Posted on 11/14/2012 12:22:24 PM PST by Kaslin
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Now, Obama's meeting with the CEOs. This is being portrayed as Obama wanting to have dialogue. "He really wants to talk to these guys. He wants to learn from them. He wants to work together with them in order to come up with mutually agreeable policies, 'cause he's open to anything that will work." Ahem. Instead, what's gonna happen is Obama's bringing the guys in there.
He's speaking from a teleprompter and he's gonna read them the way world works. He's gonna tell them the way life is. He's gonna tell 'em what their future is. He's gonna let 'em say whatever they want to say and the meeting's gonna be over, and that's it. And what's he gonna do? If you wondered what he meant during the campaign by, "Get your revenge by voting," this may be it.
"President Obama is taking a hard line with congressional Republicans heading into negotiations over the year-end 'fiscal cliff,' making no opening concessions and calling for far more in new taxes than Republicans have so far been willing to consider." In fact, Obama is now claiming he wants to double the tax increases on corporations and the wealthy from what he claimed during the campaign.
Maybe not quite double, but $1.6 trillion.
That's the tax increase on corporations and the wealthy. This is the new tone, the new bipartisan spirit that he promised and what the American people voted for. "Obama is taking a hard line." So these CEOs are being brought in today to be told what's what. "Obama plans to open talks using his most recent budget proposal, which sought to raise taxes on corporations and the wealthy by $1.6 trillion over the next decade...
"That's double the sum that House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) offered Obama during secret debt negotiations in 2011." So Boehner offered to play ball. We're just learning this. Boehner offered to play ball on new "revenue," $800 billion. Obama has come back in this new spirit of bipartisanship and a new tone that he promised us during the campaign and that the American people voted for.
He now says, "You know, screw that $800 billion, Boehner! Screw you and screw the $1.6 trillion now. What are you gonna do about it? I won! Well, you want a select committee on Benghazi? Go right ahead. Go, go, go, and ask for it. I already talked to Harry Reid. You think you're gonna get to first base on that select committee? Yeah, Petraeus is coming up to testify. You really think he's gonna testify against me?
"Ha-ha-ha! You guys keep on dreaming all you want. But I just tell you, you better get ready: $1.6 trillion in tax hikes. That's for openers, and then the next thing I'm gonna do..." If you go to the end of this Washington Post story: "In addition to raising taxes, Obama proposed to [cut] $340 billion from health-care programs..." Exactly what the Republicans said during the campaign! We told you: He's going to cut health care. He's gonna take it out of Medicare and Medicaid.
The Democrats said, "They're lying! How dare they lie about our president? He would never cut health care." It's his bill. He's cutting health care by $340 billion. All these "fact-checkers" told us that cuts to health care programs are a Republican lie, as is saving $1 trillion from ending of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. That's a lie. Those savings, if you even call 'em that (I don't even concede that), were factored in long time ago.
Even in this story, even in this story guess who is blamed for the current economic plight that we are in? Bush! George W. Bush is blamed even in this story. The reason Obama has to take these drastic measures is because of the irresponsibility of the Bush administration. So everything that you and I suspected that Obama would do is happening. Massive tax increases that will totally shut down economic activity.
This $1.6 trillion in taxes on corporations and the wealthy is in addition to the Obamacare taxes. "Obama has been pressing to let the George W. Bush-era tax cuts expire at the end of the year for the wealthiest 2% of the nation's households, a tax hike adamantly opposed by Republicans. But Carney suggested that even the revenue generated by letting those tax cuts end would not be enough to tame the national debt and..."
No kidding! Of course it isn't. Do you know how much money is raised by eliminating the Bush tax cuts? It's $824 billion. We're now looking, ladies, at our fifth trillion-plus-dollar deficit. So all during the campaign we shouted our lungs out, we shouted from the mountaintop, "You cannot reduce the deficit, you can't even make a dent in the deficit by letting the Bush tax rates expire! There's not enough money. You can't do it.
"In fact, if you confiscate all the money the rich have over a million dollars, you run the government for six weeks and then you're out of money. That's how much money we're spending. That's how much money that we are watching go out the door and how much money we're borrowing," and now the regime admits it! Jay Carney admits "even the revenue generated by letting those tax cuts end would not be enough."
