up the good work.

Dave Rywall on November 13, 2012 at 4:11 PM

Dave does not speak for all us northern folks (nor do I).

can_con on November 13, 2012 at 4:11 PM
—–

Yeah and don’t forget the winners of the election don’t get to talk for America.

Republicans before the election: Romney will get 325+ electoral votes and that will be a LANDSLIDE!

Republicans after the election: Obama getting 330+ electoral votes = the country is DIVIDED!

Dave Rywall on November 13, 2012 at 4:14 PM

Either go off the cliff or, figuratively, vote present. Give Obama what he wants and repeat every hour of every day for the next 4 years that Democrats own it. Remember how we said that the Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious Stimulus Act of 2009 would fail and that Democrats would have to own it? It did fail, Democrats did/do own it, and the majority of Americans, according to polls, believe that it was a $1 trillion waste of borrowed/printed money that did nothing for the economy; hence, Democrats never use the word “stimulus” anymore. It’s always “investments” now.

The odds of a recession next year are already greater than 50%, according to most economists and organisations from the World Bank to Goldman-Sachs. Raising taxes on the rich will only increase the odds and retard growth and investment. Barack Obama will own the shitpile.

Why are expanding economies cutting taxes?

Why did President Obama advise French President Francois Hollande not to raise taxes on the wealthy to 75%?

Why did President Obama applaud China’s tax cuts?

Here’s the deal: There are simply not enough rich people to pay for the Left’s Big Government and a luxurious welfare state. IF THE FEDS SEIZED ALL OF THE ASSETS OF THE NATION’S WEALTHIEST 400 PEOPLE — APPROXIMATELY $1.36825 TRILLION – YOU WOULD STILL NOT HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO FUND SOCIAL SECURITY, MEDICARE AND MEDICAID FOR ONE YEAR. Plus, you only get one bite at that apple. Dead geese don’t lay eggs of any colour, especially gold.

The truth is that, if you want an Obama welfare state, then taxes on the middle is going to have to be hiked substantially, too. BIG GOVERNMENT ULTIMATELY HAS TO TAX THE MIDDLE CLASS FOR THE SAME REASON THAT WILLIE SUTTON ROBBED BANKS: SIMPLY PUT, THAT’S WHERE THE MONEY IS.

Period.

Story.

End of.

Resist We Much on November 13, 2012 at 4:14 PM

“IF THE FEDS SEIZED ALL OF THE ASSETS OF THE NATION’S WEALTHIEST 400 PEOPLE — APPROXIMATELY $1.36825 TRILLION – YOU WOULD STILL NOT HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO FUND SOCIAL SECURITY, MEDICARE AND MEDICAID FOR ONE YEAR.”
Resist We Much on November 13, 2012 at 4:14 PM
——

This little factoid remains as useless and meaningless and irrelevant as it ever was.

Dave Rywall on November 13, 2012 at 4:16 PM

This country will not stop borrowing money until it cannot borrow any more. When they hold a T-bill sale and nobody buys, THEN we’re in real trouble.When will that happen? Next quarter? Next year? Next decade? Nobody knows, but everybody knows it WILL happen. What can’t go on forever won’t.

Socratease on November 13, 2012 at 4:09 PM

Eh ? The Chinese will BORROW $ to lend to us.
And when they ring the bell, we will be DONE.

Jabberwock on November 13, 2012 at 4:17 PM

I am rightside-up on my real estate positions. I just wish I could sell some and buy again at the bottom, but no one is in the buying mood right now. At least all the QE should help my debt positions, but that assumes incomes rise with inflation, which they probably will not.

stvnscott on November 13, 2012 at 4:05 PM

Excellent regarding your RE positions. I agree with your income/inflation outlook and the buying mood won’t change with regards to new positions I fear. A lot of pros are thinking that we will go through another reduction in values yet.

I’m not convinced of that yet.

Vince on November 13, 2012 at 4:18 PM

This country will not stop borrowing money until it cannot borrow any more. When they hold a T-bill sale and nobody buys, THEN we’re in real trouble.

When will that happen? Next quarter? Next year? Next decade? Nobody knows, but everybody knows it WILL happen. What can’t go on forever won’t.

Socratease on November 13, 2012 at 4:09 P

Something to watch for is increases in interest rates to entice investors in our debt. If it starts going up fast, that is the signal that bankruptcy is not far off.

maddmatt on November 13, 2012 at 4:18 PM

…the Obama administration somehow knows how to spend and allocate our money better than we do….

Barry might say that. I know 36 ‘green’ company investments that say he’s WRONG.

GarandFan on November 13, 2012 at 4:19 PM

Compromise, eff that. Give Barry everything he wants. Burn that effer down…own it Skippy!

Wyznowski on November 13, 2012 at 4:19 PM

Of course,
That assumes that the “rich” keep doing things the same way.

Not bloody likely.

ProfShadow on November 13, 2012 at 4:21 PM

kim roy on November 13, 2012 at 4:00 PM

John Candy, RIP

Bruno Strozek on November 13, 2012 at 4:23 PM

Yeah and don’t forget the winners of the election don’t get to talk for America.

Republicans before the election: Romney will get 325+ electoral votes and that will be a LANDSLIDE!

Republicans after the election: Obama getting 330+ electoral votes = the country is DIVIDED!

Dave Rywall on November 13, 2012 at 4:14 PM

Can’t argue the EC numbers. But they do NOT reflect the political split of this country.
Popular vote is closer to 51-49. That is close.
No room for error. As is, anything he does will piss off half the population.

Jabberwock on November 13, 2012 at 4:23 PM

Absolutely. Which is exactly why I think the GOP should go ahead and give them to him.

