2 Obama officials: No guarantee taxes won't go up
President Barack Obama's treasury secretary said Sunday he cannot rule out higher taxes to help tame an exploding budget deficit, and his chief economic adviser would not dismiss raising them on middle-class Americans as part of a health care overhaul.
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and National Economic Council Director Larry Summers both sidestepped questions on Obama's intentions about taxes. Geithner said the White House was not ready to rule out a tax hike to lower the federal deficit; Summers said Obama's proposed health care overhaul needs funding from somewhere.
And keep in mind this is just income tax we are talking about. Obama can raise your tobacco tax, energy tax, gas tax, etc and the media won't report it as a "middle class tax" even thought it is.
The media will however glorify taxes on those greedy corporations... who promptly pass on the bill to us the consumer. We need to stop looking at the segmentation of taxation and instead look at the overall spending.
Politicians are constantly babbling about finding "another funding source" when there is only one source of revenue and that is the productive private sector.
17 comments:
Fredric Bastiat, a member of the French Senat in the early 1800s, wrote: "The people will be crushed under the burden of taxes, loan after loan will be floated; after having drained the present, the State will devour the future."
This is exactly what is going on today, now that the Obama and his tax-cheating cronies are in charge of things.
52% of the voters put this autocrat into the White House. 100% of the people will be paying through the nose for that huge mistake.
I'm not saying that McCain would have, or could have, done better. But he damn sure couldn't do worse.
But the messiah promised not one dime of increased taxes. I guess we will chalk that up as another lie. One question for the messiah's minions, has he kept one campaign promise? Shit that is right, he took his wife to New York for dinner. I wonder what that cost the American taxpayer. I guess they do no have good enough restaurants in DC. What a clown we have for a president.
Daniel, a couple of comments...
You are correct that spending needs to be reigned in. It is an unfortunate reality of our political system that politicians cannot get elected by telling people the cold, hard truth, and by informing people that the gravy train has to slow down. We live in a country where everyone wants some entitlement or benefit, but nobody wants to pay for it. (And this goes for BOTH major parties. Contrary to popular conservative myth, the "takers" in society are not only liberals. In fact, the vast majority of "welfare" in this country is doled out to so-called "red states".)
Unfortunately, our DECADES of overspending mean that yes...we need to raise revenue to pay the bills that are, and increasingly will, come due. And while it makes good political fodder to blame one party or the other, both major parties have had a significant hand in our nation's out-of-control spending. Remember...of the top three big-spending administrations, two were Republican.
As for individual taxation, it is useful to remember that individual tax rates for most taxpayers, including the most wealthy, are lower now than they were during the Reagan Administration. And just like it is no fun to have to divert income to pay back a credit card that was carelessly used, it is no fun to have your taxes raised to have to pay back the nation's credit card. But it has to be done, as wishing the problem away won't work. We as a democratic society caused the problem, and we need to be responsible for fixing it.
As for corporate taxation, I agree and understand that taxation on corporations has other unpleasant effects. That said, it should be noted that because of loopholes and other gimmes, 2/3 of the companies that make up the Fortune 500 pay no federal income taxes at all. NONE! And while I don't think excessive taxation on corporations is fair, I also don't think that ZERO federal income taxation is fair, either. You need to take this into account before you gripe about corporations getting the shaft. On the contrary, many of America's largest corporations are getting off scott-free.
In essence, yes, we need to control spending. But to pretend as if we can move forward without raising tax revenue, is to live in fantasyland.
Scottiebill, to hear you talk, one might think that excessive spending in this country started with the Obama Administration. You state that this "is exactly what is going on today, now that..."
I've got a newsflash for you, bro: This has been going on for 30 years!
The only difference, is that your outrage was much more muted when YOUR guys where the ones doing all the spending.
Dave01, I can't let your lie slip on by. Will you please cite the Obama statement wherein he claimed that there would be no increase in taxes whatsoever.
As for Obama keeping his campaign promises, yes, he's kept several. Which is precisely why people like you are angry with him!
Dave01, you of all people need to refrain from calling anyone ELSE a clown.
Miglavians,
Of course you're going to bellyache about how this administration is going about dealing with the economic crisis.
But I've got to say this: At least he's dealing with it. Unlike W who ran up this record deficit. How is engaging in two wars but not putting their cost into the Federal budget fiscal discipline? W was not only the first president not to raise taxes during war time, but the first to cut them. Historically, whenever the country has gone to war, we all have pitched in. But not under Bush, he told us to go shopping.
It's laughable that you clowns preach fiscal discipline. Clinton came in during a recession in the early 90s, got the economy booming and left with a surplus. Now, Obama comes in with damn-near a depression, and you know he's going to turn this thing around and get the budget in order too.
I see a pattern here.
