why is Obama holding America hostage just so he can browbeat the rich?

[Sallow]

Care to give us any specifics on "holding America hostage"?

If he isn't allowed to punish the rich with higher taxes he's prepared to punish us all with higher taxes and a tanking economy

And to top it all off... The "revenue" stolen from the "rich" (btw, I hate this class warfare) won't even sustain the govt for 10 freekin days!

Nothing is stolen from the rich.

They don't like the deal..they can leave.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Pathetic.....

Two words..Gigantic ego.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Obama has already agreed to extend tax cuts for 98% of Americans

Why are Republicans holding it up just to appease their 2% masters?

The GOP realizes what will happen when the producers and the job creators are over taxed. They will slam their wallets shut.
It's happening already in anticipation of Obama driving the country off the financial cliff.
Obama's plan has no path to reduce deficit spending nor attack the national debt.
He wants the higher taxes to satisfy his election supporters as well as to give himself a "win".
The marginal tax rate increase will not even put a dent in the debt.
The increase is purely symbolic and political in nature.
The entire country is holding it's collective breath. Business is in vapor lock waiting for the Obama admin to ramp up taxes, in which case the US economy will continue to stagnate or taxes to remain the same so businesses can plan for expansion and the economy to begin a recovery.

 

[thereisnospoon]

If he isn't allowed to punish the rich with higher taxes he's prepared to punish us all with higher taxes and a tanking economy

And to top it all off... The "revenue" stolen from the "rich" (btw, I hate this class warfare) won't even sustain the govt for 10 freekin days!

Nothing is stolen from the rich.

They don't like the deal..they can leave.

Oh great...Gee' let's go with Sallow's recommendation and chase wealth out of the country.
Umm, genius....once the majority of the wealth has left, who then do you tax?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Care to give us any specifics on "holding America hostage"?

If he isn't allowed to punish the rich with higher taxes he's prepared to punish us all with higher taxes and a tanking economy

Why won't the Republicans offer spending cutting ideas to help offset the loss in revnue?

THat was done today. Do try to keep up...
More Local News
GOP issues new 'fiscal cliff' offer to Obama
Dec 3, 2012 | 3:42:18
Andrew Taylor

Washington, D.C. - House Republicans on Monday proposed a new 10-year, $2.2 trillion blueprint to President Barack Obama that calls for increasing the eligibility age for Medicare and lowering cost-of-living hikes for Social Security benefits.

The proposal from House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and other Republicans comes in response to Obama's offer last week to hike taxes by $1.6 trillion over the coming decade but largely exempt Medicare and Social Security from budget cuts.

The GOP plan also proposes to raise $800 billion in higher tax revenue over the decade but it would keep the Bush-era tax cuts including those for wealthier earners targeted by Obama in place for now.

Boehner said the GOP proposal is a ``credible plan'' for Obama and that he hopes the administration would ``respond in a timely and responsible way.'' The offer comes after the administration urged Republicans to detail their proposal to cut popular benefits programs like Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid.

``After the election I offered to speed this up by putting revenue on the table and unfortunately the White House responded with their la-la land offer that couldn't pass the House, couldn't pass the Senate and it was basically the president's budget from last February,'' Boehner told reporters.

The Boehner proposal revives a host of ideas from failed talks with Obama in the summer of 2011. Then, Obama was willing to discuss politically controversial ideas like raising the eligibility age for Medicare, implementing a new inflation adjustment for Social Security cost-of-living adjustments and requiring wealthier Medicare recipients to pay more for their benefits.

On Monday, Obama did not respond to questions from reporters on his reaction to the Republican counteroffer or whether he had seen the proposal. He was asked about the offer during an event in the Oval Office with the Bulgarian prime minister.

The clock is ticking closer to the end-of-year deadline to avert the fiscal cliff, which is a combination of the expiration of Bush-era tax cuts and automatic, across-the-board spending cuts that are the result of prior failures of Congress and Obama to make a budget deal.

Many economists say such a one-two punch could send the fragile economy back into recession.

GOP aides said the plan was based on a plan floated by Erskine Bowles in testimony to the special deficit ``supercommittee'' last year in effect a milder version of the highly controversial 2010 Bowles proposal that caused both GOP and Democratic leaders in Congress to recoil.

