Video: Is the President listening?

posted at 10:01 am on December 12, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

So far, the House Republican caucus doesn’t want to go down (or vote “present”) without a fight.  While it seems increasingly likely that any deal that the GOP can make with Barack Obama will have to include tax hikes on those making $250,000 or more a year, House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy wants to make sure everyone knows what that will mean for many thousands of small-business owners — and for job seekers, too.  “Linda’s Story” focuses on Linda Lizanich, an accountant with the Kennedy Group in Ohio, explaining the obvious consequences of sucking more capital out of an already-stagnant economy:

It seems that Republicans have belatedly learned the value of personalizing policy choices.  If that doesn’t move the needle, though, the National Taxpayers Union offers a more academic argument.  A letter to Congress from 180 economists from around the country urges Congress to eliminate the fiscal cliff tax hikes, or risk significant damage to the economy:

As the nation approaches the so-called “fiscal cliff,” we, the undersigned economists, urge Congress to carefully consider the relative merits of tax increases and spending restraint. Increasing taxes would likely slow or reverse our nation’s fragile economic recovery and undermine long-term growth. Restraining the growth of expenditures, however, would help stabilize the government’s fiscal imbalance and create a more conducive environment for robust expansion.

Some in Congress have advocated allowing the 2001 and 2003 taxpayer relief laws to expire for some or all taxpayers. Such an action would have a significant, negative impact on the economy. Low taxes can have a constructive economic effect by keeping money in the private sector, where it is far more likely to be utilized for efficient purposes. By contrast, raising taxes would divert resources into the relatively inefficient public sector, thereby curbing potential job creation and economic growth. This effect would be even more pronounced during a persistent slump.

In particular, Congress should avoid raising marginal tax rates on income and taxes on investment, such as capital gains and dividends taxes. These types of taxes most directly and meaningfully affect job creation.

Additionally, lawmakers must resist other destructive proposals that would boost effective tax burdens, such as curtailing itemized deductions for higher earners or imposing discriminatory taxes on energy or other industries. Such policies are merely revenue-raising ploys when executed outside the context of comprehensive tax reform that includes correspondingly lower marginal rates. And like other tax increases, they would serve as inadequate substitutes to much-needed spending restraint.

While some Members of Congress are concerned about the short-term impacts of slowing the growth of federal expenditures, they must uphold their commitment to the American people to address the alarming trajectory of U.S. spending and borrowing. There are more tangible benefits to consider as well: research has shown that spending restraint is superior to tax increases for both deficit reduction and long-term economic vitality. This has proven true in many other developed nations that have implemented fiscal adjustments.

To best foster a strong economy, Congress should ultimately create a simpler system of taxation with a broader base and low rates on income and investment. Simultaneously, it should prioritize government programs and pursue entitlement reforms that bring the budget to sustainable balance. Individuals and businesses are depending on — and deserve — greater certainty in policy making that affects their everyday financial decisions.

Both approaches have their limitations.  Political fights come down to anecdotes vs anecdotes and experts vs experts, with all sides claiming support.  It comes down to policy and basics — or rather, it should come down to policy and basics.  We have gone from spending 18.6% of GDP in 2000 to over 25% of GDP today.  That’s the real driver of the massive deficits and debt, and we need to return to the 18.6% level in order to solve those issues.  If we have to trade a higher marginal tax rate to do so, I’d take that deal — but it’s still going to cause damage when it gets applied.


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

Sucking capital out of the economy is exactly what 60 million American democrat voters voted for.

Forward!

tom daschle concerned on December 12, 2012 at 10:06 AM

No, the Prez isnt listening and doesnt care either way got to eat the rich for the sake of eating the rich. Unfortunatly a majority of voters feel the same way and support him.

ChunkyLover on December 12, 2012 at 10:07 AM

Sucking capital out of the economy is exactly what 60 million American democrat voters voted for.

Yeah, you have a point. #headdesk

Ed Morrissey on December 12, 2012 at 10:08 AM

But but but…I was told that many economist agree with Obama.

NeoKong on December 12, 2012 at 10:08 AM

We have gone from spending 18.6% of GDP in 2000 to over 25% of GDP today.

We have gone from 12% during the Roaring 20s to 20% during the Great Depression and apparently never looked back.

Before Wilson (that b@stard!), it was less than 10%. Before Teddy, it was less than 5%.