Newsflash: We tried your economic policies from 2000 to 2008. They didn't work.
While Geithner and Summers both sidestepped the question of taxes on the middle-class Obama was Obama's campaign rhetoric was more specific: "
"I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes" (September 12, 2008, Dover, NH)
But Stevie is right, if a candidate is smart enough to know what needs to be done and tells the public the truth he has very little chance of being elected. Reminds me of the line "You can't handle the truth".
If you are really interested in the promises given by Obama and his record of accomplishment a good resource is Politifacts.
As expected, most of his promises are still in progress.
Daniel is correct though that most of the tax increases imposed on everyday people will come from increases of fees and licenses as states and local governments attempt to replace funds that the federal government cuts back on. I prefer increased local taxes if the feds reduce their take but with trillions in bailout I can't see that happening. Sending huge amounts of money to the Federal government and then begging for some of that money back is not an effective way to run an economy. Most often that money returned is wasted on large projects that are not necessary such as the Bridge To Nowhere, The Big Dig in Boston, and other transportation projects that cost millions of dollars per mile. As we speak states with defense contractors are still lobbying for an exotic fighter plane that even the Pentagon says we don't need.
Actually, Reaganomics, those much derided by the media and the rest of the Left, actually worked; leaving President Clinton in the enviable position of having only to keep things rolling, then reaping credit for "his" budget surplus.
However, it is worth noting that no president, absent the aid of the U.S. House of Representatives, can affect the budget, and thereby the economy.
The only actual control that can be exerted by a president involves signing or vetoing the spending package that is presented to him by Congress.
Reganomics worked?
Reganomics is essentially the theory that wealth at the top will trickle down to lift all boats. That absolutely did not happen during Regan's tenure. The gap between the rich and the poor INCREASED during the 1980s. Nothing trickled down to those at the bottom. This is simply a fact.
And Max, that's a nice bit of revisionist history there. Clinton took over in midst of a pretty deep recession. The economy certainly wasn't "rolling".
Whoa, Max Redline. What alternative reality do you live in, where Bill Clinton inherited a good economy that he only needed to "keep rolling"?
You seem to forget - as in, totally, completely forget - that the biggest reason cited for Clinton's victory was the poor economy and fairly deep recession under the first President Bush. Do you really not remember the phrase, "It's the economy, stupid", which became the de facto motto for how Clinton got elected?
Jesus Christ. It's one thing to have an opinion. But to entirely re-write history to have that opinion...wow.
As for Reaganomics, it was a mixed bag...but mostly not for the better. But instead of providing you with a liberal critique of Reaganomics (there are plenty of those out there if you care to spend some quality time with Google), here's a link to a conservative analysis that claims Reaganomics was for the most part a failure...particularly if you measure Reaganomics against Reagan's own stated economic goals:
http://mises.org/article.aspx?Id=1544
Redline is a resident of Miglavia. Things look, um, different, here. I will give credit to the Miglavians for one thing ... unless I missed a particularly stupid post, I haven't seen Daniel hopping aboard the "birthing" bandwagon, made of of SUPREMELY stupid people who insist that Obama is not a legal resident. (Although if he has, could someone cite the date? I need to make sure my list of reasons for believing Daniel to be an uneducated fool is complete.)
Stevie: I did not say that the overspending came with the Obama administration. You are taking the tack that all the other liberals here are taking by putting words where they weren't said. You are right that the overspending has been going on for the last 30 years and more. Guess what? That covers Obama and Clinto and Carter, too. Not just the "evil" Republicans. Bush 43 did not, repeat NOT, increase the deficit from about $1T to well over $$T and counting. Obama and his Marxist Socialist administration did that. Bush 43 did not, repeat, NOT, say he was going to increase the taxes on only those making over $250,000.00 per year then turn around and increase taxes on virtually everyone in the country, regardless of their income. The Obama administration did that. Just today, Obama and his tax-cheating sycophants said the they will raise taxes on citizens making less that $250,00.00 per year. You need to read up on your facts before you start throwing out baseless accusations that you can't back up.
But, with liberals, facts mean nothing when they are spouting anti-conservative opinions.
Scottiebill, you said, “You need to read up on your facts before you start throwing out baseless accusations that you can't back up.”
You should take some of your own advice, bud:
1. You state, “I did not say that the overspending came with the Obama administration. You are taking the tack that all the other liberals here are taking by putting words where they weren't said.”
OK then, let’s look at what you said. You originally said, “This is exactly what is going on today [overspending], now that the Obama and his tax-cheating cronies are in charge of things.”
Now Scottiebill, if I understand the English language correctly, you’ve clearly used the word “now” as a qualifier in the sentence above. As in, it wasn’t happening before…it is only happening “now”. Perhaps you didn’t mean for this sentence to read as it clearly does. Regardless, you did write it in such a manner. I am only interpreting your words exactly as you wrote them. So maybe the problem isn’t with me, but is instead with an author who didn't chose his words very carefully?
