Reactions To Obama’s “Tax The Rich” Speech

Hey, it’s not often that I do two blog round-ups in one day, but I love reading what other people have to say, and I know you do, too.If you missed Obama’s speech, earlier today, you missed a doozy.

As I mentioned in the last post:

On Twitter, stephenfhayes called Obama’s tax the rich budget speech One of the phoniest, most demagogic speeches from a sitting US president in recent memory. This after punting on his own budget. A disgrace”.

ThadMcCotter said, “Note to POTUS: When you punish productivity, you produce poverty”.

I listened to his speech on our kitchen radio while sitting in my sunroom.  That’s about the only way I can handle it. No TV, and if I must listen, the radio needs to be in another room.

I always like the way Ace puts things: Obama’s Remarks: I Am Boldly Authorizing The Next President To Deal With This Problem, And In Futherance of This Daring Strategy, I Am Also Punting To a New Commission To Be Named Later

I seem to notice him saying that if his proposed order to reduce Medicare costs does not reduce costs (which it won’t, same as it didn’t with ObamaCare — premiums are going up, not down) by the year 2023, then, get this, he will authorize “the Commission” (I think the Medicare trustees or something) to propose further means of reducing costs.

Get that? If, in 12 years, his plan hasn’t worked yet, he’ll actually call for a third-party blue-ribbon commission to propose some more changes.

Oh, and guess what? His big idea for closing the deficit is 1 cutting defense spending and 2 increasing taxes.

Bonus: He also says that if, in 2014, two years after the next election, the CBO’s projection doesn’t show “the share of the deficit as a fraction of GDP” falling (note that is a lenient way to view it), he is willing to go so far as authorizing the President and Congress to consider further “spending cuts” and “spending reductions.”

What?

Get that? If what he’s doing (which is nothing) doesn’t work, he will reconvene two years post-election to kick it around some more.

I should note that the New Democratic Style Guide is to refer to any typical tax deductions as “tax expenditures” and hence, eliminating those (and thereby increasing taxes) is no longer a “tax increase,” but a “spending reduction.”

That’s the new speak, man. Better get used to it.

I love it when I see people spend time fisking something they know to be a dishonest scam to begin with. Bless their hearts. They have much more patience than I have.

Ed Morrissey writes at Hot Air: Obama’s solution to deficit: spending, ObamaCare, and tax hikes:

If it was possible to fail to meet the already-low expectations set for this speech beforehand, Obama managed to do it.  Not only did Obama fail to resurrect his own deficit commission’s plan, he offered nothing specific in response to the specifics Paul Ryan and the GOP have already laid on the table.  It’s almost impossible to present a substantive criticism of the proposal because it contains nothing substantive, an impression that more and more people have of this White House.

Gateway Pundit: 65% of American Voters Don’t Believe For a Second That Obama Will Cut Spending

Only that many?

The Right Sphere has Our Official Response To Obama’s Budget Speech (in video format).

Dan Mitchell: Obama’s Tax Increase Trigger: Punishing Taxpayers with Automatic Tax Hikes When Politicians Overspend.

Finally, this one’s gotta hurt:

JWF: Biden Dozes Off During Obama Speech

Moe Lane says: I am *done* with President Obama: (You weren’t already???)

My recommendation, going forward?  Democrats: cut the President out of the loop.  His presence in this discussion insults both parties at this point.  Send him off to a permanent round of golf games and trips to various parts of the country: Obama hates his job anyway, so letting him know that from now on all he has to do is sign papers on cue will probably relieve him somewhat.  In the meantime… well, God help us, there’s always Joe Biden* for domestic policy.  I am disgusted that we are now in a situation where going with Joe Biden looks good as a strategy in comparison, but this is where we are now…

J.E. Dyer in a similar vein in The Greenroom: Obama Doubling Down:

Perhaps this is what America needed: to see an ideologue take the insistent positions of the collectivist left to their natural conclusions.  For Obama, the virtually unmanageable size of the federal debt is not an issue that should make us change policies.  The main issue for him is preventing a reduction in the reach of government.  He is impervious to the demands of reality, and will apparently stay his ideological course.

Even many Democrats must recognize now that they will have to work without Obama until the end of this Congress.  He has reduced himself to a veto threat – and that may well be the best alternative for the country between now and 20 January, 2013.

I’m afraid that the Democrat party is now too populated with people who share the same goals as Obama.

It’s up to the Republicans.