LoganSix on December 12, 2012 at 10:15 AM

Sucking capital out of the economy is exactly what 60 million American democrat voters voted for.

Yeah, you have a point. #headdesk

Ed Morrissey on December 12, 2012 at 10:08 AM

Some did it out of ignorance, and some did it out of malice.

Either way, these are the same ignoramuses that will then blame business for not hiring because they are greedy or unpatriotic.

There is a complete disconnect of cause and affect in the leftist mind among the ignorant.

tom daschle concerned on December 12, 2012 at 10:15 AM

Sucking capital out of the economy is exactly what 60 million American democrat voters voted for.

Forward!

tom daschle concerned on December 12, 2012 at 10:06 AM

Let’s just give it to them, then.

Refuse to cave; let the taxes go up; let Obama deal with the consequences of the new recession for the next two years.

At first, I thought the best course of action would be to take the issue away from democrats and give him the tax hikes for $250,000 and above; now, I’m so sick of Obama and Reid’s arrogant demands, I am against giving them anything. Let the fiscal cliff commence and stick to your principles, Republicans. If you stand for nothing; you’ll fall for anything. In the end, if you’ve got no principles, you’re no different from Obama; doing the dirty deal will destroy the GOP faster than anything.

Boehner: No one will respect you in the morning if you go to bed with this Demagogue.

mountainaires on December 12, 2012 at 10:15 AM

Is the President listening? How do you get through to people who voted for Obama, twice.

Speakup on December 12, 2012 at 10:17 AM

Refuse to cave

Boehner

mountainaires on December 12, 2012 at 10:15 AM

These are logically incompatibility statements.

sharrukin on December 12, 2012 at 10:19 AM

Is the president listening?

Is a bear Catholic?

Does the pope sh*t in the woods?

The Rogue Tomato on December 12, 2012 at 10:23 AM

I am not willing to agree with 18% GDP spent by the Federal govt. Cut it down to half or less and let the states decide if they really want to tax and spend the rest. Some states will some won’t.

BullShooterAsInElk on December 12, 2012 at 10:24 AM

Why does a compromise at $250,000 “have to” be included? Wouldn’t an agreement at the $500,000 level, or even $ 1 million dollar level, constitute a compromise?

GaltBlvnAtty on December 12, 2012 at 10:24 AM

Refuse to cave; let the taxes go up; let Obama deal with the consequences of the new recession for the next two years.

The only problem is that the Republicans will still be blamed.

Look at California. The Democrats have supermajority status and yet, the Republicans are blamed for everything.

As a coward, Obama will never accept responsibility for anything negative.

Kingfisher on December 12, 2012 at 10:27 AM

Taxes should go up on the rich…but also the middle class and even the poor need to start paying something. Will this slow the economy even more? Of course. In fact we’ll probably enter another recession that could be worse then the last, but if the democrats are not going to cut spending, it’s the only choice to make. If we do not raise revenue at the current spending rates, we just fall into a deeper and deeper hole.

Perhaps if the middle class and poor feel the sting of taxes, they will demand less spending…perhaps not.

We used to be able to grow our way out of large deficits, but if we only raise taxes on the “rich”, keep them low on the middle class, and don’t tax the poor at all while continuing to spend the way we do, the end game is here.

crco on December 12, 2012 at 10:28 AM

All I want Republicans to do at this point is have Obama’s plan scored. Then, project out 10 years and see if the fiscal issues we face are solved. And if not (heh), ask Democrats to explain.

I’ve been saying since November 8th exactly what Paul told Greta last night.

BKeyser on December 12, 2012 at 10:30 AM

Increased tax rates != increased tax revenue.

We have a spending problem.

Moreso it is a problem with the integrity and character of the men and women who vote, and the character and integrity of the men and women who are elected to govern. But no one wants to muck around in that discussion, which is why the fiscal problem the US faces will not ever get solved.

tom daschle concerned on December 12, 2012 at 10:33 AM

What is so frustrating for many is that this is just common sense. If I earn ten dollars and you take three (or more) of those dollars away from me to support deadbeats, you can’t expect me to buy a ten dollar car with the remaining money (and continue to support my family with some semblence of a quality life-style).

The ignorant, economic parasites lack the sense God gave to an earthworm…as long as they get their ‘free stuff’ all is well. But what will they do when the producers stop producing and paying taxes, creating items, transporting food, keeping the lights and heat on, etc?