2. You state, “43 did not, repeat NOT, increase the deficit from about $1T to well over $$T and counting. Obama and his Marxist Socialist administration did that.”
OK, let’s examine that statement. First, I’ll assume you did actually mean “deficit”, and not the “national debt” (The two are not the same thing, although I’m not certain you understand that.) “43” most certainly did run-up the deficit, every single year in office. In fact, Bush ran up a combined total of $2.1 trillion in annual deficits while in office. (http://home.adelphi.edu/sbloch/deficits.html)
And on the very first day of the Obama presidency, Obama inherited a $1.2 trillion deficit from the outgoing Bush Administration. So much for your argument that Bush did not substantially increase the deficit.
Oh, and if you DID mean “national debt” instead of “deficit”, that doesn’t work out much better: when “43” took office, the national debt was $5.7 trillion. When he left office, the national debt was $10.6 trillion. Whoops!
3. You state, “Bush 43 did not, repeat, NOT, say he was going to increase the taxes on only those making over $250,000.00 per year then turn around and increase taxes on virtually everyone in the country, regardless of their income. The Obama administration did that.”
Wrong. Obama did not “…turn around and increase taxes on virtually everyone in the country…”. Quite the opposite. Most Americans received a tax CUT under Obama. In fact, 81% of Americans who file a tax return got a tax cut this year. (Source: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/750/)
4. You state, “Just today, Obama and his tax-cheating sycophants said the they will raise taxes on citizens making less that $250,00.00 per year.”
Really?!? Wow Scottiebill…you must live in the same alternate reality as Max Redline. Because in fact, just today, Obama said he would NOT raise taxes on citizens making less that $250,000.00 per year. (Source: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/08/03/gibbs_obama_wont_raise_middle-.html?wprss=44) In other words, you are 100%, inarguably wrong.
Scottiebill, with your post, you have indeed made one thing perfectly clear: Somebody really DOES need to read up on his facts before throwing out baseless garbage that he can’t defend. Unfortunately, that someone is YOU!
Fool.
Nice work, Stevie, on deconstructing a mountain of Miglavian bullshit, but really, it's a bit like shooting fish in a barrel. And the thing with Miglavians is, they never admit they're wrong, even when they are plainly wrong, demonstrably wrong, wrong with footnotes. I think it was ScottieBill who got got with his pants down around his ankles a few threads back -- maybe it was you who fact-checked his sorry ass into the ground -- but he just keeps stumbling along, oblivious to the spectacle of his bare bottom hanging out for the world to see. Being a Miglavian means never having to say you're sorry if you get caught spreading lies and bullshit ... you just come back the next day and keep shoveling! What a bunch, Miglavs and his little choir section. Fools all. And not just fools, but irrelevant fools.
LOL! I assumed that if I brought up Reagan, you loons would all go nuts. Sure enough! You folks are so predictable.
As expected, you got hung up on the diversion and completely missed the the important part:
However, it is worth noting that no president, absent the aid of the U.S. House of Representatives, can affect the budget, and thereby the economy.
The only actual control that can be exerted by a president involves signing or vetoing the spending package that is presented to him by Congress.
Now, I trust that it's clear enough for you. You folks are so hot to beat down that you invariably grab one thing and hang onlike a dog defending a bone. Thanks for illustrating so well the point that I intended to make.
You sometimes exceed expectations.
Max Redline…nobody went nuts because you brought up Reagan. What DID happen, is that people corrected you when you decided to completely, and inaccurately, re-write history.
But let me guess…that was part of your “diversion”.
Just what kind of imbecile are you, anyway?
As for your “important part”, that didn’t make a lick of sense either. Your first paragraph presents us with the false logic that the budget is itself the only thing, or even the primary thing, that affects the economy. But of course, the economy has several “levers”, only one of which is the government’s annual budget. The biggest thing that affects our economy is consumer behavior, and yes…the President can even exert some control over that, too. (Executive Order 11583 was just such an effort. And there have been many others).
The second paragraph is also demonstrably false. Aside from the example I just gave, I’ll give you another example as to how this second paragraph is false. In 1994, Bill Clinton made a deal with Alan Greenspan to provide for low interest rates. This was a DIRECT example of the President influencing the economy, having nothing to do with the budget. Would you like several more examples?!?
So yes Max Redline, your incredibly sophomoric understanding of our economy is indeed clear enough for us. As is your aforementioned revisionist take on history.
What are you going to do for an encore, bozo??? Maybe you can start with the “birther” nonsense. That seems to be about your speed.
Regarding the question of what kind of imbecile Max Redline is: He is a Miglavian.
Post a Comment