Hot Air video -Paul Ryan weighs in: Paul Ryan rips Obama’s speech: “Rather than building bridges, he’s poisoning wells”:

Some vintage Allahpundit:

Via Mediaite, three minutes of righteous rage. It’s all here: Obama’s gutless insistence on farming this issue out to commissions to spare himself the political risks of leadership; his betrayal of his sunny 2008 campaign message, swapping the post-partisan Hopenchange problem-solver crap for a double-barreled attack on the GOP; and of course, the horribly cynical electoral calculus in all this, which earns a sneering reference from Ryan to the “Campaigner-in-Chief.” It’s that last bit that bothers him the most, I think. Taking the lead on Social Security and Medicare might make him a rock star to movement conservatives, but there’s a real chance that the backlash will destroy his political career (and the GOP’s House majority). Already, at least one poll has *51 percent saying that Ryan’s 2012 budget cuts too much. He knows the danger perfectly well, in other words, but he’s stepping up because it’s that important. And meanwhile the country’s nominal leader, ostensibly heaven-sent by the Democratic gods to rescue America from its troubles perhis own campaign mythology, is taking a pass. It’s a good thing Ryan hates your grandma so damned much or else he’d have to be wondering at this point why he bothered.

*Allah updated with a correction:

51 percent say Ryan’s budget’s doesn’t cut too much; 47 percent say that it does.

Ace: Obama: Hey, I’ve Got a Great Idea. How About Automatic Tax Hikes That Pass Into Law Without A Vote If We Spend Too Much?

Ah, I didn’t catch this. His idea about the automatic “spending cuts” was coupled with the automatic “spending reductions,” which is his new code for tax hikes.

He says that if his plan, which doesn’t exist, fails to cut spending, which it isn’t actually designed to do, some sort of mechanism of automatic “spending reductions” will go into effect.

How is the MSM reporting the speech, you ask: (It is to laugh) -

Newsbusters: SF Chronicle Hails ‘Obama’s Centrist Approach’ to Budget

Also approving of “their leader’s” speech is CPUSA’s People’s World: Obama calls for tax hike for the rich

Paul Ryan Responds to President’s Disappointing, Partisan Speech:

WASHINGTON – House Budget Committee Chairman Paul D. Ryan made the following statement after listening to the President’s speech on deficit reduction:

“When the President reached out to ask us to attend his speech, we were expecting an olive branch. Instead, his speech was excessively partisan, dramatically inaccurate, and hopelessly inadequate to address our fiscal crisis. What we heard today was not fiscal leadership from our commander-in-chief; we heard a political broadside from our campaigner-in-chief.

“Last year, in the absence of a serious budget, the President created a Fiscal Commission. He then ignored its recommendations and omitted any of its major proposals from his budget, and now he wants to delegate leadership to yet another commission to solve a problem he refuses to confront.

“We need leadership, not a doubling down on the politics of the past.  By failing to seriously confront the most predictable economic crisis in our history, this President’s policies are committing our children to a diminished future. We are looking for bipartisan solutions, not partisan rhetoric. When the President is ready to get serious about confronting this challenge, we’ll be here.”

*****

Key Facts About the President’s Speech

Keep reading as Ryan wades through the b.s.

Peter Wehner at Contentions:

…precisely because the president’s speech was so intellectually weak and transparently brutish, I rather doubt it will be effective. If anyone had any doubts what we’re dealing with when it comes to Obama, those have been allayed. He is a deeply irresponsible and arrogant man whose thirst for political power is overriding virtually every good and decent instinct he might have.

Linked by The Other McCain, thanks!

About these ads

12 Responses to “Reactions To Obama’s “Tax The Rich” Speech”

  1. ZZMike Says:

    In the US, overall, the top 5% income bracket pays 58% of the taxes. Here in California, they pay 64%.

    Somehow, that’s just not fair. They should pay more.

    Like

  2. Brian Spotswood Says:

    This notion ‘redistribution of wealth’ normally gets backs up among rich people. Except that it’s been in their favor for many years now. And they’ve been strangely silent on the issue. Now the rich are being asked to contribute more. Not to sacrifice anything (a third mansion maybe), but to contribute more. And what do we hear? Many of the rich are still quiet, but there are howls of protest and outrage coming from people who aren’t making a lot themselves and who stand to benefit from the rich paying more taxes. Are you people insane?

    Like

  3. Word of the Day: Sharing! : The Other McCain Says:

    [...] nothing substantive, an impression that more and more people have of this White House.”Nice Deb calls it Obama’s “tax the rich” speech, but isn’t that true of every Obama speech? The Lonely Conservative summarizes it: [...]

    Like

  4. nicedeb Says:

    “The rich” are the wealth creators, you idiot. They’re the employers, the people who help drive the economy, which is barely limping along, in case you haven’t noticed.

    Some of us are actually motivated by more than our own bottom lines, or what we can squeeze out of the government.