By GOP math, the plan would produce $2.2 trillion in saving over the coming decade: $800 billion in higher taxes; $600 billion in savings from costly health care programs like Medicare; $300 billion from other proposals like forcing federal workers to contribute more toward their pensions; and $300 billion in additional savings from the Pentagon budget and domestic programs funded by Congress each year.

Under the administration's math, GOP aides said, the plan represents $4.6 trillion in 10-year savings. That estimate accounts for earlier cuts enacted during last year's showdown over lifting the government's borrowing cap and also factors in war savings and lower interest payments on the $16.4 trillion national debt.

Last week, the White House delivered to Capitol Hill its opening proposal: $1.6 trillion in higher taxes over a decade, a possible extension of the temporary Social Security payroll tax cut and heightened presidential power to raise the national debt limit.

In exchange, the president would back $600 billion in spending cuts, including $350 billion from Medicare and other health programs. But he also wants $200 billion in new spending for jobless benefits, public works projects and aid for struggling homeowners. His proposal for raising the ceiling on government borrowing would make it virtually impossible for Congress to block him going forward.

Republicans said they responded in closed-door meetings with laughter and disbelief.

The GOP plan is certain to whip up opposition from Democrats opposed to any action now on Social Security, whose defenders say should not be part of any fiscal cliff deal. And Democrats also are deeply skeptical of raising the Medicare age.

Both ideas were part of negotiations between Boehner and Obama in the summer of last year.

In a letter to the president, Boehner and six other House Republicans insisted that the November election that returned Obama to the White House and the GOP to majority control in the House requires both parties to come together ``on a fair middle ground.''

``With the fiscal cliff nearing, our priority remains finding a reasonable solution that can pass both the House and Senate, and be signed into law in the next couple of weeks,'' Republicans wrote.

One of the few things the White House and Capitol Hill Republicans can agree to is a framework that would make a ``down payment'' on the deficit and all or most of the extend expiring Bush-era tax cuts but leave most of the legislative grunt work until next year.

Republicans dismissed the notion of raising tax rates and said flatly they would oppose them. Instead, new revenue would come from tax reform, closing loopholes and deductions while lowering rates, according to the Bowles plan.

Signing the letter was Boehner, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy and Rep. Paul Ryan, the chairman of the House Budget Committee and the unsuccessful GOP vice presidential candidate. Rep. Dave Camp, chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Fred Upton, chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and Cathy McMorris Rodgers, the Republican Conference chair, also signed the letter.

In a scathing attack, Republican leader Mitch McConnell said, ``if the president is serious about joining us in an effort to reduce the deficit and protect the economy, he'll get off the campaign trail, drop the left-wing talking points, and instruct his staff to negotiate a solution in good faith based on actual written proposals. In short, he'll begin doing what leaders do: Lead.''

 

[thereisnospoon]

Why won't the Republicans offer spending cutting ideas to help offset the loss in revnue?

You asked a question. I answered. You ignored the answer and changed the subject.

That's only because you asked a bullshit question....and you know better. Stop playing partisan bullshit politics. Our problem must be attacked from many angles. Revenue increases and spending cuts. What are the Republicans offering, again?

No...You call it bullshit because you cannot answer.

 

[thereisnospoon]

How exactly does raising the marginal rate by 3% on incomes above 200,000 (250, if married filing jointly) brow beat anyone? Were their brows being beating in the 90's?

Won't the same folks benefit from the lower tax rates below 200,000 dollars?