As jobs disappear and hours get cut, services and production is going to suffer. Of course the government will ‘solve’ that problem by increasing taxes. “Tax and spend…” The financial ‘house of cards’ is about to come tumbling down.

The politicians and their families will move to well-guarded preserves so they can maintain their lifestyles as the rest of us struggle to survive the ‘zombie apocalypse’ as millions of deadbeats start looking for more ‘free stuff’.

I say, let’s go over the cliff and see what shakes out. Don’t cave, don’t negotiate… let them force us over the cliff and then let them reap what they sow. Let’s get things started now, rather than suffer a few more years before we start solving our political problems.

xmanvietnam on December 12, 2012 at 10:35 AM

Sucking capital out of the economy is exactly what 60 million American democrat voters voted for.

Forward!

tom daschle concerned on December 12, 2012 at 10:06 AM

I prefer the term socialist sponges.

Decent democrats, there are still a few, didn’t vote for 0bama.

cozmo on December 12, 2012 at 10:38 AM

The politicians and their families will move to well-guarded preserves so they can maintain their lifestyles as the rest of us struggle to survive the ‘zombie apocalypse’ as millions of deadbeats start looking for more ‘free stuff’.

xmanvietnam on December 12, 2012 at 10:35 AM

How did that work out for Louise and Marie?

SWalker on December 12, 2012 at 10:41 AM

It comes down to policy and basics — or rather, it should come down to policy and basics. We have gone from spending 18.6% of GDP in 2000 to over 25% of GDP today. That’s the real driver of the massive deficits and debt, and we need to return to the 18.6% level in order to solve those issues. If we have to trade a higher marginal tax rate to do so, I’d take that deal — but it’s still going to cause damage when it gets applied.


How about a new term?

Conservative In Name Only

CINO

Because God forbid their should be any principles bitterly clung to …

… like we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem.

Truly saddened, Ed. Are you trying to broaden the site’s appeal to those “libertarians who voted for Obama”?

PolAgnostic on December 12, 2012 at 10:42 AM

When is the GOP going to belatedly learn that what Obama wants is PUNITIVE not economic?

One bold move the GOP could make is to give Obama a tax hike on actual “millionaires and billionaires” instead of the upper middle class making $200K? Give Obama his tax hikes for the rich (maybe include an AMT for CG over $Million so Warren Buffett can finally start paying the tax rates he wants) in exchange for significant cuts including the repeal of the premium-hiking, job-killing Obamacare. Let him turn THAT down. I think such a proposal could also get 51 votes in the Senate. Republicans wouldn’t seem quite so intransigent on taxes, they make the distinction of not protecting the very rich, they’d put Obama in the position of being the stubborn ideologue.

SAMinVA on December 12, 2012 at 10:43 AM

Linda is like so many in this country today; she says that the president doesn’t have any idea of what this will mean. The people in the press keep saying what a nice guy he is, especially those opposed to his politics and economics (yes those two are different, the politics will bend and flow with time while economics is simply math and its rules do not bend and flow).

Many are starting to realize that YES he does know what he is doing and No he is not a nice guy.

His actions are so different than his words and the actions show that he intends to bring us down and no he is not nice, he is vicious to his opponents and uncaring to the vast majority of people. As a community organizer his role was to educate his “subjects” to feel that they were entitled to what the white power structure “took” from them and he was going to get it back; he is doing his best with little opposition. We will see more which will expose him and the GOP will not be courageous enough to go after him because all they want is to be reelected.

Pardonme on December 12, 2012 at 10:43 AM

ncreased tax rates != increased tax revenue.

We have a spending problem.

tom daschle concerned on December 12, 2012 at 10:33 AM

Exactly. It’s like the dilemma of overcrowded prisons. We don’t have a problem of arresting too many people, minority conspiracy theorists notwithstanding, we have a problem with too many people disregarding the law.