    We believe that we don’t have a taxing problem. The rich already pay more than their “fair share”. We have a SPENDING problem. Taxing more out of every millionaire and billionaire in the country barely puts a dent in the debt, because there aren’t that many of them.

    Taxing the rich doesn’t even begin to solve the fiscal crisis we’re in because of the insane spending binge Democrats have been on.

    You understand that where the money is if you need tax revenue is the middle class, right? Are you all for higher taxes for yourself, too (patriotic shared sacrifice)? Or are you completely on the dole – and resentful that other people aren’t doing more to finance your many needs?

    You understand that the inflation we’re seeing, including high gas prices are a direct result of Obama’s policies, right? So he wants to raise taxes while the cost of everything else is going up, too. Brilliant.

    We need to roll back the spending, and reform entitlements. Ryan’s budget plan actually attempts to get us back on the right path.

    But, no. Obama has to demagogue an honest, and frankly politically courageous act with shabby class warfare rhetoric.

    So disgraceful. So pathetic that his Marxist minions applaud it, while failing to understand why other people don’t share their glee at seeing other Americans taxed more.

    Like

  5. Lee Says:

    Obama’s speech was right on. But it’s going to take more than one speech to wake up more of the American workers. It’s amazing to me how brainwashed so many workers are into thinking that they are somehow slaves to the interest of the very wealthy and that they need to sacrifice so the wealthy can add more yachts and Ferraris to their collection. I wish more American workers got the chance to travel to Europe or other places where workers have more rights. They would see that you can have a country with universal health care, more secure employment, good wages, and a high degree of individual freedom. You can have a country that is set up for everyone, not just the richest 5% like the USA is at the moment. I say at the moment because no matter how much the 5% whine and wring their hands about it, the rest of us are slowly but surely taking over.

    Like

  6. geoff Says:

    They would see that you can have a country with universal health care, more secure employment, good wages, and a high degree of individual freedom.

    …except when it bankrupts the country. Like it has in Ireland, Greece, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Belgium, Britain…

    Like

  7. Lee Says:

    Reply to Geoff: Why do you compare the USA with weak countries? Why not with Japan or Germany? They have stronger labor unions than the USA, universal health care, and the other good things I mentioned. But here is the difference. They are making things the rest of the world wants, like great cars. The Japanese and German have a culture that says you make money by making great high quality products which other people want. The culture in the USA these days is to make money from money. The USA has become a country of get-rich-quick scam artists who think the way to get rich is by cheating and exploiting people. We need to dump the Wall Street moneychanging and gambling mentality and get back to making tangible products that the rest of the world wants to buy. We also need to dump Walmart and their cheap Chinese junk and demand quality goods here at home. We also need to dump the Ayn Rand mentality of total selfishness which has infected the USA. You can’t build a great country based on her philosophy.

    Like

  8. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere Says:

    They would see that you can have a country with universal health care, more secure employment, good wages, and a high degree of individual freedom.

    1) How many hours of my week am I to set aside to work to pay for your healthcare? Your grandmother’s healthcare? Your kid’s healthcare? I find it pretty hard to get motivated to get out of bed on Monday knowing that every hour I work then is for the benefit of others, and when, in true ingrate fashion, you come to me and tell me that you deserve all my Tuesday earnings, and then those for Wednesday too, until I’m forced to take a job with wages under the table so I can afford all those luxuries, like groceries for my family, you’re gonna find I get more than a little cranky with the hands out, palms up routine.

    2) Secure employment…sure, sure. At the cost of incredible unemployment because companies aren’t allowed to fire crappy workers, thus making room for people who want to work and be productive, consigning hundreds of thousands to the dole, even if they don’t want to be there.

    3) Good wages…again, at the cost of rampant and endemic unemployment, and for what? 4 day work weeks and continually being behind the curve in business, economics…

    4) A high degree of individual freedom? Are you serious? Our own government here is already far more intrusive than free men and women should allow, and I’ll take the Bill of Rights over anything the Eunichpeons have any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

    Like

  9. geoff Says:

    Why not with Japan or Germany?

    I didn’t say “Japan” because you said “European.” But they could easily go on the list – their economic problems are severe. And Germany? Oh yes, they’re also having big debt problems.

    You can’t keep borrowing money to pay for entitlements that you can’t afford.

    Like

  10. ZZMike Says:

    Brian said: “This notion ‘redistribution of wealth’ normally gets backs up among rich people. Except that it’s been in their favor for many years now.”

    The top 5% of income-earners pay about 50% of the country’s income taxes. I’d hardly call that a distribution in their favor.

    Unless, of course, like a good Socialist, you feel that they can afford it, and after all, why would anyone want more than $200k or so a year?