It's the principle.
Obama's people know damned well the increase in taxes is at best a flyspeck in the ocean.
It is the symbolism Obama is interested in.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Oh, that's right....NONE

Spending Reduction Act of 2011
January 2011
The Spending Reduction Act of 2011 reduces federal spending by $2.5 trillion over ten years. The bill will specifically hold FY 2011 non-security discretionary spending to FY 08 levels, hold non-defense discretionary spending to FY 06 levels thereafter for the rest of the ten-year budget window (the same level as in effect during the last year of GOP control of the Congress), and include more than 100 other program eliminations or savings proposals, consisting of proposals from the RSC Sunset Caucus, YouCut, or past RSC budgets. To cosponsor or for more information, contact [email protected]
Overview
 FY 2011 CR Amendment: Replace the spending levels in the FY 2011 continuing resolution (CR) with non-defense, non-homeland security, non-veterans spending at FY 2008 levels. The legislation will further prohibit any FY 2011 funding from being used to carry out any provision of the Democrat government takeover of health care, or to defend the health care law against any lawsuit challenging any provision of the act. $80 billion savings.
 Discretionary Spending Limit, FY 2012-2021: Eliminate automatic increases for inflation from CBO baseline projections for future discretionary appropriations. Further, impose discretionary spending limits through 2021 at 2006 levels on the non-defense portion of the discretionary budget. $2.29 trillion savings over ten years.
 Federal Workforce Reforms: Eliminate automatic pay increases for civilian federal workers for five years. Additionally, cut the civilian workforce by a total of 15 percent through attrition. Allow the hiring of only one new worker for every two workers who leave federal employment until the reduction target has been met. (Savings included in above discretionary savings figure).
 “Stimulus” Repeal: Eliminate all remaining “stimulus” funding. $45 billion total savings.
 Eliminate federal control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. $30 billion total savings.
 Repeal the Medicaid FMAP increase in the “State Bailout” (Senate amendments to S. 1586). $16.1 billion total savings.
 More than 100 specific program eliminations and spending reductions listed below: $330 billion savings over ten years (included in above discretionary savings figure).
Additional Program Eliminations/Spending Reforms
 Corporation for Public Broadcasting Subsidy. $445 million annual savings.
 Save America’s Treasures Program. $25 million annual savings.
 International Fund for Ireland. $17 million annual savings.
 Legal Services Corporation. $420 million annual savings.
 National Endowment for the Arts. $167.5 million annual savings.
 National Endowment for the Humanities. $167.5 million annual savings.
 Hope VI Program. $250 million annual savings.
 Amtrak Subsidies. $1.565 billion annual savings.
 Eliminate duplicative education programs. H.R. 2274 (in last Congress), authored by Rep. McKeon, eliminates 68 at a savings of $1.3 billion annually.
 U.S. Trade Development Agency. $55 million annual savings.
 Woodrow Wilson Center Subsidy. $20 million annual savings.
 Cut in half funding for congressional printing and binding. $47 million annual savings.
 John C. Stennis Center Subsidy. $430,000 annual savings.
 Community Development Fund. $4.5 billion annual savings.
 Heritage Area Grants and Statutory Aid. $24 million annual savings.
 Cut Federal Travel Budget in Half. $7.5 billion annual savings.
 Trim Federal Vehicle Budget by 20%. $600 million annual savings.
 Essential Air Service. $150 million annual savings.
 Technology Innovation Program. $70 million annual savings.
 Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Program. $125 million annual savings.
 Department of Energy Grants to States for Weatherization. $530 million annual savings.
 Beach Replenishment. $95 million annual savings.
 New Starts Transit. $2 billion annual savings.
 Exchange Programs for Alaska, Natives Native Hawaiians, and Their Historical Trading Partners in Massachusetts. $9 million annual savings.
 Intercity and High Speed Rail Grants. $2.5 billion annual savings.
 Title X Family Planning. $318 million annual savings.
 Appalachian Regional Commission. $76 million annual savings.
 Economic Development Administration. $293 million annual savings.
 Programs under the National and Community Services Act. $1.15 billion annual savings.
 Applied Research at Department of Energy. $1.27 billion annual savings.
 FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership. $200 million annual savings.
 Energy Star Program. $52 million annual savings.
 Economic Assistance to Egypt. $250 million annually.
 U.S. Agency for International Development. $1.39 billion annual savings.
 General Assistance to District of Columbia. $210 million annual savings.
 Subsidy for Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. $150 million annual savings.
 Presidential Campaign Fund. $775 million savings over ten years.
 No funding for federal office space acquisition. $864 million annual savings.
 End prohibitions on competitive sourcing of government services.
 Repeal the Davis-Bacon Act. More than $1 billion annually.
 IRS Direct Deposit: Require the IRS to deposit fees for some services it offers (such as processing payment plans for taxpayers) to the Treasury, instead of allowing it to remain as part of its budget. $1.8 billion savings over ten years.
 Require collection of unpaid taxes by federal employees. $1 billion total savings.
 Prohibit taxpayer funded union activities by federal employees. $1.2 billion savings over ten years.
 Sell excess federal properties the government does not make use of. $15 billion total savings.
 Eliminate death gratuity for Members of Congress.
 Eliminate Mohair Subsidies. $1 million annual savings.
 Eliminate taxpayer subsidies to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. $12.5 million annual savings.
 Eliminate Market Access Program. $200 million annual savings.
 USDA Sugar Program. $14 million annual savings.
 Subsidy to Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). $93 million annual savings.
 Eliminate the National Organic Certification Cost-Share Program. $56.2 million annual savings.
 Eliminate fund for Obamacare administrative costs. $900 million savings.
 Ready to Learn TV Program. $27 million savings.
 HUD Ph.D. Program.
 Deficit Reduction Check-Off Act.
TOTAL SAVINGS: $2.5 Trillion over Ten Years