That's why we have to raise them even more!
It's exactly what was said during the campaign. It's exactly what we said. But the bottom line is, folks, this has nothing to do with generating or gaining more revenue, because it won't. This is gonna shut down the engine that produces and creates wealth, which creates revenue. This is nothing other than punishment. This is the "revenge" that Obama was talking about in the campaign. This is punishment of the rich, punishment of the successful. Because "the rich," in his world, are defined as 200 grand a year and up.
END TRANSCRIPT
RE: Obama Readies His Revenge on the “Rich”
Exactly what did the “Rich” do to Obama that makes him yearn for revenge?
Was his father or mother killed by the “rich”? If not, what the heck is he seeking revenge for?
The wealthiest people in the country are Obama voters.
They don’t mind paying more and I don’t want to pay more than them.
The GOP should not go to bat for the uber-rich. It will never get their votes.
O’s going to cry like a little baby when corporate America lays off millions of Americans to avoid Obamacare and moves their companies overseas and he doesn’t get ANY of their tax money. He forgets those people rose to power on their own sweat and ideas; the job creators are harder working and more strong willed than the dope that elected him and they are going to turn on him when they realize he killed their jobs and our economy and that there’s no one left to pay for the goods those evil capitalists that employed them. Boy the Left is in for a wakeup call soon. Utopia / false dreams....poof * gone....Have fun eating your own, sons...: )
Hell, I've barely met Mr. I pay you, Wealthy.
Super rich is a couple of words that mean as much as jumbo shrimp.
Name names, mr. zero.
Fortune 500 CEOs are liberal. They can absorb the cost of doing business. They won’t notice a few million more in taxes.
Small business owners - unless they make more than $200,000 a year - Obama’s taxes won’t impact them that much and even then they can avoid paying more taxes.
We’re talking about higher taxes on a Democrat constituency. Its not in conservatives’ interests to save them from themselves.
O’s going to cry like a little baby when corporate America lays off millions of Americans to avoid Obamacare and moves their companies overseas and he doesn’t get ANY of their tax money. He forgets that those very people who started their own companies and rose to power did so on their own sweat and ideas; that the job creators are harder working and more strong willed than the doped that elected him and they are going to turn on him when they realize he killed their jobs and our economy and that there’s no one left with any money to pay for the goods and services that those evil capitalists produced that were also employing them. Boy the Left is in for a wakeup call soon. Utopia / false dreams....poof * gone....Have fun eating your own, boys....; )
Capitalist entrepreneurs and producers are his target - so that government can eliminate its competitors as the font of all "investment".
Really? Look at how the toniest communities in America vote.
They don’t mind. Why are you defending them?
Lenin, too, cultivated his contacts among the more successful members of society - until he had them stood up against a wall and shot as he confiscated their fortunes and absorbed them into his corrupt regime.
Those who ignore the lessons of history are bound to repeat them.
WE see it coming ... WE will be against the wall and be forced to respond.
I hate this trojan horse, agent provocateur
I’m convinced that Borat 0bama is really Jim Jones returned from the dead.
The very rich pursue tax avoidance strategies.
That’s why they can vote liberal and Obama’s threats don’t faze them.
At the end of the day, even with all these promised “higher” taxes they’ll pay little to nothing.
They can be Democrats and someone else can pick up the costs of their support for the Left.
The poorest and richest people in the country have a good deal more in common than people think.
> “President Obama is taking a hard line with congressional Republicans heading into negotiations over the year-end ‘fiscal cliff,’ making no opening concessions and calling for far more in new taxes than Republicans have so far been willing to consider.” In fact, Obama is now claiming he wants to double the tax increases on corporations and the wealthy from what he claimed during the campaign.
The idiots that elected do realize that this only going to cause prises to keep rising higher to make up for the additional taxes hey have to pay dont they. Like cheerleaders they’re good at rah rahing and producing offspring but not too keen in the common sense department.
> “President Obama is taking a hard line with congressional Republicans heading into negotiations over the year-end ‘fiscal cliff,’ making no opening concessions and calling for far more in new taxes than Republicans have so far been willing to consider.” In fact, Obama is now claiming he wants to double the tax increases on corporations and the wealthy from what he claimed during the campaign.