If I were Boehner, I’d ask the President to write the legislation. Then, I’d address it on the floor of the House, allowing every member the chance to speak out against it, and make it clear that they have no fairytale dreams that it’s going to do anything to help the economy beyond one or two years.

Then I’d pass it.

BKeyser on November 13, 2012 at 2:46 PM

I agree wholeheartedly with one minor adjustment. Don’t have Republicans vote to pass it. Vote “Present” instead. Put every bit of the blame on the Democrats.

Give them what they voted for, Good AND Hard. Let Darwin Have Them.

Subotai Bahadur on November 13, 2012 at 4:27 PM

No. What I’m saying is the enough with the “X hate America and that’s why they voted for Y”.
People don’t vote out of self-hatred. They vote differently because of different views, preferences and priorities.
lester on November 13, 2012 at 4:00 PM

Hey RogerB. Here’s one to file for the next installment of “Didn’t vote for Obama? You’re a racist!”

txhsmom on November 13, 2012 at 4:28 PM

Love how that Rywall guy never actually answers questions that you ask when the answer is obviously smacking him down. He just conveniently skips over the actual facts.
Love reading your comments, research and info, guys.

americanmama on November 13, 2012 at 4:28 PM

This country will not stop borrowing money until it cannot borrow any more. When they hold a T-bill sale and nobody buys, THEN we’re in real trouble.

How does that work when the Fed buys T-bills and calls it “Quantitative Easing?”

tdarrington on November 13, 2012 at 4:30 PM

This little factoid remains as useless and meaningless and irrelevant as it ever was.

Dave Rywall on November 13, 2012 at 4:16 PM

Yeah, sure is meaningless in the face of people crying about how the 1% control all the money, to point out just how little use it would be to take all that money and stick it into the deficit hole. Certainly doesn’t illustrate the scope of our annual borrowing or anything.

And yet the hand-wringing over PBS continues, as we struggle to find a way to recover the 6% of their revenue that comes from federal funding. On the bright side, since Elmo turned out to be a pedo, his salary might make up the difference.

The Schaef on November 13, 2012 at 4:34 PM

Can’t argue the EC numbers. But they do NOT reflect the political split of this country.
Popular vote is closer to 51-49. That is close.
No room for error. As is, anything he does will piss off half the population.

Jabberwock on November 13, 2012 at 4:23 PM
——-

Again, the right cheerleaded that the imminent Romney win would be a landslide and obviously indicative of America making a clear choice about the country’s path.

Obama goes out and wins by a significant margin, and you say things about the results like “they do NOT reflect the political split of this country” while other clowns say it’s not even a f*cking mandate.

So ludicrous.

Dave Rywall on November 13, 2012 at 4:34 PM

I agree wholeheartedly with one minor adjustment. Don’t have Republicans vote to pass it. Vote “Present” instead. Put every bit of the blame on the Democrats.

Give them what they voted for, Good AND Hard. Let Darwin Have Them.

Subotai Bahadur on November 13, 2012 at 4:27 PM

Saul Alinsky would approve.

This tactic should be part of the GOP repertoire from here on out.

They are too stoopid and too cowardly to try it though.

Employing such a tactic would require stout hearts and backbone.

Haven’t seen much of that in the best of times…

Bruno Strozek on November 13, 2012 at 4:37 PM

Raise taxes
???
Profit

tom daschle concerned on November 13, 2012 at 4:38 PM

Obama goes out and wins by a significant margin, and you say things about the results like “they do NOT reflect the political split of this country” while other clowns say it’s not even a f*cking mandate.

So ludicrous.

Dave Rywall on November 13, 2012 at 4:34 PM

Had 400k votes flipped across 4 battleground states, Romney would be president.

Sorry, no mandate.

Chuck Schick on November 13, 2012 at 4:39 PM

So now, how many jobs have the Bush tax cuts created?

Dave Rywall on November 13, 2012 at 3:53 PM

Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 went into effect in 2002 and many of the tax reductions that were to be phased in over 9 years were accelerated in the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003. According to the Bureau of Labour and Statistics:

* In January 2002, 134,319,000 Americans were employed and the unemployment rate was 5.5%.

* In January 2007, when Maerose Prizzi and Liar Reid took over Congress, 145,919,000 Americans were employed and the unemployment rate was 4.5%.

145,919,000 – 134,319,000 = 11,600,000 jobs

* In December 2007, the onset of the recession, 146,248,000 Americans were employed and the unemployment rate was 4.9%.

146,248,000 – 134,319,000 = 11,929,000 jobs

* On the day Barack Obama was first elected, 143,338,000 Americans were employed and the unemployment rate was 7.2%.

143,338,000 – 134,319,000 = 9,019,000 jobs

* When Bush left office, 141,748,000 Americans were working and the unemployment rate was 8.1%.

141,748,000 – 134,319,000 = 7,429,000 jobs

* In February 2009, Barack Obama’s first full month in office, 140,887,000 Americans were employed and the unemployment rate was 8.5%.

140,887,000 – 134,319,000 = 6,568,000 jobs

* Last month, 143,384,000 Americans were employed and the unemployment rate was 7.9%.

143,384,000 – 134,319,000 = 9,065,000 jobs

So, any way that you look at the Bush tax cuts, they were a net job creator.

I will post the links to the additional BLS reports separately.

