The budget standoff between the White House and House Republicans appears to be getting worse. President Obama has now flatly rejected the GOP proposal for revenue increases and spending cuts. His reason: any revenue increase that does not include a tax increase for the wealthy is unacceptable. The president believes the purpose of the tax code and, indeed, the only reason to prolong the fiscal crisis, is to punish the rich even though doing so does little to balance the budget. Moreover, he clings to this position even though the GOP has offered alternative methods for raising revenue. The thought of not raising taxes is so abhorrent to him that he will not even negotiate the point, preferring to continue to grandstand on the issue, confident that the same class warfare rhetoric that helped him get re-elected will panic enough Republicans to force the House leadership to fold.
As the New York Times reported:
“We’re going to have to see the rates on the top 2 percent go up,” Mr. Obama told Bloomberg Television in his first television interview since his re-election last month, “and we’re not going to be able to get a deal without it.”
Fair enough. All this is easily understood and leaves us perilously close to going over the fiscal cliff that he has warned would harm the economy. But it does leave us with one question: why is the GOP compromise proposal being labeled as evidence of the influence of extremists while the president’s hard-line refusal to consider an alternative to his soak-the-rich scheme is not being spoken of as proof that he is no moderate?
There is an argument to be made that the tax code should be used primarily for the purpose of redistribution of income, as the president seems to be insisting. But it has nothing to do with balancing the budget and avoiding sending the economy into another tailspin. It is nothing but pure liberal ideology in which achievement and investment is to be taxed punitively regardless of whether such a policy would actually improve the country’s fiscal health.
The president believes his stand is popular, and perhaps he’s right. But let’s not deceive ourselves that this is about common sense or a “balanced” approach to the problem. It is ideology.
It is true that many on the other side of the aisle are opposed in principle to higher taxes whether or not such a measure might be prudent in a given situation. Though there is a good argument to be made that their position is a sound one, they are rightly labeled ideologues. But as Obama’s stubborn refusal to consider different ways to reduce the deficit makes clear, they are no more, nor less, ideological than the man in the White House. Yet the universal reaction of the liberal mainstream media is to claim that the president is playing the moderate while his opponents are right-wing partisans blinded by ideology.
We’ll soon see whether the president’s evaluation of his opponents is accurate. He is counting on the press echoing his talking points about the extremism of the Republicans and that they will be blamed for the fallout if no agreement is reached. If so, it will be more evidence of the enormous advantage he derives from a pliant media. But even if the GOP allows itself to be stampeded by this false dichotomy, no one should be fooled. What the president is doing is neither moderate nor balanced. The country has re-elected a liberal ideologue and what follows will have more to do with his extremist approach to the issue than that of the Republicans.
always remember Cheney: "Deficits don't matter" n nThe GOP reaps what they sowed with the most irresponsible tax cuts in American history in 2001 and 2003.
Can you make an argument that is not merely a talking point? The people who read this blog know the difference and would actually be happy to debate an actual argument.
Right on BDZ…however, no point in wasting your time asking K2K who must be a progressive to debate…beyond his ken.
Let's see… The Bush tax cuts decreased income tax collection by about $1.8 trillion from 2002-2009, more than the cost of all the wars during this period. That lowered revenue which swung the budget from surplus to deficit. Don't those facts speak clearly enough?
9/11…Katrina…two wars….so, Bush decreased $1.8 Trillion over 8 years…Obama has added $6 Trillion in less than four years…your point?
Thank you for at least making an argument, even though a bad one. Your comrade K2K doesn't even bother. But to your argument: I don't know if your facts are correct, but let's say they are. I guess you are saying you can't fight a war unless you raise taxes enough to avoid going into deficit, regardless of the impact on the real economy, rather than the government's books. Isn't that your position?
I would like to see the Republican Party mount a rational defense of capitalism. It is clear from any student of 20th century politics that revolutionary socialism was off the table by the late 1930s, and the parliamentary or gradualist road to communism was in favor. See Eric Hobsbawm's The Age of Extremes for a frank enunciation of this change of direction. We are not merely in a welfare state, but on the road to completely realized communism. It is the politics of the Popular Front.
To all true Americans, it is most importent for all of us to fight our way through Obama's reigh of terror for the next 4yrs. This will be the most worthy fight of a lifetime. Stay true to the cause to return the country back to it's sanity. The Constitution must reigh supreme !!!
I think Obama has something to lose here, too. Remember right before the election, how he said with regard to the fiscal cliff, "Don't worry, we'll get it done." And he claimed to be just as successful at bipartisan dealmaking as Romney. And the Christie hug was supposed to be proof. Well, here's his chance.
Ah yes, we are talking about Obama, Abraham Lincoln’s successor from Illinois. n nAnd if Obama veers ever so slightly from whatever campaign jive happens to slip from his mouth, we can trust the media to gently nudge ‘Honest Barack' back on the straight and narrow, right? n n[Or, in my less roundabout way: Do you believe that?] n
If he wants to tax the rich
The point that I think Republicans need to keep in mind is that no matter what happens the MSM is going to crucify them. It will either be to blame them or to taunt them for being so totally destroyed by the Great Obama. No matter what the party does, it is going to have to deal with a lot of negativity/criticism. So far, no one is explaining anything — or nothing Republicans are saying is being reported, one or the other. They must stress how they have tried to compromise, how they have proposed "raising revenue" and tell over and over why it's a better plan. They need to keep at it — because they're going to lose anyway … but maybe they can at least plant a seed and a real and true debate will grow!
Mr. Tobin, the reason why the mainstream media is not calling Obama an ideologue is because they are afraid to tell the truth because people might reach the "wrong" conclusion. That is *shocker* that Obama is in fact an ideologue, conservatives are not evil, and Obama is just as much to blame for this stalemate as Republicans. If Republicans are not solely to blame then Democrats may be found wanting.
I would say the reason why the mainstream media is not calling Obama an ideologue is because they would unmask their own creature and their own agent and implementer of the MSM’s own ideology. n nBy this point it is axiomatic that no blame accrues to Progressives no matter what happens. In any and all cases whatever unfavorable problem occurs the post-modern Joseph Goebbels within the MSM will cook up some reason for why it is the fault of the GOP or the Tea Party or Zionist or global warming or …. n nAlways remember: any criticism of Obama is racist. n
Come on, taxes r not meant to "punish" anyone—they simply r used to provide enough revenue to provide a civilized society. You got to admit that it is laughable that Romney is proud to declare he pays 13% (horrors!), while many of the rest of us pay 3 times that. nLook, the only reason the conservatives (self-proclaimed libertarians!) won ANYTHING, is by promising the rabble to take away the freedom to use birth control. nIt is with sadness that I say that conservatives r insincere. Their only real agenda is to make more money and keep it taxed low.
Riddle me this Lenewyorkals: if America's annual income from taxes is approximately $2.3 Trillion, and, Obama over spends $!.5 Trillion over and above our income, yearly, then how can his proposal to "increase taxes" by $1.6 Trillion OVER A TEN YEAR PERIOD = $160 Billion annually be real? You can take 100% of the "rich"'s assets….all of it…and you could cover less than a year of what America, under Obama, spends each year. The money, as the EU and UK have discovered is running out….plus the few "rich" are fleeing France and the UK….you have to have intelligence and understanding to have a clue about how complex and dangerous America's situation is…you lack that so no wasting of my time!!
Do you really believe this bs? It isn't cool aid you've been drinking it is something much worse that fries the brain.
Obama must be fed-up with the abject wealth of the wealthy and the poverty of the poor. nThis is not ideology but facts. Redistribution is not THE SOLUTION HOWEVER … Obama wants a gesture from the GOP but he must reciprocate in kind.
If you were correct, why has Obama become exactly that which he professes to hate? He is a progressive…look up what that is!