The idiots that elected 0 do realize that this only going to cause prices to keep rising higher to make up for the additional taxes they have to pay dont they? Like cheerleaders they’re good at rah rahing and producing offspring but not too keen in the common sense department.
What I know is, the rich, the super rich, the uber super rich and all the et cetera's that go along with that, are just words to guide the thinking of joe six pack into thinking someone is actually being targetted.
If you consider the entire nation as a someone, then you understand the camel, its nose and the tent.
And yet another thread on here claims that most of The Rich voted for him.
Irony, the Mark of Quality Literature.
he has the hollowood crowd at his beck and call....
gates...buffoon....soros...and the rest....
there is NO increase in taxes to affect these people...
its a tax on high end middle income people with businesses...and it will ultimately come down to affect the average middle class worker...
no stinking oligarchy needs a thrifty middle class....its the ultra rich and the poor....
that's what is wanted...
you think these nasty hollowood types want to share the national parks with these campers, and trailers, and tents?...these peasants crowding out OUR shorelines with their little cabins?....these cretins going to our symphonies and enjoying OUR museums?....
the nerve...
Don't buy the bullshit.
Throughout his campaign Obama claimed that small business people are only 3% of those making enough to be hit by his tax proposals. Romney never challenged him. But the truth is: it's a lie. That figure was ginned up by a left-wing think tank in Washington. How so? They counted everyone who had income reported on a 1099 form as being a "small business". Did you ever sell an item or two on EBay or Craig's List? Well, congratulations: Barack Obama thinks you're a "small business" now.
As for the Big Boys - they have availed themselves of outsourcing and offshoring opportunities only where they made economic sense in the context of an economy where fixed costs (labor, taxes, regulatory compliance) exceeded requirements for continued growth and profitability for the foreseeable future, and where new markets readily presented themselves.
Obamacare destroys that predictability - no one can safely predict profit margins or price points in a system where hoards of unelected bureaucrats make dozens of new regulations every day - as they are doing right now - in the service of laws that no one fully understands.
As a result (and coupled with the certainty of higher taxes): Fortune 500 companies will not simply outsource labor and offshore business units any more- they will move away to friendlier business locations. Such moves are already in the discussion phase with corporate consultants.
The problem is you’re negotiating with someone who wants America to fall. So, do you allow it now and take the blame? Or do you kick the can again.
And by the way, can you imagine what he would have done had he lost?
Rush is a buffoon. He would have hated Teddy Roosevelt.
the small business owners OTOH are the real target.....
eliminate the middle class.....that is what is being done....
PUBS....why don't you grow a brain and realize that defending the ultra rich is a stupid and silly and losing argument....no one cares about the rich....
maybe you can be outspoken proponents of protecting the middle class from endless taxes.....now there's a thought...
lol
the job creators are harder working and more strong willed than the dope that elected him and they are going to turn on him when they realize he killed their jobs and our economy
Uh huh, tell me more about how clinton-era tax rates killed jobs and the economy.
In fact how many jobs has the Bush tax cuts created?
The sad little mixed-race fatherless boy who was raised by his white grandparents, while his promiscuous young mother neglected him......this is where his rage began. Unfortunately, America is the target for his revenge. What a troubled sad man.
Small businesses have done well under Obama.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stewart-j-lawrence/obama-small-business_b_1881866.html
I can name one: John Corzine.
He’ll demonize them as greedy.
Leftist pundits will call them racist.
Wait until it dawns on all his Hollywood, TV star, and Rapper supporters that they are the rich people he has been attacking.
The way I see it, he's punishing the middle class and thereby punishing the People - has to beat us into the dirt so we don't have the energy to resist...
Republicans should go ahead and sit back and watch. We have gone too far down this rabbit hole. Just make sure we publicize that we told you so and elect conservatives if you want to fix things.
For grins, we should put a real wealth tax on the deal to take 50% of existing wealth over 1 million. I somehow suspect all the rich democrat senators and Obama might balk at that.
It's not that simple. Tell me how Clinton's economy would have fared if 9/11 had occurred early in his term, and how Clinton would have managed without the dot-com bubble.
I do blame GWB, as well as many in congress, and Clinton (mortgage backed securities) too, for the 2008 crash.