Resist We Much on November 13, 2012 at 4:43 PM

When the difference between the popular vote is accounted for by the soon to be bankrupt state of Kalifornia, that is hardly a mandate.

can_con on November 13, 2012 at 4:44 PM

* In December 2007, the onset of the recession, 146,248,000 Americans were employed and the unemployment rate was 4.9%.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_02012008.htm

* On the day Barack Obama was first elected, 143,338,000 Americans were employed and the unemployment rate was 7.2%.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_01092009.htm

* When Bush left office, 141,748,000 Americans were working and the unemployment rate was 8.1%.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_03062009.htm

* In February 2009, Barack Obama’s first full month in office, 140,887,000 Americans were employed and the unemployment rate was 8.5%.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_04032009.htm

Resist We Much on November 13, 2012 at 4:45 PM

* In December 2007, the onset of the recession, 146,248,000 Americans were employed and the unemployment rate was 4.9%.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_02012008.htm

* On the day Barack Obama was first elected, 143,338,000 Americans were employed and the unemployment rate was 7.2%.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_01092009.htm

* When Bush left office, 141,748,000 Americans were working and the unemployment rate was 8.1%.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_03062009.htm

Resist We Much on November 13, 2012 at 4:45 PM

“IF THE FEDS SEIZED ALL OF THE ASSETS OF THE NATION’S WEALTHIEST 400 PEOPLE — APPROXIMATELY $1.36825 TRILLION – YOU WOULD STILL NOT HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO FUND SOCIAL SECURITY, MEDICARE AND MEDICAID FOR ONE YEAR.”

This little factoid remains as useless and meaningless and irrelevant as it ever was.

Dave Rywall on November 13, 2012 at 4:16 PM

Yeah, sure is meaningless in the face of people crying about how the 1% control all the money, to point out just how little use it would be to take all that money and stick it into the deficit hole. Certainly doesn’t illustrate the scope of our annual borrowing or anything.

And yet the hand-wringing over PBS continues, as we struggle to find a way to recover the 6% of their revenue that comes from federal funding. On the bright side, since Elmo turned out to be a pedo, his salary might make up the difference.

The Schaef on November 13, 2012 at 4:34 PM
———-

The 1% is not 400 people.

1% of 300 million people is THREE MILLION PEOPLE not 400.

The total value of assets of the top 1% is in the neighbourhood of 35% of all the wealth in America which is about 55 trillion = TWENTY TRILLION. Not $1.36 trillion.

So yes, the little rant about the total value of the 400 richest people’s assets being able to pay for this or that is just a pile of meaningless shit.

Dave Rywall on November 13, 2012 at 4:45 PM

hypocrite:
1: a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion

2: a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

Assembly Bill 2026 and Senate Bill 1197 were signed into law on September 30, 2012 by Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. to extend funding for California’s Film & Television Tax Credit Program. The two-year, $200 million extension ensures that tax credits will be available through fiscal year 2016-17.

Hollywood

MichaelGabriel on November 13, 2012 at 4:46 PM

* In February 2009, Barack Obama’s first full month in office, 140,887,000 Americans were employed and the unemployment rate was 8.5%.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_04032009.htm

* Last month, 143,384,000 Americans were employed and the unemployment rate was 7.9%.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

Resist We Much on November 13, 2012 at 4:47 PM

Had 400k votes flipped across 4 battleground states, Romney would be president.

Sorry, no mandate.

Chuck Schick on November 13, 2012 at 4:39 PM
—–

When Bush won in 2004 you shrieked mandate.

Dave Rywall on November 13, 2012 at 4:47 PM

Again, the right cheerleaded that the imminent Romney win would be a landslide and obviously indicative of America making a clear choice about the country’s path.

Obama goes out and wins by a significant margin, and you say things about the results like “they do NOT reflect the political split of this country” while other clowns say it’s not even a f*cking mandate.

So ludicrous.

Dave Rywall on November 13, 2012 at 4:34 PM

His most certainly DID NOT win the popular vote by a significant margin.
EC yes. PV no. While the EC makes him look strong, the PV is more indicative of how he will be measured in his second term. That is the way we work it here.
I also believe he knows this. While he has won the right to push his agenda, he understands that that half the country disagrees with him on any decision he makes. One wrong move and he could become VERY unpopular overnight. And yes, that is important moving forward.

Jabberwock on November 13, 2012 at 4:47 PM

When Bush won in 2004 you shrieked mandate.

Dave Rywall on November 13, 2012 at 4:47 PM

Prove it.

Chuck Schick on November 13, 2012 at 4:49 PM

Revenue to the beloved and benevolent federal government increased after the so called Bush tax cuts.

Put that in your pipe and choke and die reprobates.

tom daschle concerned on November 13, 2012 at 4:50 PM

Again, the right cheerleaded that the imminent Romney win would be a landslide and obviously indicative of America making a clear choice about the country’s path.

Dave Rywall on November 13, 2012 at 4:34 PM

By the way, when an incumbent loses a re-election bid, it is a clear indication of a mandate for change.
Winning a close re-election is not idicative of a mandate.

Jabberwock on November 13, 2012 at 4:55 PM

When Bush won in 2004 you shrieked mandate.

Dave Rywall on November 13, 2012 at 4:47 PM

Prove it.

Chuck Schick on November 13, 2012 at 4:49 PM
——

Prove it?