If the annual deficit were 1.5 Trillion you would add 15 trillion over ten years... we would be near 31 trillion total deficit... Now minus your "savings" and you are only 29 trillion total deficit.

you also have $1.6T in new revenues due to taxes.

again this is a good starting point, however if the GOP is not willing counter offer anything, then how is a negotiation supposed to happen? Boehner keeps paying the current proposal on the table is inadequate, however he is unwilling to counter offer and negotiate.

fiscal cliff here we come, which is actually pretty funny because the so called fiscal cliff gives both sides exactly what they want. taxes increase and spending is cut.

No way.
The current economic conditions do not support the predictions of expected revenues from the tax increase.
If anything, revenues will fall.
Less money in the hands of the private sector ALWAYS results in lower tax revenues.
Go to youtube.com...Look up JFK tax speech. Listen carefully.

 

[thereisnospoon]

How exactly does raising the marginal rate by 3% on incomes above 200,000 (250, if married filing jointly) brow beat anyone? Were their brows being beating in the 90's?

Won't the same folks benefit from the lower tax rates below 200,000 dollars?

The issue is we are shifting to a country that spends far more than during the 90's, on military and welfare. The reason many here and Obama himself claim we need to raise taxes is to pay for the deficit, and their "fair share." The "fair share" is of course their fair share of the deficit.

However when asked to provide an approximate number on new revenues on this proposed tax increase most flat out ignore the question. The real answer is it would create very very very little amounts in new revenue. So little that you are still left with well over 1 trillion in annual deficit spending. even a 10 to 1, cuts vs taxes by dollars would not get the annual deficit under 1 trillion. Literally 100 to 1 on cuts VS taxes increases would be in the realm of closing the annual deficit gap. And you would still need a few hundred billion to get there. This is all based of course on IF ALL the “new revenues” are spend 100% only on bringing down the deficit. Hell, Dems are busy starting news wars and raising military spending to record highs, so what are the odds they would use the revenues to pay down a growing deficit.

The conversation is based on either ignorance by many on "the left" (and Obama,) or pure bigotry by those (and Obama) that want to scapegoat "the rich" much like Hitler did to the jews. Taxing more actually does not even kinda sorta fix the problem and "the rich" are paying far more federal taxes (by %) than the poor and in many cases the middle class.

Now all the “taxes for the rich only!!!!!!” people will see is "HITLER!!!" despite it being identically the same and true.

Okay that does nothing to answer the question so I'll ask another one, how does raising the marginal rate on income above 250,000 by 3% scapegoat anyone on any level much less to the level that the Nazi scapegoated the European Jews for the horrible depression Germany experienced in the post WWI?

Throughout history, politicians have needed scapegoats to rally the masses for support.
Obama is using the "rich do not pay their fair share" as his rallying cry. And he has the lemmings in lockstep.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Who cares? The Republicans are gonna be forced to say just how much they want to cut Granny's Medicare and shred what is left of the tattered safety net. They have been dodging and weaving on all of the news shows -whining that Obama has to show leadership.