MelonCollie on December 12, 2012 at 10:46 AM

We have gone from spending 18.6% of GDP in 2000 to over 25% of GDP today. That’s the real driver of the massive deficits and debt, and we need to return to the 18.6% level in order to solve those issues. If we have to trade a higher marginal tax rate to do so, I’d take that deal

Everyone here should understand that while democrats and republicans talk about reducing spending, this is never going to happen. They might reduce the rate of increase but not actually reduce the base amount going to any programs. We will see Greece in our streets before they go that far.

paulsur on December 12, 2012 at 10:52 AM

What Boehner should say in whatever number of words(in my opinion):

‘Americans have asked for a balanced approach. The results of this past election show us that Americans have voiced their support for President Obama’s agenda of raising taxes on the wealthy. As you have learned from the President during the campaign, he feels the Bush tax cuts have benefited the wealthy. Even though we are in the midst of discussing a compromise plan continue to keep in mind that the President’s primary requirement of raising taxes on the wealthy can be met without additional legislation due to the automatic expiration of the Bush tax cuts this January. President Obamas request for increased revenue will occur. We will continue to discuss with the President the other side of the balanced approach, reduced spending. We are looking forward to learning of his priorities in this regard as well. Thank you.’

DaveDief on December 12, 2012 at 10:53 AM

Sucking capital out of the economy is exactly what 60 million American democrat voters voted for.

Yup.

Let’s give the masses what they voted for in this great democracy of ours.

Let. It. Burn.

MidniteRambler on December 12, 2012 at 10:54 AM

I hear the same reasoning from my union brothers and sisters(don’t know why I feel compelled to say that…) We are hourly workers. There is plenty of overtime available if you are willing to work those extra twelve hour days. Almost every week I hear one of them saying it isn’t worth working that sixth or seventh day of the workweek because so much is taken out in taxes. They say “You only make $60 on that last day” All of this is pure hokum. Withholding is based on your ANNUAL EARNINGS, not your weekly earnings. Withholding on your 72nd hour is the same as your 1st.

But of course these are the same dunderheads that voted for Obama and higher taxes, yet expect those who earn more than them to keep laboring for less money.

The cognitive dissonance is astounding.

tom daschle concerned on December 12, 2012 at 10:55 AM

Pardonme on December 12, 2012 at 10:43 AM

Six weeks ago I would have agreed that people were waking up to what Obama wants, or at least to the negative impact of his economic policies.

Then November 6 happened.

I say give the people what they voted for: give it to them good and hard.

MidniteRambler on December 12, 2012 at 10:56 AM

..this video (God bless this woman and all of her our ilk) is just like all of the campaign ads prior to 6 November. It’s like the presidential race hasn’t stopped.

*sigh*

Well, I guess it’s appropriate because El Presidente Douche Bag — when not gearing up for 20-day vacations in “Asia” (Hawaii) — is still out campaigning.

I long for the upcoming financial Armageddon if only to see the huge “Whiskey Tango Foxtrot” on this assshole’s purple, lying, flapping lips when it hits.

The War Planner on December 12, 2012 at 10:57 AM

Sucking capital out of the economy is exactly what 60 million American democrat voters voted for.

At least 47 million of them (people on Foodstamps) do not pay any taxes and so it is irrelevant how high tax rates go up – they will never pay any taxes.
All they are worried about is benefits being taken from them (cost cutting by the government).

albill on December 12, 2012 at 10:59 AM

But, but – Obama says all experts and economists agree – with him!

Midas on December 12, 2012 at 11:02 AM

I just think it’s funny Democrats are saying the Clinton tax rates for EVERYBODY would destroy the economy.

Isn’t that admitting the middle class champion was George Bush?

Wagthatdog on December 12, 2012 at 11:07 AM

“…we need to return to the 18.6% level in order to solve those issues.”

Um, no. No. NO.

We need to get spending to levels far below that to solve these issues. And then it needs to stay there.

Midas on December 12, 2012 at 11:07 AM

“Linda’s Story” focuses on Linda Lizanich, an accountant with the Kennedy Group in Ohio, explaining the obvious consequences of sucking more capital out of an already-stagnant economy:

It’s just a shame that they couldn’t find a storyteller that includes the claim that Barak Obama’s presidency caused cancer and killed his/her spouse. ;0

Seriously, if all “the deal” does is tax those individuals making $200K and couples/businesses making over $250K: Let it burn. The GOP line in the sand needs to be entitlement reform NOW! Not vague promises of future spending cuts or eliminating tax loopholes. Once the pressure is off, the Dems would never allow entitlement cuts and Congress should already be eliminating “loopholes.”

Happy Nomad on December 12, 2012 at 11:19 AM

The Democrats had their chance SEVERAL YEARS ago to make those marginal tax rates permanent. Republicans wanted to make them
permanent, some Democrats did, but some didn’t.