Yeah sure no problem

Hmmm let’s start with the guy who won the election claimed he had a mandate:

“I earned capital in this campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it”
W

“And now that he’s been elected with a large majority, or a significant majority, and with a mandate, I think part of that mandate is to get the right judges, by his likes.”
-Krauthammer

Paula Zahn, CNN host: “A president with a mandate, a 10-seat majority in the Senate, at least 25 seats in the House. So everything should be smooth sailing for Republicans, right? Well, maybe not.” [CNN'sPaula Zahn Now, 11/8/04]

Chicago Tribune editorial board: ”In trying to advance an ambitious second-term agenda, President Bush has made it clear he intends to make every use he can of the assets at his disposal, starting with the electoral mandate he got last week.” [Chicago Tribune, "Memo to Bush: Just say 'no,' " 11/8/04]

John Roberts, CBS News chief White House correspondent (now with CNN): “With the majority of the popular vote behind him [Bush], with the Electoral College win, with a mandate that perhaps many people didn’t allow him to have in the first term, can he afford to be more magnanimous with the press?” [CNN'sReliable Sources, 11/7/04]

Andy Serwer, CNN host and Fortune magazine editor-at-large: “Interesting time for the president, obviously, he [Bush] seems to have a mandate from the people to go ahead and do what he wants to, his bidding. Where do you think this is going to take him?” [CNN's In the Money, 11/7/04]

Christine Romans, CNN anchor: “When I talk to Democrats and people who watch the Democratic machine, they’re furious that this was so close again and that now the president has a mandate.” [In the Money, 11/6/04]

Michele Kelemen, National Public Radio diplomatic correspondent: “Others doubt President Bush will change much given his election mandate and his strong convictions in foreign policy.” [NPR's Weekend All Things Considered, 11/6/04]

Carol Costello, CNN anchor and reporter: “To American politics now and the mandate. President Bush is promising to use his election mandate to push his agenda forward.” [CNN Daybreak, 11/5/04]

Ceci Connolly, Washington Post staff writer: “Well, I certainly think that there is a mandate [for Bush]. I think we have to go a little bit careful in terms of what specifically it is a mandate for. I mean as we’ve all agreed, a lot was discussed in this campaign. Interestingly, what you heard President Bush focus on was tax reform, Social Security changes, partial privatization. And continuing what he calls the war on terrorism.” [Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, 11/5/04]

David Sanger, New York Times White House correspondent: “But Mr. Bush no longer has to pretend that he possesses a clear electoral mandate. Because for the first time in his presidency, he can argue that he has the real thing.” [The New York Times, "Relaxed, Certainly, but Keeping One Eye on the Clock," 11/5/04]

Dan Chapman, Atlanta Journal-Constitution global economics and business reporter: “Bush, buoyed by a popular mandate and a more Republican Congress, will probably receive the financial and military wherewithal to fight the insurgency and rebuild Iraq.” [The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, "Bush gets voters' nod on Iraq, but outlook risky," 11/4/04]

Keith Miller, NBC News correspondent: “Bush, who won by more than three and a half million votes, has a solid mandate that will force the attention of America’s enemies and allies.” [NBC's Nightly News, 11/3/04]

Rafael Lorente, Sun-Sentinel (Fort Lauderdale, Florida) Washington bureau: “Americans not only gave President Bush a mandate, they also gave him the necessary tools in the form of more Republican House and Senate colleagues to push through his conservative agenda.” [Sun-Sentinel, "Bush now has the tools to energize his priority programs," 11/4/04, syndicated by Knight Ridder/Tribune Information Services]

Doyle McManus and Janet Hook, Los Angeles Times staff writers: “Four years ago, George W. Bush won his first term with fewer votes than his opponent, but governed as if the nation had granted him a clear mandate to pursue conservative policies. This time, Bush can claim a solid mandate of 51% of the vote, which made him the first presidential candidate to win a clear majority since 1988 — a point Bush aides made repeatedly Wednesday.” [Los Angeles Times, "Majority Win Could Make Second Term More Partisan," 11/4/04]

Tony Karon, Time magazine columnist and senior editor: “George W. Bush took the reins of power with the confidence and certainty of one who had carried a landslide mandate to implement his own agenda. This time, of course, his claim of a popular mandate is incontrovertible. His party has strengthened its grip on both branches of the legislature, and freed of any first-term restraints that might be thrown up by reelection concerns, President George W. Bush is well positioned to even more vigorously pursue his agenda.” [Time, "Victorious Bush Reaches Out," 11/3/04]

Wolf Blitzer, CNN anchor: “My sense is that the president will see this as a mandate on his policies, because the Republicans also did very well in the House of Representatives, did very well in the U.S. Senate, picking up seats in both. He gets over 50 percent, 51 percent. And he’s going to see this as a mandate in the next four years to try and move the country in the direction he wants it to move. He will try to bring the country together in the short term, but he’s going to say, he’s got a mandate from the American people, and by all accounts he does.” [CNN election coverage, 11/3/04]

Renee Montagne, NPR host: “Well, as you say, the president’s people are calling this a mandate. By any definition I think you could call this a mandate. How will he govern?” [Morning Edition, 11/3/04]

Chris Matthews, MSNBC host: “Good evening. I’m Chris Matthews. And welcome to MSNBC’s post-election coverage live from Democracy Plaza in New York’s Rockefeller Plaza. Yesterday voters went to the polls and reelected President George Bush, giving him a mandate in his second term.” [MSNBC'sHardball with Chris Matthews, 11/3/04]

Several conservative media figures and outlets also quickly declared Bush’s narrow victory a “mandate”:

Wall Street Journal editorial board: “The voters did [decide the election] — including millions of conservative first-timers whom the exit polls and media missed — emerging from the pews and exurban driveways to give President Bush what by any measure is a decisive mandate for a second term. … Just because an election is close doesn’t mean it isn’t decisive. … … that Mr. Bush has been given the kind of mandate that few politicians are ever fortunate enough to receive.” [Wall Street Journal editorial, "The Bush Mandate," 11/4/04]

Bill Bennett, conservative author and nationally syndicated radio host: “Having restored decency to the White House, President Bush now has a mandate to affect policy that will promote a more decent society, through both politics and law. His supporters want that, and have given him a mandate in their popular and electoral votes to see to it.” [National Review Online, "The Great Relearning," 11/3/04]

Then-CNN host Tucker Carlson: “[N]obody has done it since 1988. The president wins reelection with a majority of the vote. It is a mandate. What will he do with it now? [CNN's Crossfire, 11/3/04]

