Skip to comments.Obama Readies His Revenge on the "Rich"
Posted on 11/14/2012 12:22:24 PM PST by Kaslin
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.
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:
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?
A cherrypick of the shortly post-9/11 times...
Still waiting on your evidence.
Still waiting for you to answer the Gipper
Would you mind posting or linking what you want me to answer again?
Since you are not replying I'm going to assume you meant for me to explain rising federal revenue under President Reagan.
Since we are talking about income taxes we need to look at income tax revenue to the federal government. For reference I'm getting my data from this site.
In 1980 (numbers indicate millions) federal income tax receipts were $249. In 1988 federal income tax receipts were $413. That is an increase of 66%, not exactly a doubling of revenues.
Let's fast forward to Bill Clinton since he signed into law one of the biggest tax increases at that time. In 1992 federal income tax receipts were $476. When Clinton left office federal income tax receipts were $981. That was an increase of 113%, nearly double the increase of during Reagan's 8 year term.
Ok, income tax receipts did rise under Reagan, but was the cut to marginal income tax rates the cause? Highly doubtful. If you look at any 10 year period income tax revenue nearly doubles just through natural population changes and economic growth.
If you say you are for starving the federal beast and you believe lower income tax rates causes increased revenue shouldn't you logically be politicking to have rates increased in order to cause less revenue to go the federal government?
And as for tha Laffer Curve how do you know we are still on the right hand side of the top of the curve? If we were on the left hand side of the top would you advocate for higher marginal tax rates?
One last thing, if lower marginal rates leads to higher economic growth maybe you can look through this congressional Research Service report and address the fact that as income tax rates have been lowered the rate of GDP growth has gone down as well?
You sure say a lot of ifs, meaning you really don’t know squat about me whom you are so quick to condemn.
I am also concerned that you cite Bill Clinton, who rode a tech boom that was worldwide, not just a fluke of some supposedly marvelous American tax rate policy.
Hey HiTech . . . nice avoidance mechanism you have going on there. You haven’t dealth with the actual data at all and are just sticking to your talking points.
The facts, presented from a few different sources, are that there was no unprecedented increase in tax revenues under Reagan. If anything the growth in government revenue under Reagan was more anemic than in other comparable periods. But that shouldn’t be a problem because as a good conservative you should be applauding the slower growth in tax revenue instead of trying to proudly proclaim that tax revenues increased dramatically under Reagan.
Starve the Beast!(tm) amirite?
I laugh at how you assume.
Did I complain that you tried to use Reagan? Your point, that I have repeatedly refuted with hard facts, was that tax cuts increase tax revenues. No, they don't. They slow down revenue generation for the government as has been shown over and over again in this thread. Reagan cut taxes, Bill Clinton raised taxes and tax revenue grew more under Bill Clinton such that we were able for the first time in many decades run a surplus which George W. Bush promptly pissed away.