Instead of making them permanent, they kicked the can.

Then they never passed a budget when the Democrats had Pres, Senate, and House. We got Obamacare (barely).

Republicans didn’t start the fire.

Let
It
Burn

SnowSun on December 12, 2012 at 11:24 AM

I wonder what the odds will be that we get a Friday dump, after Rush is off the air, on a deal on the cliff? We usually get the krap news on the dump?

BTW, I bet boehner will cave!
L

letget on December 12, 2012 at 11:25 AM

Sucking capital out of the economy is exactly what 60 million American democrat voters voted for.

Yeah, you have a point. #headdesk

Ed Morrissey on December 12, 2012 at 10:08 AM

Some did it out of ignorance, and some did it out of malice.

Either way, these are the same ignoramuses that will then blame business for not hiring because they are greedy or unpatriotic.

There is a complete disconnect of cause and affect in the leftist mind among the ignorant.

tom daschle concerned on December 12, 2012 at 10:15 AM

Yes, this is why we will be hearing the term “economic patriotism” a lot more. It means hiring more people even though it means you don’t turn a profit any longer, for example.

slickwillie2001 on December 12, 2012 at 11:33 AM

We have gone from spending 18.6% of GDP in 2000 to over 25% of GDP today.

Even more to the point, look at what happened when the balance of power shifted from Republican to Democrat…

The last budget produced by a Republican House, Republican Senate, and Republican President was signed in 2006 for FY 2007.

The first budget produced by a Democrat House, Democrat Senate, and Democrat President was signed in 2009 for FY 2009.

In the last all-Republican majority budget, FY 2007, spending was 19.7% of GDP.

In the first all-Democrat majority budget, FY 2009, spending was 25.2% of GDP.

Spending increased from 19.7% of GDP to 25.2% of GDP in just two short years. That raw increase is 5.5% of GDP, but it represents a much bigger increase when you look at it in relative terms:
(25.2% spending rate / 19.7% spending rate) = a 28% increase in spending rate.

So, terms of GDP, the all-Democrat majority budget of FY 2009 increased spending a whopping 28% over the all-Republican majority budget of FY 2007.

The problem isn’t revenues. The problem is spending.

That’s the real driver of the massive deficits and debt, and we need to return to the 18.6% level in order to solve those issues. If we have to trade a higher marginal tax rate to do so, I’d take that deal — but it’s still going to cause damage when it gets applied.

I believe that raising tax rates will result in LOWER revenues, not higher revenues.

Revenues went UP, not down, after the passage of the 2003 Bush Tax Cuts. I think it is logical to expect that if we reverse those rates, we should expect a reversal of those results.

Let’s look at what happened in the wake of the 2003 Bush Tax Cuts…

President George W. Bush “inherited” the Dot Com bust and the 9/11/2001 attacks, both of which hurt our economy and decreased employment (increased unemployment).

The second part of the “Bush Tax Cuts” were signed May 28, 2003, and turned the economy around… both employment and revenues went UP as a result of the Bush Tax Cuts.

For employment numbers, use the Employment-population ratio: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300000
For Revenue numbers, use: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/hist01z1.xls

Let’s look at the Employment-population ratio in the last month of each Fiscal Year (September) from 2000 onward:

Year Employment-population ratio in September
2000 64.2
2001 63.5
2002 63.0
2003 62.0
2004 62.3
2005 62.8
2006 63.1
2007 62.9
2008 61.9
2009 58.7
2010 58.5
2011 58.4

And let’s look at Receipts (Revenues) from 2000 onward:

Table 1.1—SUMMARY OF RECEIPTS, OUTLAYS, AND SURPLUSES OR DEFICITS (–): 1789–2017

Year Total Receipts (in millions of dollars)
2000 2,025,191
2001 1,991,082
2002 1,853,136
2003 1,782,314
2004 1,880,114
2005 2,153,611
2006 2,406,869
2007 2,567,985
2008 2,523,991
2009 2,104,989
2010 2,162,724
2011 2,303,466

Starting with Fiscal Year 2000, note how both employment and revenues went DOWN in FY 2001, DOWN again in FY 2002, and DOWN again in FY 2003. That’s the effect of the Dot Com bust and the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

But the Bush Tax Cuts turned the economy around. Note how both employment and revenues went UP in FY 2004, UP again in FY 2005, UP again in FY 2006, and while employment dropped slightly in 2007, revenues were UP again that year.

The Bush Tax Cuts improved employment and improved revenues… Revenues in FY 2007 were 44% larger than FY 2003 revenues!

It wasn’t until the Democrats took majority control of the House and Senate, in January 2007, that the economy really started to tank. The Democrats have been in majority control (holding 2+ out of 3 of the House, Senate and Presidency) for 5.5 years, and they spent the first half of that driving the economy in the ditch and the second half of that leaving the economy in the ditch.

If the Bush Tax Cuts are allowed to expire, and tax rates go up, both jobs and revenue will be lost. We will have lower employment (higher unemployment) and lower revenues.

To allow the Bush Tax Cuts to expire would be irresponsible.

The baseline is that the economy was in a three-year-long downturn when the 2003 Bush Tax Cuts were passed, with the Employment-population ratio having fallen from a high of 64.7% in April 2000 down to 62.3% when the 2003 Bush Tax Cuts were passed in May 2003. And the truth is that the Bush Tax Cuts turned that downturn around and the Employment-population ratio started increasing again, such that after three years it had risen to 63.1% in May 2006.

The truth is that the Obama “stimulus” did NOT turn a downturn around, and three years after the “Stimulus”, the Employment-population ratio was 1.7 points lower than where it had been when the stimulus was passed (58.6% in February 2012, vs. 60.3% in February 2009 when the “stimulus” was passed).

The truth is that the August employment/unemployment numbers show that we have gone three straight years (from September 2009 to August 2012) with the Employment-population ratio below 58.8%… and the last time that was true was January 1975 – December 1977. The truth is that the average Employment-population ratio during the Carter administration was 59.1%, and the average Employment-population ratio during the Obama administration has been 58.7%. Obama is now officially worse than Carter.

ITguy on December 12, 2012 at 11:43 AM

Waste of time and money.

THE MAJORITY IN AMERICA DOES NOT CARE!!!!!
THEY WANT THEIR FREE CRAP!!!!!

Carnac on December 12, 2012 at 11:48 AM

Obama’s tax penalty isn’t about raising revenue, it’s about penalizing Americans he perceives as “those who didn’t vote for him.”

His plan to tax “the rich” will raise all of eight days of revenue. Eight whole days. That’s how little revenue his “plan” will raise, and he’s not going to apply it towards the deficit, but instead spend it.

It’s a sham, a non plan and a non-solution, and the media (once again) are covering for him by not reporting how silly and childish his posturing really is.

Obama is playing games and the game is, to try and embarrass republicans with revenge. Third grade bully tactics to raise himself up by putting others down. Not the conduct one expects from a “leader.”

BruthaMan on December 12, 2012 at 12:26 PM

Give the President the Dictatorial powers he wants. Give him the power to unilaterally raise taxes, and close loopholes. Give him the right to budget money as he wishes, and what the hell, give him the unilateral power to raise the debt limit by three trillion dollars.

Specifically limit his dictatorial powers by denying him the right to sieze property without due process, and do not allow him to create new loopholes. Make it possible to overrule him only by 2/3 majority vote in the congress. Then stand back, and watch.

Then the economy is his. The budget is his. The federal deficit is his and his alone. He can’t keep going out there blaming Republicans, because our answer would be obvious. We gave you the power to tax anyone at whatever rate you felt like. We gave you the power to write any budget you wanted, this is all yours.

If we are going to surrender, don’t surrender a little bit, give it all up. We can’t turn it around. We can’t explain to people why this is bad. We can’t win the argument. The people aren’t listening, and aren’t going to start now. The only way the people are going to learn, is when the house of cards falls down.

Snake307 on December 12, 2012 at 12:46 PM

I prefer the term socialist sponges.

Decent democrats, there are still a few, didn’t vote for 0bama.

cozmo on December 12, 2012 at 10:38 AM

I have not encountered any decent Democrats for a decade. They are extinct. What remains are not our countrymen. What remains looks at what happened to Steve Crowder and complains that he survived, and cheers the Union police for not arresting the hit man. No point in being civil to those trying to destroy us as a matter of faith.