Peggy Noonan, Wall Street Journal contributing editor: “He [Bush] has, I would argue, a mandate now. You can bet he’s going forward boldly. He announced it today in his victory speech. He said, ‘Honey, I’m not just going to lower your taxes. I am transforming the tax system.’ ” [Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, 11/3/04]

Pat Buchanan, MSNBC political analyst: “There’s no doubt about it, this was a vote against, by the red-state folks who gave the victory to George Bush, it was a rejection of blue-state America. It was a rejection of their values, their attacks on the president. … And the idea, it seems to me, that somehow the folks who won should now surrender part of whatever mandate they have to the folks who lost — I can tell you, what we’re hearing on this panel, people out there in red-state America are finding it very offensive.” [Hardball with Chris Matthews, 11/3/04]

William Kristol, Weekly Standard executive editor: “The hair-pullers and teeth-gnashers won’t like it, of course, but we’re nevertheless inclined to call this a Mandate. Indeed, in one sense, we think it an even larger and clearer mandate than those won in the landslide reelection campaigns of Nixon in 1972, Reagan in 1984, and Clinton in 1996.” [The Weekly Standard, "Misunderestimated," 11/15/04 issue]

Dave Rywall on November 13, 2012 at 4:59 PM

Revenue to the beloved and benevolent federal government increased after the so called Bush tax cuts.
Put that in your pipe and choke and die reprobates.
tom daschle concerned on November 13, 2012 at 4:50 PM

This times infinity!!

To the left the pie is finite. I gotta get me my piece! They don’t accept the fact that the pie is always expanding (ahem…see GDP growth concept)

Unfortunately due to both sides, so is the one way Rachel of government.

can_con on November 13, 2012 at 5:00 PM

By the way, when an incumbent loses a re-election bid, it is a clear indication of a mandate for change.
Winning a close re-election is not idicative of a mandate.

Jabberwock on November 13, 2012 at 4:55 PM
——-

No.

You can’t have it both ways.

If it was a mandate when Bush got re-elected it’s a mandate when when Obama got re-elected.

This election was not that close.

Dave Rywall on November 13, 2012 at 5:01 PM

When Bush won in 2004 you shrieked mandate.

Dave Rywall on November 13, 2012 at 4:47 PM

Prove it.

Chuck Schick on November 13, 2012 at 4:49 PM

When “you” is everyone the godless reprobate can find to quote.

tom daschle concerned on November 13, 2012 at 5:02 PM

Also Drywall- Bush build his base of support by about 12 million in 2004 and won more states than 2000.

Obama’s PV collapsed by about 8 million votes and he lost 2 states. It is a rarity in American history for a president to significantly lose support and still be re-elected.

So clearly not the same thing.

Chuck Schick on November 13, 2012 at 5:02 PM

The 1% is not 400 people.

1% of 300 million people is THREE MILLION PEOPLE not 400.

The total value of assets of the top 1% is in the neighbourhood of 35% of all the wealth in America which is about 55 trillion = TWENTY TRILLION. Not $1.36 trillion.

So yes, the little rant about the total value of the 400 richest people’s assets being able to pay for this or that is just a pile of meaningless shit.

Dave Rywall on November 13, 2012 at 4:45 PM

Um, where did I say that the top 1% amounted to 400 people? I didn’t. I merely used the example of the wealth of the top 400 to show that it would only fund Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid for ONE YEAR. I want to show that there are not enough rich people to fund the lavish welfare state that your compatriots on the American left want. Why do you think Obama has only pledged to keep the Bush middle class tax cuts in place for one year and Democrats like Steny Hoyer are all for repealing all of them?

Besides, my dear, the Constitution prohibits Federal taxes on wealth. Read the 16th Amendment and notice the word “income” and then go read some Supreme Court caselaw that discusses income and liquidity events like Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920), Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. 171 (1796), Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Company, 157 U.S. 429 (1895), Merchants; Loan & T. Co. v. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509 (1921), Southern Pacific Co. v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 330 (1918), Burnet v Harmel, 287 U.S. 103 (1932), etc.

So, your little rant about how much wealth however many such Americans have is, as it and you have always been, I-R-R-E-L-E-V-A-N-T.

Resist We Much on November 13, 2012 at 5:03 PM

Sorry…meant one way ratchet of government. This would be a perfect project for state tea parties. Document the growth of government workers in each state over the past twenty years compared to private sector growth. Remember: 1 Gov’t employee is paid for by the taxes of 5 to 10 private sector workers.

can_con on November 13, 2012 at 5:03 PM

Dave Rywall on November 13, 2012 at 4:59 PM

As it turns out, I am none of the people you listed.

Try again.

Chuck Schick on November 13, 2012 at 5:04 PM

This election was not that close.

Dave Rywall on November 13, 2012 at 5:01 PM

LOL! Obama has become the first President in American History to win reelection by fewer popular votes, electoral college votes, and a slimmer margin than the numbers he received when winning his first term.

He lost 7 million votes from 2008.

Resist We Much on November 13, 2012 at 5:06 PM

Um, where did I say that the top 1% amounted to 400 people? I didn’t. I merely used the example of the wealth of the top 400 to show that it would only fund Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid for ONE YEAR. I want to show that there are not enough rich people to fund the lavish welfare state that your compatriots on the American left want. Why do you think Obama has only pledged to keep the Bush middle class tax cuts in place for one year and Democrats like Steny Hoyer are all for repealing all of them?