    Mot-so-Nice Deb replied: ““The rich” are the wealth creators, you idiot. ”

    To which I add: if you’re looking for a job, try asking a poor person.

    “… the inflation we’re seeing, including high gas prices are a direct result of Obama’s policies, right? ”

    Some may not quite get the connection; here’s part of it: We recently loaned Brazil about $2 billion to help with their oil exploration:

    “US Export-Import bank loans Brazil 3 billion USD for oil and World Cup”

    That’s on top of another loan made in 2009:

    “In April 2009, Ex-Im Bank approved a $2 billion preliminary commitment to secure the purchase of U.S. goods and services by Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. (Petrobras), Brazil’s national oil company. The amount of a final commitment may be increased above the $2 billion preliminary amount. ”

    But we must absolutely not try to find oil anywhere in or near our own territory. Not in the Gulf, not in the mosquito-ridden wilderness in Alaska, nowhere.

    Lee: “They would see that you can have a country with universal health care, more secure employment, good wages, and a high degree of individual freedom.”

    I haven’t been able to keep up with European news. Perhaps you’d be good enough and educate those of us who only watch Fox News, and tell us which of those countries whose example we might follow. Greece? Ireland? Formerly Great Britain? (Try not to bring up National Health; we all know how miserably that’s working over there.) Canada? (OK, maybe that comes close, but in the area of “individual freedom”, I’d have to give them no more than a D-. Just ask Ezra Levant:


    Hate and Human Rights – Part II

    “For two years, using government lawyers and taxpayers money, they have been pursuing me, infringing on my natural rights of free speech, freedom of the press and freedom of religion. ”

    So Canada is out of the running. But surely there must be at least one country to which we can look up to.

    And the way Obama and his minions are trying to run things, pretty soon we’ll be able to look up to a lot of other countries. Russia, with its free-wheeling capitalism; China, with its many freedoms and tolerances; ……….

    Lee, again: “The USA has become a country of get-rich-quick scam artists who think the way to get rich is by cheating and exploiting people.”

    That’s a conclusion completely unsupported by any facts. If you could provide any, we’d be happy to listen.

    The most shocking example of “get-rich-quick scam artists” in recent memory has to be Bernie Madoff. But I submit that he’s now languishing in a Federal prison, and is likely to be there for a very long time. Such is the dim view we take of “get-rich-quick scam artists”.

    Our real wealth has been generated by innovators and risk-takers, like Steve Jobs (Apple) – who didn’t inherit wealth. He was a college dropout in 1976, when he joined up with Steve Wozniak to build little computers in their garage.

    In any system there will be people at the extreme: grinding poverty at one end, absolute corruption at the other. When Yasser Arafat died in 2004, he left around $10 billion in assets – while “his people” starved.

    The fact that the US is no longer a manufacturing country is a separate problem – not Obama’s, maybe even not Bush’s. But there is that little fact that government has created so many burdensome rules and regulations that it’s more cost-effective (=”cheaper”) to build a factory in Asia or Mexico, build something there, and ship it over here.

    Even American cars, that boast “Made in America”, were merely assembled here, from parts manufactured elsewhere.

    But still, there’s General Motors – which the Administration confiscated and gave to the auto unions. There’s no doubt but that under enlightened Union leadership, they’ll be able to build a “people’s car” – one that almost every family can afford, one that will get 200 miles per gallon, and run on sea water.

    You bring up Germany. That’s a good point – one I hadn’t though about. However, there’s this:

    How Germany defeated unemployment

    “In 2003-05, German chancellor Gerhard Schröder implemented a free market reform agenda called “Agenda 2010″ which included tax cuts, unemployment benefits cuts and less strict labor regulations….
    . . .
    … the German experience is a vindication of “Agenda 2010″ and supply-side policies in general.”

    So perhaps we have an example we can follow after all.

    Like

  11. FactCheck Destroys Obama’s Budget Speech | New Trommetter Times Says:

    [...] Reactions To Obama’s “Tax The Rich” Speech (nicedeb.wordpress.com) Share this:Tweet This entry was posted in Democrats and tagged Barack Obama, Congressional Budget Office, insurance, Obamacare, Paul Ryan, Republicans, United States. Bookmark the permalink. ← Tweets for April 18th Tweets for April 20th → [...]

    Like

  12. ZZMike Says:

    To follow up on Deb’s response: when you want a job, try asking a poor person.

    Overall, the top 5% of income earners pay about 43% of the country’s income taxes.

    They’re what’s known in economic technical terms as “the golden goose”. It would be unwise to kill the goose.

    Like


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  • Blog Stats

    • 4,628,712 hits
  • free counters
  • Is your cat plotting to kill you?
  • Follow

    Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

    Join 522 other followers

    %d bloggers like this: