Sunday, June 28, 2009
An interpretive question for Obama voters
Hey, all you middle income Obama voters out there, I've got a little parsing exercise for you. Reconcile this...
...with this:
White House senior adviser David Axelrod said the president won't rule out a health care reform bill that includes a middle-class tax hike.
Apparently I'm not the only one who is confused.
13 Comments:
By 
Purple Avenger, at
Mon Jun 29, 12:18:00 AM:
All Obama promises come with expiration dates...usually not much more than 3-6 months into the future.
By JPMcT, at
Mon Jun 29, 12:24:00 AM:
"Read My Lips...NO NEW TAXES" cost a Republican an election.
"If you make less than $200,000 a year, your taxes will not go up a single dime" , spoken by a Democrat will, of course, be an understandable disappointment... because of all the damage Bush did to the economy. And...after all...they're just words.
This will be fun to watch. The arrogance is palpable.
By 
, at
Mon Jun 29, 06:31:00 AM:
2 things, first: look at how often he has to look down to read that. they say that he is such a great speaker, but he's just not. I'm sorry.
second: all of those taxes that he mentioned will go up. ALL. His whole run for office was a bunch of straight up lies. He knew that there was no way taxes wouldn't go up for the middle class, if they're going to pass what they want to pass. Because of the MSM, he was never forced to make any kind of sense, and they called him masterful for it.
By , at
Mon Jun 29, 07:46:00 AM:
From Link,
Once again, the CBO cries wolf with its periodic "Long Term Budget Outlook". You can get the June 2009 version here http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/102xx/doc10297/06-25-LTBO.pdf This is the latest version of the CBO telling Congress that they're on an unsustainable fiscal path. Imagine what Barney Frank would want done to a public company board that ignored years of warnings from its auditor that its pension plans were dangerously underfunded and that they'd even take down the entire company.
The CBO's numbers are worse than prior versions, but the theme is the same: we can bear Social Security increases but not the rate of growth in Medicare-Medicaid. Only in Obama-land could the answer to this be "let's spend another trillion or two on healthcare this decade." Instead, the Germans have already put in a hard cap -- social spending can't grow faster than their overall economy.
Until now, the CBO's concerns have been longer-term and beyond the current political cycle. Thus, our leaders response is to kick the can further down the road. But recession and Obama's spending are moving the day of reckoning further in. Several years of stagnation will move it in even further. A sharp drop in the dollar, or increasing interest rates, could make it immediate -- I don't expect this to happen in the near term, if only because the rest of the world has its problems too right now ... there's no place for money to flee to. But we're likely to get there over time, by degrees.
Obama-Axelrod see this as a way to crush the American middle class and level society, through taxes. Either that or they're innumerate. Take your pick.
By , at
Mon Jun 29, 08:14:00 AM:
Link again,
Here's today's Washington Post editorial on this:
"Like his predecessors, Mr. Obama is aware of this issue. Like them, he has promised a plan to deal with it. And like them, he has not come up with anything credible yet. It's time for that to change."
At least WaPo now admits this. I doubt the New York Times wille ver admit, at least not before Carlos Slim takes it over in 2010.
By , at
Mon Jun 29, 09:04:00 AM:
......and we are surprised that a snake oil saleman actually DELIVERS snake oil......?
By Dan Kauffman, at
Mon Jun 29, 09:41:00 AM:
I am confused, wouldn't
"Not ANY of your taxes"
Include tobbaco taxes?
By , at
Mon Jun 29, 10:15:00 AM:
Promises with expiration dates. Shouldn't those be prominently displayed next to the bar code?
Of course, most candidate Obama supporters knew he was lying, they were just hoping he could fool enough voters that with the help of some voter fraud he could get elected.
By Brian, at
Mon Jun 29, 10:25:00 AM:
It helps to read the next sentence at the news website that TH links to.
Regardless, the problem is that Republicans prefer to increase taxes on the middle class over taxes on the rich so he's got limited negotiating room.
I won't deny he's backed off from some promises though, particularly by imitating Bushies on some civil rights violations. He's a politician....
By Elijah, at
Mon Jun 29, 10:39:00 AM:
what does the term progressive tax mean?
who exactly pays the most in taxes?
By Georg Felis, at
Mon Jun 29, 06:37:00 PM:
He lied to us. Big deal, its not like he is a Republican or something....
By JPMcT, at
Mon Jun 29, 07:08:00 PM:
"what does the term progressive tax mean"
A tax voted into existence by progressives....alias....taking the money from the people who voted AGAINST you and giving it to the people who voted FOR you.
Robbing Peter to pay Paul will almost always garner Paul's support.
PS. Make sure that you give a scornful label to the people who actually PAY these taxes....call them "the rich". It will come in handy. If anyone tries to decrease the rate of confiscation from those who pay taxes...you can easily accuse them of favoring "tax cuts for the rich" and maintain the charade.
By Gary Rosen, at
Tue Jun 30, 04:00:00 AM:
"the problem is that Republicans prefer to increase taxes on the middle class over taxes on the rich so he's got limited negotiating room."
Earth to Brian, BO has huge majorities in both houses. Blaming the Republicans is soooo 2008, and marks you indelibly as a knee-jerk astroturfer.