Besides, my dear, the Constitution prohibits Federal taxes on wealth. Read the 16th Amendment and notice the word “income” and then go read some Supreme Court caselaw that discusses income and liquidity events like Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920), Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. 171 (1796), Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Company, 157 U.S. 429 (1895), Merchants; Loan & T. Co. v. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509 (1921), Southern Pacific Co. v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 330 (1918), Burnet v Harmel, 287 U.S. 103 (1932), etc.

So, your little rant about how much wealth however many such Americans have is, as it and you have always been, I-R-R-E-L-E-V-A-N-T.

Resist We Much on November 13, 2012 at 5:03 PM
——

Your example of piling up the wealth of the top 400 richies and saying what it could pay for is as irrelevant as melting down the gold fillings of all the seniors in the land and making gold bricks out of it and saying LOOK THERE’S ONLY ENOUGH GOLD HERE TO FUND THINGS FOR 137 DAYS.

Dave Rywall on November 13, 2012 at 5:07 PM

This election was not that close.

Dave Rywall on November 13, 2012 at 5:01 PM

Yes it was that close.
History has shown that Bush was wrong to think he had a mandate and Obama will run into a world of hurt if he repeats that mistake.
2014 mid-terms will tell the tale.

Jabberwock on November 13, 2012 at 5:07 PM

The total value of assets of the top 1% is in the neighbourhood of 35% of all the wealth in America which is about 55 trillion = TWENTY TRILLION. Not $1.36 trillion.

Dave Rywall on November 13, 2012 at 4:45 PM

All right, so do that and cover the federal debt and Obama’s second-term spending, and then marvel at the fact that you just took all the money, and there’s none left for the perennial trillion-dollar deficits still to come and the trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities for retirees and on and on and on. It’s still just you taking the piss and acting like it’s all Monopoly money.

[8 billion meaningless quotes]
Dave Rywall on November 13, 2012 at 4:59 PM

You spent a lot of time quoting other people which don’t really do anything to rationalize your comparison between a man who went from losing the popular vote and squeaking a single-state victory to picking up 12 million more votes, winning an over-50% majority for the first time in years, and adding 15 EVs to his count; and a man who lost 7 million votes and 33 EVs, and won his second term on the basis of suppressing the opposing vote with borderline libelous accusations. Not exactly the picture of someone cruising to victory on a wave of popularity.

The Schaef on November 13, 2012 at 5:12 PM

But no matter, it’s all going to be pinned on those dastardly Republicans, no matter what happens. Oof.

… unless Republicans try their own ‘third way’: Vote present on everything for the next two years. This let’s the democrats – and the electorate that will blame the republicans – have everything they want without the republicans endorsing it with their votes. They can’t be called obstructionist if they don’t vote against it, and they can’t be called sellouts if they don’t vote for it.

Of course, most of them lack the stones, the brains, or both to carry that out. But it’s what they should do.

thirteen28 on November 13, 2012 at 5:13 PM

Dave; in answer to your oft repeated question “how many jobs have he bush tax cuts created?”

Logic would tell you that all jobs Obama has created (or saved, lol) have to be included in that figure since those are the current rates!

Us unemployment rate under Boosh: 5.27%
Under BHO: 9.00% and counting, will probably end up at an average of 9.5 by end of term.

History will record BHO’s record on the economy as abysmal.

can_con on November 13, 2012 at 5:22 PM

Dave Rywall on November 13, 2012 at 4:59 PM

I didn’t see “Chuck Schick” on that list anywhere. However, I did see an inordinate amount of liberals.

Chris Matthews? Really? Seriously? You want that to be part of your your “winning” argument?

You are a joke and I’m not entirely sure why anyone is engaging you as anything else but a cat toy.

kim roy on November 13, 2012 at 5:26 PM

Your example of piling up the wealth of the top 400 richies and saying what it could pay for is as irrelevant as melting down the gold fillings of all the seniors in the land and making gold bricks out of it and saying LOOK THERE’S ONLY ENOUGH GOLD HERE TO FUND THINGS FOR 137 DAYS.

Dave Rywall on November 13, 2012 at 5:07 PM

Only because you focused on the wealth figure and not the enormous sum that it costs to fund just Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid for a single year, which was the point.

But, that’s OK. I’m sure that you will step up along with the rest of the world and loan the US 19% of you annual income every year in less than a decade so that it can continue to fund and grow its welfare state.

Go look up the 2010 study, “Financing U.S. Debt: Is There Enough Money in the World—and At What Cost?,” by John Kitchen of the US Treasury and Menzie Chinn of the University of Wisconsin.

You Progs always say that the US makes up only 5% of the world’s population, but uses 25% of its resources, which, according to you, is a very bad, racist, oppressive, selfish, and mean thing to do.

Evidently, being 5% of the world’s population, however, and expecting the equivalent of the Coolies to build our modern-day railroads, which are known as Obamacare, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, college grants, subsidised housing, cradle-to-grave welfare, etc., by demanding that the rest of the world spend 19% OF THE GLOBAL GDP EVERY YEAR ON US TREASURIES beginning in 2020 while we sit on our couches eating Twinkies watching American Idol as our solar-panel-generated air conditioners are blasting away because “we are so trying to save the planet, man” is perfectly acceptable.

She says, “Hi!” (Ab love her)

Resist We Much on November 13, 2012 at 5:29 PM

Raise taxes on the rich, make enormous cuts.

Dave Rywall on November 13, 2012 at 3:51 PM

Duck Frywall!

Buck Farack!!

And now, Juck Findal too!!!

Nutstuyu on November 13, 2012 at 5:29 PM

Your example of piling up the wealth of the top 400 richies and saying what it could pay for is as irrelevant as melting down the gold fillings of all the seniors in the land and making gold bricks out of it and saying LOOK THERE’S ONLY ENOUGH GOLD HERE TO FUND THINGS FOR 137 DAYS.