None of the media pundits, journalists or authors of articles like this one about the fiscal cliff seem to be able to explain Obama's strident insistence on taxing the upper 2% of income, especially at the risk of precipitating another recession, or worse. Here's my explanation. This "crisis", like all of those continually manufactured by this regime, is intended to (1) smear the Republicans yet again as 'supporters of the rich', and (2) to set them up for blame when the economy tanks yet once again under Obama. In effect, Bush was to blame for the first disastrous 4 years of no growth, and the Republicans in the House will be blamed for the second 4 years of economic decline. Obama will have succeeded in blaming Republicans for a sick and pathetic economy for BOTH of this terms, even though anyone with an IQ above 50 knows he is the one responsible for the unemployment, the anemic growth, the mounting debt and laying the foundations for insidious inflation in the future. Obama does not care who gets hurt. He will take care of those who supported him and voted for him. Everyone else be damned. He's determined to transform this country into his personal utopian Marxist vision, no matter what the cost. Why are so many intelligent and thoughtful people failing to realize that he is as ruthless, callous and immoral as Vladimir Lenin was? Or has our ignorance become so deep that most people don't even know who Lenin was, or worse, think he was a savior?
Obama is doing what the progressives aka dems have done the last century and now this one: class warfare..plain and simple. Please everybody, remember that 95-98% of the media by their own admission are severly biased progressive left…no question about it!
As so many have pointed out, Clinton-era rates on the top 1% hardly makes a dent in the deficit. So why does he insist? n nObama has explained this himself . . . . Recall, please, his 2008 interview with Charlie Gibson on Cap Gain tax rates . . . . He explained that he would be in favor of higher rates EVEN IF it resulted in less revenue. n nIt's not about the revenue. IMO, Obama, like so many, simply, isn't worried about the deficit. Yes, he's said he wants to reduce it but his projections show $1trillion+ as far as the eye can see. n nIt's about "fairness" and redistribution. Those millionaires and billionaires, they've got enough, don't you see, and he believes it is GOOD to take some (for starters) away. n nAnyway, that's what I think.
No contest, no question: OBAMA! However, it is the Progressives aka Dems that have to be added to O's equation!
Please, please, drop the canard that the rich r job-creators. Any extra wealth u give them will be sent to Swiss banks, the Caymans, their mega-churches, and to move jobs overseas. If Romney tithes to his church, as we can assume he does, he and his religion get lots of tax breaks, and it is the (nearly-) honest taxpayer who involuntarily supports the Mormon religion. nthank the repubs for avoiding the real issues, and for making this election about birth control and Big Bird. Besides, don't these geniuses know that a zygote is NOT AT ALL viable until a successful implantation? n
Jesus, you are a talking-points machine.
Does Obama have the interests of the US at heart? If he set out to ruin the economy he couldn't do better. Whether his policies are malevolent or based on ignorance or both the result will be the same. It will take decades to recover from the profligacy, the misallocation of resources, the encouragement of welfarism & dependency, the flooding of the country with immigrants and legalising millions of illegal ones who will contribute negatively to the nation. I could add a lot more to this list but enough said already. It is not clear that there will be the national will to remedy the situation as it gets worse and worse. All this should be obvious. Yet the media and academic elites who supposedly have the intelligence to figure this out promote their country's and their own demise. Why? Will somebody please tell me why they are on this destructive path and seem unwilling to turn back, not even for the sake of their own children and grandchildren.
Remember a few weeks ago when President Obama beat Mitt Romney? Remember that the polls showed voters want to increase taxes on the rich? Remember that the Bush tax cuts were temporary and will expire without further action? Remember that voters saw through the conservative garbage and understood what conservative proposals would mean to them?
So when the Jolly Green Giant has you…Suggest a full frontal assault of the msm. No interviews by any conserative or republican use fox news or conserative blogs exclusively. Berate the msm when ever possible. For the 49% who voted for Romney don't view or subscribe to any msn product.