He is! He is holding Republicans' feet to the fire. By raising the rate on high income Americans he is making it clear that Occupy Wall Street won. He made it clear that the House is neither his mommy nor daddy and he will NOT take marching orders from them.

You don't have to like it. But youu must realize the man has ice water in his veins and likes to see Republicans writhe.

Dance, Republicants, Dance.

Regards from Rosie

Your rant sums up the Obama mission.
In other words, this taxation thing has ZERO to do with improving economic conditions for Americans. It is all about politics and oneupmaship.
And you Obamatons are gleefully marching in lockstep with the Pied Piper.

 

[Interpol]

Another thread from Bullshit Mountain.

First, to remind our Republican friends, not every person who voted for Obama is a liberal. A lot of us hold moderate to conservative views on a number of things. So it's a totally stupid argument to suggest that what people like me are all about is "punishing success". What a load of horse shit that argument is.

The President is not offering a permanent tax cut to 98% of us; he's offering to all of us. The 100%. Every single wage-earner will pay 35% on the first quarter million they make. Remember, when the Bush Tax Cuts expire, rates would go higher for a great number of people making less than a quarter million as well, so this is a permanent cut across the board for everyone.

Now, 98% of us make under a quarter million. I do, what about you? In the election, the President basically asked us if we think we'd be alright with the idea that if any of us 98%'ers should earn more than that, would we accet paying 4% more as being fair, since it would help raise about $800 billion in revenue over 10 years and be one step out of many to get the fiscal house in order.

We agreed and we re-elected him and gave him more seats in the Senate and tightened the House with a popular Congressional vote that favored Democrats.

This issue is over and done with, if you ask me. The President won. The Tea Party lost. They must recognize his legitimacy and hone up to their governing responsibilities. That's what adults do. If House Republicans refuse to act before the year is out, taxes go up for just about everyone. Deep defense cuts will be administered.

Wall Street continues to pressure some of its Republican friends in Congress to do the right thing and extend the tax cuts on everyone on the first quarter million they make and to ask earners who are lucky enough to climb above that to kick in only 4% more. That's fair.

It's a lose-lose for Republicans if they continue to dick us all around. The country is on Obama's side on this issue. Hopefully, enough adult Republicans will come forward to do the right thing on this one while the children in that party continue to piss the bed and call that strategy.

 

[Vel]

Obama has already agreed to extend tax cuts for 98% of Americans

Why are Republicans holding it up just to appease their 2% masters?

Because class warfare is wrong is why. Is Obama trying to destroy the nation?

 

[Avatar4321]

Obama has already agreed to extend tax cuts for 98% of Americans

Why are Republicans holding it up just to appease their 2% masters?

Because class warfare is wrong is why. Is Obama trying to destroy the nation?

Yes. Yes. He is. It's the Dream from his father.

 

[boedicca]

Responding to the OP, the answer is easy peasy.

Obama only cares about his own power accretion in service to his narcissism.

 

[Rozman]

If he isn't allowed to punish the rich with higher taxes he's prepared to punish us all with higher taxes and a tanking economy

And to top it all off... The "revenue" stolen from the "rich" (btw, I hate this class warfare) won't even sustain the govt for 10 freekin days!

Nothing is stolen from the rich.

They don't like the deal..they can leave.

Then whose pocket do you guys stick your hand into???

 

[Rozman]

You guys chase all the rich folk away who you gonna steal I mean tax the crap out of...

 

[bitterlyclingin]