Dave Rywall on November 13, 2012 at 5:07 PM

Hey great idea! Oops, didn’t mean to push the drill all the way through your skull. My bad.

Nutstuyu on November 13, 2012 at 5:32 PM

o/t, but Krazytown just got KRAZIER…

Jill Kelley: I’m an Imaginary Ambassador So Get Off My Lawn

The weird Petraeus pentagonal love shack just keeps getting weirder.

Two 911 calls were made from the Kelleys’ home on Sunday. In the first recording, a man whose name was redacted says there is someone at the door who won’t leave his property. The second caller, who identifies herself as Jill, says there’s someone lurking in their yard.

As the call ends, she makes an apparent reference to her role at MacDill Air Force Base, which the Associated Press has described as an “unpaid social liaison.”

“You know, I don’t know if by any chance, because I’m an honorary consul general, so I have inviolability, so they should not be able to cross my property. I don’t know if you want to get diplomatic protection involved as well,” she told the 911 dispatcher, who agreed to pass the information along to police.

Three more calls were made to police on Monday, all to the non-emergency number. In each one, the caller identified herself as Jill Kelley, reporting trespassers on the property.

I wonder if anyone told the imaginary ambassador about the real ambassador holding terrorist prisoners in the Benghazi consulate. Petraeus’ squeeze, and Kelley’s friend, knew about it.

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/11/13/jill-kelley-im-an-imaginary-ambassador-so-get-off-my-lawn/

Resist We Much on November 13, 2012 at 5:43 PM

Yes it was that close.
History has shown that Bush was wrong to think he had a mandate and Obama will run into a world of hurt if he repeats that mistake.
2014 mid-terms will tell the tale.

Jabberwock on November 13, 2012 at 5:07 PM

Yes, but it is easy to argue that Bush had more of a mandate than Obama.

1. Bush added support by winning more voters and more states in his reelection bid
2. Bush’s coattails supported both the House and Senate with gains in both houses
3. Washing stayed scarlet red after the election

Bush did not accomplish much with his “mandate,” but then again, he did not wield the executive order with wild abandon like Obama does.

stvnscott on November 13, 2012 at 5:50 PM

* In January 2007, when Maerose Prizzi and Liar Reid took over Congress, 145,919,000 Americans were employed and the unemployment rate was 4.5%.
Resist We Much on November 13, 2012 at 4:43 PM

Why did she become Speaker.

Because Establishment Republicans spent like crazy filling every budget with every kind of Pork. The people showed them the door.

GW Bush lied and said he would control spending. But instead worked to pass Medicare Part D. He also pushed for Amnesty. Finally he really pushed giving a house to every American. The Democrats worked with him on that leading to the collapse in 2008. The result of his new found Establishment Republican wasteful spending. Obama won everything in 2012.

The Conservative GW Bush worked but even conservative taxes will still be eaten up by wasteful spending and it was. Leading to the recession of 2008.

We are now in a hole so deep it will be very difficult to get out. Conservatism could do it but Establishment Republicanism dug a large portion of the hole simply a fact.

Steveangell on November 13, 2012 at 6:06 PM

Yeah that’s workin’ out great for you guys – keep it up and you’ll lose congress next

Dave Rywall on November 13, 2012 at 3:57 PM

Thought we won the House…..

And 30 governorships…..

And 83.2% of all counties in the U.S……

itsspideyman on November 13, 2012 at 6:30 PM

Yeah that’s workin’ out great for you guys – keep it up and you’ll lose congress next

Dave Rywall on November 13, 2012 at 3:57 PM

Thought we won the House…..

And 30 governorships…..

And 83.2% of all counties in the U.S……

itsspideyman on November 13, 2012 at 6:30 PM

As he said. The Establishment Republicans are losing. They keep it up we will lose the House.

But on HA all we ever hear about is the few conservatives that lost never the 80 RINO’s that lost.

Steveangell on November 13, 2012 at 6:37 PM

As he said. The Establishment Republicans are losing. They keep it up we will lose the House.

But on HA all we ever hear about is the few conservatives that lost never the 80 RINO’s that lost.

Steveangell on November 13, 2012 at 6:37 PM

Maybe buddy, but I’m not defeatist, and that’s what those idiots out there want us to be. They hope to instill us with dispair, and to throw our hands up in futility.

But the long run future is in capitalism. All civilizations collapse once they think they can vote themselves everything, and there’s uprisings within both the opposition and the supporters when those think the government can provide everything when it can’t.

In order for the United States to continue 18% of the entire world’s GDP has to go into US Bonds. Since that’s impossible, 70% of all US debt is being bought by the Federal Reserve. The left hand of the government is buying from the right hand.

This will collapse because Democrats do not have the discipline to cut back. If they did, the whole nonsense of Big Bird wouldn’t be an issue. There will be no cutbacks when the tax rates go up, and when that happens they’ll be back in a panic when the economy collapses.

I don’t wish this on my country or my children because I love them with all my heart. But if this is the map, so be it.

itsspideyman on November 13, 2012 at 7:00 PM

Anyone wish to make a bet on whether the Debt/Deficit are greater/lesser shares of GDP in ’14 than they are in ’12?

Another Drew on November 13, 2012 at 7:04 PM

We must have… REVENGE!

Revenge at any cost. How dare these rich people be rich. It doesn’t matter if their employees don’t get hired. It doesn’t matter if their employees don’t get pay raises. It doesn’t matter if their employee’s hours get cut to part-time to avoid the expense of Obamacare. We must take our fair share of their riches.

We must have… REVENGE!

WestTexasBirdDog on November 13, 2012 at 7:43 PM

I see you know nothing about all the oil off Newfoundland.

Or what makes up our economy.

And you’re such a clown you used the word “communist”.