Yes, this is why we will be hearing the term “economic patriotism” a lot more. It means hiring more people even though it means you don’t turn a profit any longer, for example.

slickwillie2001 on December 12, 2012 at 11:33 AM

I also am expecting them to start using the term “economic patriotism” in imitation of the Socialists [not a figurative insult, the Socialist Party rules there] in France complaining that the wealthy and their wealth are fleeing the country en masse after a 75% income tax on top of the “wealth tax” was imposed. But also expect the terms “wreckers” and ” capitalist-roaders” to come to the fore. I will let you figure out what country they come from.

Subotai Bahadur on December 12, 2012 at 1:00 PM

Maybe it’s just me, but some of what she says sounds pretty naive. Maybe that is what is necessary to bring enough people up to speed to have an effect in countering his approach. But I keep wanting to say to her, “Where have you been?”

For example, Linda also sez:

“I don’t think he realizes how much it’s going to cut back on employment, how much it’s going to cut back on investment.

I wish the President could see that for himself. I don’t think he has an idea how to run a business.

If you’re going to raise taxes, you’ve also got to cut costs.

And I don’t know what the deal … what they’ve decided to do about cutting costs yet, if anything.”

Unfortunately, this seems like a part of the denial process that Americans are now, and will be continuing to go through for some time.

Let’s face it! The President knows full well how much this is going to cut back in employment and investment, and it also seems pretty clear that he could care less.

It is what he wants! He wants to convince the country that resentment to will somehow raise all boats — not enterprise and initiative.

Why? Because it is what he does best. His entire career strongly suggests that he is fundamentally opposed to business enterprise as a social economic engine. And as a result, he has every intention to continue blaming the rich for all our social problems.

And, he also has every confidence that continuing so do so will work to his political benefit, at least so long as he has the media promoting his agenda. Unfortunately, he may be right — at least for a while.

Barack Obama is a community organizer — a professional leftist trouble maker and street rabble-rouser whose lifetime of experience, and demonstrated expertise has consisted of finding ways to divert the focus of blame for social unrest and community decay away from encouraging individual initiative, and from the recognition of traditional sources of causation and/or problem solving. He has done it by pointing the finger instead at some common enemy — banks, local businesses, landlords (and as his political prospects have grown), George Bush, House Republicans, the rich. The point is that his modus operandi has always been to relentlessly undermine the enemy du jour in pursuit of some theoretical ideal . . . such as social justice, or whatever is “fair,” or even whatever is, from a practical point of view, out of reach, but which sounds nice!

When Linda says, “I don’t think he knows how to run a business,” it is completely exasperating! Hey, no kidding, Linda!!

And when she adds, “And I don’t know what the deal … what they’ve decided to do about cutting costs yet, if anything,” you just have to shake your head.

This President does not care what happens if and when we go over the fiscal cliff. He is a radical, not a reformer! It may very well be his plan to go over the cliff, for one reason because it will give him quick access to a pool of new money in the form of tax revenues that he would not have had otherwise, at least for a while! He firmly believes, and with some considerable justification, that he can successfully continue to blame others for the consequences. Taxes go up for everyone, he collects the dough, and he gets to spend it on his agenda — another “stimulus” to help the “middle class!”

Barack Obama does not now, nor has he ever wanted to bring Americans together — to unite the country by encouraging economic recovery to benefit a “middle class.” Government has NEVER created a “middle class!”

So he has always been a divider, even along risky racial grounds. And, so far, he’s gotten away with it.

Why does anyone continue to believe that he now wants to somehow unite us? He was willing to throw the dice and win a reelection by a relatively slim margin by systematically engaging in the politics of personal destruction, not compromising on his radical agenda. He succeeded by falsely tagging the breadth of opposition to his programs as comprised by a bunch of bigots!

Trochilus on December 12, 2012 at 1:43 PM

The Dems have a program for fairness and one for prosperity.

ITguy on December 12, 2012 at 11:43 AM

Wow. You have all the details in a line. Jow the Plumber go the fact, though. For good or ill, the program now is to take money from the rich and an expanding economy is nice but….too bad if it gets in the way when you are playing Robin Hood.

Trochilus on December 12, 2012 at 1:43 PM

You have it. The left thinks we have given the rich people too much already. We had years of tax cuts, after all.

Our POTUS thinks prosperity will come after his green energy and enormous savings from medical care and cutting the Pentagon in favor of infrastructure and education investments takes off.

The economic end game for our beloved POTUS is as much a mistery as was President Bush’s end game in Iraq.

They are both the result of over riding priorities to handle questionable immediate problems and wishful thinking about processes they don’t understand and results over which they have little control.

