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.)

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.

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.

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.)

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!

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.

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.

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.”

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

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.

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.

BTW, I bet boehner will cave!
L

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

“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.”

“…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.

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

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).

*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.

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.

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.

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.

‘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.’