Barack Obama doesn't care about the American economy, in so far as it doesn't jeopardize his chances at being elected president for life in 2016. Michelle will be loathe to give up her 54 Christmas trees. He also won't do anything to lift you from your indolence and sloth if you don't want to be removed, however he will promise you to make your indolence and sloth more comfortable. If you vote for him of course. Its all political calculation with Mr Obama, no desire that you improve your lot, unless he needs to see that happen in order to get your vote. He is after all the Supreme being. His mirror tells him that.
Fiscal cliff ? What fiscal cliff? Evidently the poor you shall always have with you, or something like that
Mr Hillman, of the story below, does supply a need in this world. He does provide a cause celebre' for the NYT and the rest of the Liberal Media to beat their breasts while carrying on dolefully about the state of the maldistribution of this country's wealth, which sets the political stage for charlatans and demagogues like Barack Obama or France's Francois Hollande to exploit. Quoting Monsieur Hollande "There's no need for austerity. There's plenty of money out there for the government to extort, expropriate, or steal". Meanwhile one of the first results of Monsieur Hollande's attempted expropiation of wealth with his 75% income tax was to turn the Paris real estate market into something resembling the scene aboard the MS St Louis carrying the German Jews trying to flee Germany after Hitler came to power. France has a long tradition of that type of behavior. It started shortly after the first Bastille Day and gave us Dicken's scenes of the tundrils bearing their hapless cargo along with Madame deFarge knitting away. Baracky Obammunist seeks to bring a little of that here. Makes him seem like Robin Hood to the witless who cast their vote and to his own self perception.]

"You have probably heard the story of the shoeless beggar found on a New York City street by a NYPD officer. A passerby photographed NYPD Officer Lawrence DePrimo kneeling beside the man on a cold November night in Times Square, giving him a pair of boots. The photo, shot by tourist Jennifer Foster on her phone, went viral. I originally found the story here via ABC News. The story was held out as demonstrating the power of one random act of kindness, as in the video posted with ABC’s account.

The New York Times updated the story over the weekend, identifying the shoeless beggar:


His name is Jeffrey Hillman, and on Sunday night, he was once again wandering the streets — this time on the Upper West Side — with no shoes.

The $100 pair of boots that Officer DePrimo had bought for him at a Skechers store on Nov. 14 were nowhere to be seen.

“Those shoes are hidden. They are worth a lot of money,” Mr. Hillman said in an interview on Broadway in the 70s. “I could lose my life.”

Mr. Hillman, 54, was by turns aggrieved, grateful and taken aback by all the attention that had come his way — even as he struggled to figure out what to do about it.

“I was put on YouTube, I was put on everything without permission. What do I get?” he said. “This went around the world, and I want a piece of the pie.”

How did Mr. Hillman hits the skids? He doesn’t provide the Times a direct answer:


He was reluctant to talk about how he ended up on the streets, staring blankly ahead when asked how his life went off course.

After a long pause, he shook his head and said, “I don’t know.”

Since Mr. Hillman’s bare feet became famous, other people reported seeing him without shoes — one even after Officer DePrimo’s gift — and one woman said she had bought him a pair of shoes a year ago. Whatever the case, Mr. Hillman seemed accustomed to walking the pavement shoeless.

He was panhandling on Sunday night and carried a cup with a few coins inside.

The Times lets this update speak for itself. At the least, however, it raises a few interesting questions. Is the problem of poverty in the United States a lack of resources? Is the problem of homelessness the lack of a home? Doesn’t the man who wants “a piece of the pie” (hey, it’s only fair) badly need treatment that would have been forced on him in less enlightened times? And is he helped by helped by those who fill his tin cup?"

A case study | Power Line

 

[bitterlyclingin]

["Obama wants a war"
The view from Obama's mirror is all that counts for the supreme narcissist. And if the economy does "Go to Hell in a handbasket", it wouldn't be a bad thing at all, because he then could offer them his Communist alternative, after all he did once note that when he stopped a few minutes into his first public speech to catch his breath he realized to himself he had them eating out of his hand, and nothing's changed since then.
As heard during the 2008 campaign:
Woman screaming; "He's going to pay for my groceries!!!!!!"
Man questioning; "Where's he going to get the money?"
Woman screaming; "From his stash!!!!!!!!!!!!"]

» Branco Cartoon – Taxing and Spending and Taxing and.. - Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion

"Conservatives seem to be nonplussed about President Obama sending Treasury Secretary Geithner to Capitol Hill without a proposal for a grand bargain on entitlements. But why? Worrying about debt and default and entitlements is for the responsible people. Responsibility is for the people who believe in the "responsible self," the notion developed a couple of millennia ago during the Axial Age. Responsibility is for the bourgeoisie.