Thank you.

Keep up the good work.

Dave Rywall on November 13, 2012 at 4:11 PM

You still an ignorant fool communist… The Newfoundland oil field does not produce more than 50,000 barrel a day which is an extremely small portion of Canada total production of 2.75 million barrel a day…

mnjg on November 13, 2012 at 9:21 PM

Another thing is that I can’t believe he still pushes this ridiculous false premise:

as I’ve said before, we can’t just cut our way to prosperity.

Nobody’s asking to “cut our way to prosperity”. The point of a balanced budget is not to be “prosperous”. The point is to be responsible and spend only what we take in. Nobody is making the argument to “cutting our way to prosperity”. Just one more strawman for The Only Adult In The Room to target.

The Schaef on November 13, 2012 at 9:53 PM

Another thing is that I can’t believe he still pushes this ridiculous false premise:

as I’ve said before, we can’t just cut our way to prosperity.

Nobody’s asking to “cut our way to prosperity”. The point of a balanced budget is not to be “prosperous”. The point is to be responsible and spend only what we take in. Nobody is making the argument to “cutting our way to prosperity”. Just one more strawman for The Only Adult In The Room to target.

The Schaef on November 13, 2012 at 9:53 PM

Good point, of course little Bammie would believe that because he believes that all prosperity comes from the government.

slickwillie2001 on November 13, 2012 at 10:31 PM

The tax hikes were never intended to ease the deficit. The tax hikes are intended to punish the successful. How many times, and in how many ways does Obama have to spell it out, people?

tpitman on November 14, 2012 at 6:05 AM

Raise taxes and the money comes in and goes back out in a blink. Wait a couple of years and then the left does it again,”the nation needs the money” and so raise taxes once more. A scam and too many of the dumb fall for it.

arand on November 14, 2012 at 10:52 AM

As Conn Carroll aptly reminds us, sure, the Congressional Budget Office has projected that allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire for the wealthy could bring in as much as $824 billion over ten years (which, given that it’s from the CBO, I’d wager is a somewhat rosy estimate). But when you put that in the context of, oh yeah, Obama’s been running up trillion-dollar deficits every year of his presidency, you can see what a hugely insurmountable problem this is.

Rosy estimate is an understatement. It’s not like the wealthiest Americans are going to just sit around and let a bunch of wide eyed socialists pick their pockets. They are going to hide their money, get out of the market (which has been on a selling spree since the election ended), close businesses, fire people, and move their money out of the country. They are not just going to open their wallets and say, “here, come get it”. They will be lucky to get $400 billion in 10yrs and that amount will be spiraling down every year. This is just a talking point for the rubes to buy into.

Dollayo on November 14, 2012 at 11:29 AM

The actual government budget this year calls for $2.5 Trillion income and $3.8 Trillion payout, for a deficit of $1.33 Trillion. The IRS says they collected $2.45 Trillion, leaving us $1.4 Trillion in new debt this year.

Obama’s only clear answer is to raise taxes on “the rich”. Covering this budget would require increasing everyone’s taxes by 56% to cover his expenses. (In context of anemic economic growth, continuing inflation and devaluation of currency, and government welfare demands, the tax increase rate will quickly reach well over 56%.)

To cover this budget by raising the taxes of those paying the top 50% of taxes, it requires 112% tax increase on them.

To cover by raising taxes on the top 25% of tax payers it requires 224% tax increase on them.

Keep in mind that the top 10% of tax payers (anyone/houseolds/businesses with a 6 digit income) are who Obama is really looking to raise taxes on, and it is this top 10% of tax payers who already shoulder almost 60% of the current tax revenue.

For Obama to cover his budget shortfall by raising taxes on “the rich”, it means a 448% tax increase on that top 10%. (448% reflecting the 12.5% just makes the head-math easier to follow).

Question to those make 6 figure salaries, are you all ready for a 450% to 500% tax increase in order to shoulder the President Obama’s largess?

What’s that going to do to your ability to invest and grow the economy, or even make any attempt at investment risk?

Lawrence on November 14, 2012 at 12:09 PM

I’m just not quite sure why Americans don’t read the enumerated powers for the Federal Govt in the Constitution.
All of these taxes etc are not the problem.
The problem is that the Fed is doing things that rules say they are not allowed to do.
And the states have let them.
The Federal govt has no power as stated to feed people (food stamps), to give people $$ for their retirement (SS), to give people who cannot work $$ (SSDI), to direct education (Federally funded public education preK-12 + beyond), to bully banks into making sure people ‘own’ a home, to regulate the living $hit out of everything through agencies like the EPA, USDA etc.
These are powers that have been usurped from the states.
And the states have rolled over like dead dogs for it.
I believe California pays more than it receives in Federal bennies.
Now why would a state want to do such a thing?
Bcs it is about consolidation of power & the buying of votes favoring groups does that very thing.
That is why FDR won.
He smiled to your face like a good guy & stabbed the $hit out of every American in this country through his social policies.
IT is not the job of the Federal govt to do many of things it does.
Those things are for the STATES.
The Federal Govt is not supposed to have done what it has done & this is why it is better the whole Republic collapse bcsa it mostly has.
The rules are not being adhered to & no one is making the bully (Feds) play by those rules.
We are done.

Badger40 on November 14, 2012 at 2:07 PM

“…all going to be blamed on those dastardly Republicans…”

True, and that’s exactly why those dastardly Republicans should just acquiesce to whatever demands the Democrats are willing to put into a bill and submit. Pass their plan with no Republican votes for or against and let them own the results.

If hell freezes over they will spend us into prosperity but if they make things worse it is on them alone. Looks like a win win to me!

Nomas on November 14, 2012 at 4:20 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3