In recent speeches to promote the end of upper class tax cuts Obama has made a few comments that could be interpreted as divisive. For instance a couple of days ago, he said: "middle class is also an attitude. It’s not just about income; it’s about knowing what’s important and not measuring your success just based on your bank account. But it’s about your values, and being responsible and looking after each other" And just today he said he had the backing of quite a few "patriotic" millionaires who understand that by paying their fair share they'll be doing the country a great service. What do guys think? Over-sensitive or is he really playing the class warfare game?
Both sides of the aisle play the game and play the game only at this point. That's why we're in the mess we're in. As far as Obama, he plays it better than the rest.
He also hilariously said that he wasn't proposing anything radical, just wants people making over 250k to go back to tax rates they were paying when Bill Clinton was in office, when the economy created 23 million jobs, as if the tax increase and job increase were related in any way.
I think his comment on the middle class gives us an idea of why we're being squeezed out. 1. We don't rely on the gov't for handouts 2. People do look after each other, have some values, and are responsible for the most part 3. Typically don't have money to throw at politicians for special interests Essentially, the middle class stands for everything our government doesn't want in my opinion...someone who's typically responsible, willing to work, has values, and is able to think for themselves. It takes some work to actually get the middle class vote and who needs all that noise? Just my opinion of course.
I liked the contrast between Foxnews.com and CNN.com's coverage. Foxnews in its usual bias and political marketing format put in bold caps Obama 100 percent committed to tax hikes...underneath in smaller letters it gave the context i.e. for the rich. CNN covered it titled as tax cuts extension. I find CNN's coverage to be far more accurate but how far the divide is right now in journalism is amusing yet tragic.
It is a tax increase. Implying otherwise is dishonest and Obama is on record saying any tax raise would be the worst thing you could do for an ailing economy. He deserves to get railed.
I do not agree he deserves to get railed. There is nothing really to rail him on. Tax Increases on the super rich are not breaking any hearts right now. He is for extending cuts for all others including upper middle class (basically rich as well). In the end, railing him on it is in his favor. Keep reminding people he wants to tax the super rich and give to the poor and middle class. Right or Wrong it will get him votes. I do not think anyone whose mind is not predetermined in assimalition of all material related Obama believes he really meant he would not tax the super rich. Even if he did, most would forgive him. We all say things we believe are right but later based on information and context realize we are wrong. It does not make someone a liar. Everyone needs to get off their high horse.
The high horse of some people not liking poor leaders in DC? I'm not laying this down on Obama's feet alone. He's playing the game, but it's a broken game in Washington. The poor and middle class are the ones paying the price for it though.
How is he a poor leader for doing what economist are prescribing right now? The only economist saying raising the extremely low taxes on the super rich in this country is bad are one bought and paid for by RNC/Foxnews. The deficit is a much bigger future issue at this point. Not that this alone is a cure. But the statement all economist agree this is bad (what foxnews spews out) is completely and utterly false. This is what the experts think is the best move. from 2010 in context he was referring to only the taxes on the super rich. Exactly what Obama is now implementing.
You are way off on this "all economists" stuff. And the CBO has never been right about anything ever. And these tax increases won't make a dent in the deficit, the growth of which isn't going to be slowed by any legislation favored by Obama. And this healthcare stuff isn't just a tax for the super rich.
If I'm not mistaken, the tax increases are to those making $250k or more. That affects many, many non-super rich folks and many small business owners.
So, is your point that Obama is actually concerned with the budget deficit? The trillions in spending with virtually no spending cuts suggest otherwise. Raising taxes isn't the only way to lower the budget deficit; the best way is to cut spending, a foreign concept to the POTUS.
Jewbaccah- Why/How is is correct to ask the rich to pay more in taxes because of the governments inability to maintain a budget? I don't put our debt issue squarely on Obama, but let's be honest, he certainly hasn't done anything to curb it. Taxing the rich, super rich, or basically rich people because they have money is wrong. That's punishing success any way you slice it.
It actually only affects 3% of small business owners. Most who make over 250k are super rich, those who disagree are severely out of touch or just plain wrong. Cutting spending is something economist agree hurts the economy. It is more about redirecting current spending to better suited means in this economic context. Stop watching Foxnews begin being informed again. It is a motto that must be spread.
Eh, I understand that what you've said is the typical GOP line, but I'm not sure I completely buy it. If you were to raise taxes on people with a taxable income of over $1,000,000 or $5,000,000 or something like that, as part of an overall budget deficit lowering scheme, I could absolutely back it. I, however, can't back a plan that really just involves raising taxes and doing nothing to combat the vast amounts of waste in the federal government.
The rich should absolutely pay more. That is basic economics they benefit more then anyone from a stable middle class and system overall. That is what used to be taught when it was based on science and not on who is paying you to speak on a subject. That was not liberal in the 90s and it was not liberal in the 80s nor at any time in modern history. At this point Reagan is a liberal commie bastard.
Exactly. Asking someone else to help pay for something the government isn't willing to address is wrong. If the government wants to start cutting things to address our spending problem that's one thing. Simply asking (rather demanding) someone else to chip in is wrong.