(Bush had attack and WMDs worries while O has global warming and etc.)

IlikedAUH2O on December 12, 2012 at 2:23 PM

I just think it’s funny Democrats are saying the Clinton tax rates for EVERYBODY would destroy the economy.

Isn’t that admitting the middle class champion was George Bush?

Wagthatdog

It’s especially funny after telling us for the last 10 years that the Clinton tax rates are the key to a booming economy. The sad part is I don’t think a single republican in the House or the Senate has called them out on this spectacular flip flop.

Refuse to cave; let the taxes go up; let Obama deal with the consequences of the new recession for the next two years.

At first, I thought the best course of action would be to take the issue away from democrats and give him the tax hikes for $250,000 and above; now, I’m so sick of Obama and Reid’s arrogant demands, I am against giving them anything. Let the fiscal cliff commence and stick to your principles, Republicans. If you stand for nothing; you’ll fall for anything. In the end, if you’ve got no principles, you’re no different from Obama; doing the dirty deal will destroy the GOP faster than anything.

Boehner: No one will respect you in the morning if you go to bed with this Demagogue.

mountainaires

That is the only viable option. Not perfect, but viable. It may not work. But it might. Cave on taxes however, and republicans can kiss the House goodbye in 2014.

The only problem is that the Republicans will still be blamed.

Kingfisher

Then we have nothing to lose, do we? If we’re going to get blamed no matter what, may as well go out doing the right thing for once.

But here’s a thought….just because the media is desperate to convince folks like you that that will be the case doesn’t mean it will be. They don’t have a crystal ball. Usually when things go to hell, the guy at the top gets the blame. Obama and the dems may have gotten a pass the first time, but will they continue to get a pass if unemployment goes back up to 10%? I doubt it. And that’s why I’m almost certain Obama will cave if we stick to our guns.

Taxes should go up on the rich…but also the middle class and even the poor need to start paying something. Will this slow the economy even more? Of course. In fact we’ll probably enter another recession that could be worse then the last, but if the democrats are not going to cut spending, it’s the only choice to make. If we do not raise revenue at the current spending rates, we just fall into a deeper and deeper hole.

crco

1.If taxes go up, and the economy slows down, there won’t be any extra revenue.
2.The democrats already have new projects in mind for any new revenue anyway, and those plans don’t included debt reduction, so giving them more money while expecting them to maintain current spending levels is naive. It won’t happen, and they’ve already admitted as much. Therefore, there is no reason to give them more revenue. If they want more revenue, they should stop screwing up the economy. Then they would get plenty of revenue.

xblade on December 12, 2012 at 4:30 PM

1.If taxes go up, and the economy slows down, there won’t be any extra revenue.
2.The democrats already have new projects in mind for any new revenue anyway, and those plans don’t included debt reduction, so giving them more money while expecting them to maintain current spending levels is naive. It won’t happen, and they’ve already admitted as much. Therefore, there is no reason to give them more revenue. If they want more revenue, they should stop screwing up the economy. Then they would get plenty of revenue.

xblade

I agree with you, but I think it’s a lost cause right now. The republicans put the noose around their neck a year ago and now they’re just waiting for Obama to pull the lever (because there is no leadership, no coherent message from the GOP, etc, etc). So taxes are going up…on the “rich”. This will accomplish nothing as you mentioned.

But, if taxes go up on everyone, there might just be hell to pay. Frankly, I’m not interested right now in who gets the blame in the short term, I’m more interested in solving the problem long term…if that’s still possible.

BTW xblade, I don’t believe I’m naive.

crco on December 12, 2012 at 6:09 PM

Some did it out of ignorance, and some did it out of malice.

Either way, these are the same ignoramuses that will then blame business for not hiring because they are greedy or unpatriotic.

There is a complete disconnect of cause and affect in the leftist mind among the ignorant.

tom daschle concerned on December 12, 2012 at 10:15 AM

Amen, Amen and Amen. (Emphasis is the original quote was added by me.)

Theophile on December 12, 2012 at 7:39 PM

We have a spoiled brat spending us into failure that will not listen to 180 people who make their living advising on economic matters. This narcissist is an empty suit but not as bad as the Congress that allows him to be just that.

mixplix on December 12, 2012 at 8:16 PM

…D U H !

KOOLAID2 on December 12, 2012 at 11:14 PM