There is a CBO study that shows there is no significant correlation between marginal income tax rates and the growth of GDP. In fact the report goes on to show that the biggest effect of lowering marginal income tax rates was the concentration of income at the top.
I’ll try and find the link again.
Correlation is not causation. Economics is diabolically difficult to figure out. If you assume that the government does not waste too much money (including buying votes), and that actually helps the economy in the long run, you would argue that "big government" is a good thing, and use Clinton (even though he said the era of big gov is over) as evidence that raising taxes does not necessarily hurt the economy.
Although GWB was a failure, I think the Obama presidency has been much worse. Although I can understand voting for neither Romney nor Obama, I can't imagine voting for such scum as the latter. I am ashamed of the people who voted for him.
Here’s the study:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/news/business/0915taxesandeconomy.pdf
(it was the Congressional Research Service not the CBO so sorry for misstating that it was put out by the CBO)
If you read through and look at the statistical analysis there is no statistically significant link between marginal tax rates and GDP. If anything GDP growth has been slowing since we started lowering marginal tax rates but again it’s not statistically significant.
But there is a significant link between marginal rates and the concentration of wealth at the top.
What needs to be argued is if concentration of wealth is harmful to the economy or not.
There are plenty of republican and small business owners that will be hurt. The real folks that will be destroyed with this philosophy are folks like myself and DH. We make just enough to be “rich”. Because we are rich we have 2 kids in college paying out of pocket because we make too much for financial aid (and happy to do it, I don’t want government cheese). We are supporting our son and DIL who are currently jobless and pregnant. We are helping out elderly parents. So despite being “rich” there is precious little left in the account at the end of the month. Every car I have has over 80k miles on it. And Obama wants to raise my taxes drastically? I literally will end up putting tax payments on credit. He may be able to afford more, the super rich may be able to afford more, but reality is most high income folks cannot. Afford more. He will break our backs. And then where will he get his revenues from? He’s coming for you next.....
This is with Bush tax rates.
When Bush tax rates went into effect the tax revenues did not fall as the simple minded naysayers predicted. They rose.
That’s going to get unwound and the MSM pundits will not blame it on Barack or other Democrats.
I think in some ways it can be harmful, but sometimes that's only half the story. I do not approve of the way the TARP was pushed through. At that time I predicted that even if it was needed to save the economy, (and even Obama agreed that it was, although I still have doubts), it would start a very unfortunate trend of various entities asking for bailouts. That trend seems to be a tradition now. It started with wealthy, government-connected entities asking for help.
That is not to say that concentration of wealth is inherently harmful.
When Bush tax rates went into effect the tax revenues did not fall as the simple minded naysayers predicted. They rose.
According to the historical data you are wrong.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals
If today’s www.whitehouse.gov said the sun would rise in the East tomorrow, I’d want to independently verify it.
so verify it.
Here’s Bruce Bartlett on the subject:
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/12/the-fiscal-legacy-of-george-w-bush/
I put a New York Times blog in the same boat.
Another self serving .obamagov website?
Nobody claimed the effect was immediate, incidentally, when talking about single-year data. The economy needs a bit of time to move when the shackles are loosened. But move it does, and move it did, eventually to beat the pre-tax-reform revenue flow. When Reagan loosened the shackles, and when Bush loosened the shackles.
Yeah, someone did . . . you.
Unless you want to spin your comment to say what the plain reading of it clearly doesn't say.
Another self serving .obamagov website?
Hahaha, so I guess President Bush's own report is now just awful Obama spin. You're priceless, please keep posting.
Prove it. I said when Bush tax rates kicked in, revenues went up. They did, and even the old liberal JFK knew they would. He’s the source of the “rising tide lifts all boats.” You are remarkably petty, attacking over and over on the basis of quibbles about a very valid principle. Are you a troll from DU?
I did prove it. When Bush’s tax cuts kicked in revenues went down. I also posted a report you didn’t want to read from President Bush’s economic advisor admitting that revenues would not catch up with where they would have been.
And the principal is far from valid. I’ve posted links to reports and studies you’ve pettily waved away. So why don’t you pony up your own evidence instead of sniping.
You’ve given the Obamaview for one, and you’ve ignored Reagan for two. So you pettily wave away the principle.
The 2003 President’s economic report is the Obamaview?
lol
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.