Posted on 09/19/2011 9:15:28 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
He’s got a deficit-reduction package that can’t clear the House, thanks to massive new tax hikes that everyone knows are a deal-killer. He has a jobs package that can’t clear the Senate. What’s a President to do? Threaten a veto:
President Obama warned he will veto any deficit plan brought to him by Congress that wasn’t ‘balanced’ between taxes and spending cuts.
‘We are not going to have a one-sided deal that hurts the folks who are most vulnerable,’ Obama said Monday morning, speaking from the Rose Garden.
He rejected accusations that tax increases for the wealthy was ‘class warfare’.
The president argued, as he has repeatedly, that wealthier Americans ‘shouldn’t get a better deal than ordinary families.’.
“This is not class warfare, it’s math. The money’s going to have to come from some place,” the president said, speaking to reporters. “If we’re not willing to ask those who’ve done extraordinarily well to help America close the deficit, the logic, the math says everybody else has to do a whole lot more. “
What’s so surprising about this rhetoric is how unsurprising it is. Obama has been making this same exact argument for years, starting in the 2008 campaign, but accelerating last year. Obama made the exact same argument — and veto threat, too — just before caving in December 2010 and agreeing to extend the Bush-era tax rates.
The threat is as empty as the rhetoric. Let’s say for argument’s sake that the House and Senate passed a bill that accomplished significant deficit reduction through entitlement reform without Obama’s John Edwards-like Two Americas tax policy. Does anyone believe that Obama would veto a bill backed by both a Republican House and a Democratic Senate? Would Obama really want to make himself look like the least bipartisan political leader in Washington DC? There isn’t a chance in Hades that he would veto such a bill, even though getting such a bill to the White House would have almost as small a chance in the first place.
With even his own party insisting that they’re not going to bite on more spending and higher taxes, Obama’s already starting to isolate himself on economic policy. He issued this warning in a sad attempt to impress a few people on the Left with his “leadership,” but issuing empty threats isn’t real leadership. It’s an expression of political impotence.
Hey Zero, what makes you think your scam will even see the light of day.
Can’t wait until America vetoes him out of OUR House next year or sooner.
Barack, sit down, shut up and eat your peas. The Tea Party is about to force-feed them to you.
What as the the Stupid Party’s response been? It should be laughter.
Beyond Dumb
STUPID, STUPIDER and STUPIDEST! This is the progressive liberal thought process. It can get worse, worser and worsest.
Sorry to pervert the English language but how else to describe it, escapes me at this moment.
FUBO
Let me be the first here to say this: There is no affirmative action program for the Presidency of the United States. You pass or you fail.
Higher Taxes Won’t Reduce the Deficit
History shows that when Congress gets more revenue, the pols spend it.
In the late 1980s, one of us, Richard Vedder, and Lowell Gallaway of Ohio University co-authored a often-cited research paper for the congressional Joint Economic Committee (known as the $1.58 study) that found that every new dollar of new taxes led to more than one dollar of new spending by Congress. Subsequent revisions of the study over the next decade found similar results.
But no matter how we configured the data and no matter what variables we examined, higher tax collections never resulted in less spending.
The grand bargain so many in Washington yearn for—tax increases coupled with spending cuts—is a fool’s errand. Our research confirms what the late economist Milton Friedman said of Congress many years ago: “Politicians will always spend every penny of tax raised and whatever else they can get away with.”
The countdown continues...
And how exactly does it do that? How many 'most vulnerable' are there that we need to spend $3.4 TRILLION dollars this year?
$3.4Trillion, divided by 300 million (population of the USA) equals over $11,000 per person.
Don’t forget - Pelosi’s PAYGO program is still in affect.
OweBama is determined to be a one-term president.
Hey Barry, it isn’t the raising of taxes that will do you in or help your *cause*, it is the resulting economic collapse that will sink your sorry excuse for a leader.
Go ahead and put all your eggs in that basket, because it is the final nail in the coffin that is your reelection chances.
Does this mean Obama will VETO the "jobs bill" if it does not tax the job creators?
I'm going out and get the popcorn.
I have a nightmare that when we do get rid of this pile of horse dung, that the Media that loves him will keep barfing him up on us every couple of days like they do with Bubba the Clinton.
Not that many months left until we get to veto that idiot.
Then he can go back to his peers in Chicago - land of sleaze.
OK How about this. We’ll put a 50% property tax on hollywood mansions and leave everyone else alone.
I suppose he could sign an executive order to remain in control after jan 20th 2013 once the violence he and his ilk are inciting starts up in our cities. You know, in the name of national security.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.