President Obama is above all that. Liberal politics in general is above all that. Their politics is about war, not about nice comfortable entitlements. President Obama's War? He's fighting a war on "inequality." Even the Washington Post's Zachary Goldfarb is willing to admit to that.

As Obama did in legislative fights during his first term, he also will be striving to reduce a three-decades-long wave of rising income inequality that has meant that fewer Americans have prospered while more struggle to get by.

There's a certain magnificent elegance to the president's war on inequality. It licenses him and his administration to do anything. More spending on the traditionally marginalized? Whatever it takes. Get the rich to pay a little more? It goes without saying.

In waging this war on inequality, it makes no sense to do a grand bargain on entitlements. What would that solve? It would freeze the status quo in place. But the war on inequality can never rest, can never end. A century from now, liberal scholars will be mining the national income data to find another "wave of rising income inequality" while "more struggle to get by."

How can the president rest in his lifelong struggle, his quest for the Great White Whale of equality, while the tide of inequality continues to rise?

So it makes complete sense that President Obama and his Treasury Secretary Geithner have not proposed a "grand bargain" on entitlements. The president is not interested in doing a deal on entitlements. He just wants more money in taxes to spend on his war on inequality.

Now, conservatives like to point out that the president's policy will lead to debt and default, and that the little people will suffer most when that happens. Too bad -- that's what happens in war. Did FDR call off World War II because he didn't want our boys to get killed? Did Ronald Reagan call off the Cold War? Did President Johnson call off the War on Poverty when it turned out that poverty won?

At least Obama is frank about his war on inequality. Previous Democratic presidents have had the modesty to hide their egalitarian lust behind a decent drapery of moderation.

But who knows? Maybe the liberals are right. Maybe the market economy run by the bourgeoisie, the package that has taken the human race from $3 per day to $120 per day in two centuries, really does produce intolerable inequality that can be corrected only with an authoritarian welfare state.

But here's what really sticks in my craw. President Obama is a guy who runs around the world offering resets and flexibility to the Putins, understanding to the Muslim Brotherhoods, and embraces to the Chávezes. But when it comes to Republicans, who are his fellow citizens, it's no-holds-barred, bare-knuckle politics: you bring a knife to the fight, and the president brings a gun. When it comes to authoritarian foreign leaders, the president leads with an olive branch. But when it comes to the loyal opposition, the president leads with his fist.

OK, Mr. President. So be it; that's your game. But we Republicans, we typical Americans, are playing a different game. It is called Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, and for that noble purpose and that purpose only will we sacrifice our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.

You see, Mr. President, we typical Americans believe that the American idea of limited government is a good one, the best yet. We believe that the notion of fighting "inequality" is nothing more than a ruling-class conceit, a thinly veiled apology for ruling-class tyranny."

Articles: Obama Wants a War

 

[LeftCoastVoter]

Barack Obama doesn't care about the American economy, in so far as it doesn't jeopardize his chances at being elected president for life in 2016. Michelle will be loathe to give up her 54 Christmas trees. He also won't do anything to lift you from your indolence and sloth if you don't want to be removed, however he will promise you to make your indolence and sloth more comfortable. If you vote for him of course. Its all political calculation with Mr Obama, no desire that you improve your lot, unless he needs to see that happen in order to get your vote. He is after all the Supreme being. His mirror tells him that.
Fiscal cliff ? What fiscal cliff? Evidently the poor you shall always have with you, or something like that
Mr Hillman, of the story below, does supply a need in this world. He does provide a cause celebre' for the NYT and the rest of the Liberal Media to beat their breasts while carrying on dolefully about the state of the maldistribution of this country's wealth, which sets the political stage for charlatans and demagogues like Barack Obama or France's Francois Hollande to exploit. Quoting Monsieur Hollande "There's no need for austerity. There's plenty of money out there for the government to extort, expropriate, or steal". Meanwhile one of the first results of Monsieur Hollande's attempted expropiation of wealth with his 75% income tax was to turn the Paris real estate market into something resembling the scene aboard the MS St Louis carrying the German Jews trying to flee Germany after Hitler came to power. France has a long tradition of that type of behavior. It started shortly after the first Bastille Day and gave us Dicken's scenes of the tundrils bearing their hapless cargo along with Madame deFarge knitting away. Baracky Obammunist seeks to bring a little of that here. Makes him seem like Robin Hood to the witless who cast their vote and to his own self perception.]

"You have probably heard the story of the shoeless beggar found on a New York City street by a NYPD officer. A passerby photographed NYPD Officer Lawrence DePrimo kneeling beside the man on a cold November night in Times Square, giving him a pair of boots. The photo, shot by tourist Jennifer Foster on her phone, went viral. I originally found the story here via ABC News. The story was held out as demonstrating the power of one random act of kindness, as in the video posted with ABC’s account.

The New York Times updated the story over the weekend, identifying the shoeless beggar:


His name is Jeffrey Hillman, and on Sunday night, he was once again wandering the streets — this time on the Upper West Side — with no shoes.

The $100 pair of boots that Officer DePrimo had bought for him at a Skechers store on Nov. 14 were nowhere to be seen.

“Those shoes are hidden. They are worth a lot of money,” Mr. Hillman said in an interview on Broadway in the 70s. “I could lose my life.”

Mr. Hillman, 54, was by turns aggrieved, grateful and taken aback by all the attention that had come his way — even as he struggled to figure out what to do about it.

“I was put on YouTube, I was put on everything without permission. What do I get?” he said. “This went around the world, and I want a piece of the pie.”

How did Mr. Hillman hits the skids? He doesn’t provide the Times a direct answer:


He was reluctant to talk about how he ended up on the streets, staring blankly ahead when asked how his life went off course.

After a long pause, he shook his head and said, “I don’t know.”

Since Mr. Hillman’s bare feet became famous, other people reported seeing him without shoes — one even after Officer DePrimo’s gift — and one woman said she had bought him a pair of shoes a year ago. Whatever the case, Mr. Hillman seemed accustomed to walking the pavement shoeless.

He was panhandling on Sunday night and carried a cup with a few coins inside.

The Times lets this update speak for itself. At the least, however, it raises a few interesting questions. Is the problem of poverty in the United States a lack of resources? Is the problem of homelessness the lack of a home? Doesn’t the man who wants “a piece of the pie” (hey, it’s only fair) badly need treatment that would have been forced on him in less enlightened times? And is he helped by helped by those who fill his tin cup?"

A case study | Power Line

so you politicize an act of kindness? you're nothing more than a partisan hack.

 

[BlindBoo]

Becuase you bigoted fuck, it starst somewhere. You are R-tarded if you think the day Hitler was elected the holiscost was done and over with. A scapegoat starts, it has a begining. In America you people use a small group, a minority... You then wipe the humanity off of them and call them the "1%." Next you blame that 1% for almost all the problems with the country. Then you attack anyone that calls you out on your bullshit.

Will taxing the 1%, the rich, these PEOPLE fix the deficit? The answer is no... So the question is WHY do you want to tax them 3% more, what does it do other than make you a majority oppressing a minority?

Your answer is, “they are rich!!!!!” Point being you might as well say “They are JEWS!!!” or “They are Black!!!” If the reason to tax them serves no purpose to actually pay down the deficit then you are demanding they be taxed more, even 3% more for what reason other than bigotry?

I'll take that as a no.

Oh and you are mistaken if you think Hitler didn't have in mind the Holocaust before he took over Germany or if you think President Obama efforts to allow the Bush tax cut to expire for the most wealthy is in any way simular to the way the Jew were treated in Germany.

So now you can read fucking Hitler’s mind from 80+ years ago... And thanks for once again 100% avoiding my question and doing as I predicted and only seeing "HITLER!!!!!!!!"

You're a bigot, end of story... unless you can tell us all why "the rich" should have 3% more taxes added and no one else should have thier taxes raised.

Well since Hitler did write down his hatred of the Jews, yes, we can all see into his depraved mind by reading Mein Kampf. Now would care to expand on your therory that the efforts to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire (3%) for the upper income brackets is akin to shoveling Humans into gas chambers?

You're the one who regrettably brought Hitlers treatment of the Jews into the discussion.

My questioning is still unanswered.

Oh and every tax payer will still benefit from the extension of the Bush tax cuts for income under 250K even the high incomer earner.