Obamination: Class Warfare; No growth, No Jobs, No Debt Reduction
Obamination: Class Warfare; No growth, No Jobs, No Debt
President Obama continues to joust straw men and play class
warfare tactics with the economy, deficit, debt, jobs and taxes. His
mocking denials are transparent; the jig is up; it is time for
him to exit stage left. I have said it before and I will repeat it Resign!
A few of the most egregious lies in the screed are
annotated with superscripts linked to my comments which appear in an
enumerated list below the screed. Click the superscripts to read the
related commentary and use your Backspace key to return to your place
in the screed.
10:56 A.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning, everybody. Please have a seat.
A week ago today, I sent
Congress the American Jobs Act. It’s a plan that will lead1 to new
teachers, for construction workers, for veterans,
and for the unemployed3.
It will cut taxes4
for every small
business owner and virtually every5 working man and woman in
America. And the proposals in this jobs bill are the kinds that
have been supported by Democrats and Republicans in the past. So
there shouldn’t be any reason for Congress to drag its feet. They
should pass it right away6.
I’m ready to sign a bill. I’ve
got the pens all ready.
Now, as I said before,
Congress should pass this bill knowing that every proposal is fully
The American Jobs Act will not add to our nation’s
debt. And today, I’m releasing a plan that details how to pay for
the jobs bill while also paying down our debt8
And this is important,
because the health of our economy depends in part on what we do right
now to create the conditions where businesses can hire9
families can feel a basic measure of economic security10.
the long run, our prosperity also depends on our ability to pay down
the massive debt we’ve accumulated over the past decade in a way that
allows us to meet our responsibilities to each other and to the future.
During this past decade,
profligate spending in Washington11, tax cuts
for multi-millionaires and
the cost of two wars13, and the recession turned a
surplus into a yawning deficit, and that left us with a big pile of
If we don’t act, that burden will ultimately fall on our
children’s shoulders. If we don’t act, the growing debt will
eventually crowd out everything else, preventing us from investing in
things like education, or sustaining programs like Medicare.
So Washington has to live
within its means15.
The government has to do what families across
this country have been doing for years. We have to cut what we
can’t afford to pay for what really matters. We need to invest16
what will promote hiring and economic growth now while still providing
the confidence that will come with a plan that reduces our deficits
over the long-term.
These principles were at the
heart of the deficit framework that I put forward in April. It
was an approach to shrink the deficit as a share of the economy, but
not to do so so abruptly with spending cuts that would hamper growth or
prevent us from helping small businesses and middle-class families get
back on their feet.
It was an approach that said
we need to go through the budget line-by-line looking for waste,
without shortchanging education17 and basic scientific research and
because those things are essential to our future.
And it was an approach that said we shouldn’t balance the budget on the
backs of the poor and the middle class19;
that for us to solve this
problem, everybody, including the wealthiest Americans and biggest
have to pay their fair share. 21
Now, during the debt ceiling
debate, I had hoped to negotiate a compromise with the Speaker of the
House that fulfilled these principles and achieved the $4 trillion in
deficit reduction that leaders in both parties have agreed we need — a
grand bargain that would have strengthened our economy, instead of
weakened it. Unfortunately, the Speaker walked away from a
balanced package. What we agreed to instead wasn’t all that
grand. But it was a start — roughly $1 trillion in cuts to
domestic spending and defense spending.
Everyone knows we have to do
more, and a special joint committee of Congress is assigned to find
more deficit reduction. So, today, I’m laying out a set of specific
proposals to finish what we started this summer — proposals that live
up to the principles I’ve talked about from the beginning. It’s a
plan that reduces our debt by more than $4 trillion, and achieves these
savings in a way that is fair — by asking everybody to do their part
so that no one has to bear too much of the burden on their own.
All told, this plan cuts $2
in spending for every dollar in new revenues. In addition to the
$1 trillion in spending that we’ve already cut from the budget, our
plan makes additional spending cuts that need to happen if we’re to
solve this problem. We reform agricultural subsidies — subsidies that
a lot of times pay large farms for crops that they don’t grow. We
make modest adjustments to federal retirement programs22.
by tens of billions of dollars the tax money that goes to Fannie Mae
and Freddie Mac. We also ask the largest financial firms —
companies saved by tax dollars during the financial crisis — to repay
the American people for every dime that we spent. And we save an
additional $1 trillion as we end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan23.
These savings are not only
counted as part of our plan, but as part of the budget plan24 that
every Republican on the House voted for.
Finally, this plan includes
structural reforms to reduce the cost of health care25
in programs like
Medicare and Medicaid. Keep in mind we’ve already included a
number of reforms in the health care law, which will go a long way
towards controlling these costs. But we’re going to have to do a
little more. This plan reduces wasteful subsidies and erroneous
payments while changing some incentives that often lead to excessive
health care costs. It makes prescriptions more affordable through
faster approval of generic drugs. We’ll work with governors to
make Medicaid more efficient and more accountable. And we’ll
change the way we pay for health care. Instead of just paying for
procedures, providers will be paid more when they improve results —
and such steps will save money and improve care.
These changes are phased in
slowly to strengthen Medicare and Medicaid over time. Because
while we do need to reduce health care costs, I’m not going to allow
that to be an excuse for turning Medicare into a voucher program that
leaves seniors at the mercy of the insurance industry. And I’m
not going to stand for balancing the budget by denying or reducing
health care for poor children or those with disabilities. So we
will reform Medicare and Medicaid, but we will not abandon the
fundamental commitment that this country has kept for generations.
And by the way, that includes
our commitment to Social Security. I’ve said before, Social
Security is not the primary cause of our deficits, but it does face
long-term challenges as our country grows older. And both parties
are going to need to work together on a separate track to strengthen
Social Security for our children and our grandchildren26.
So this is how we can reduce
spending: by scouring the budget for every dime of waste and
inefficiency, by reforming government spending, and by making modest
adjustments to Medicare and Medicaid. But all these reductions in
spending, by themselves, will not solve our fiscal problems. We
can’t just cut our way out of this hole. It’s going to take a
balanced approach. If we’re going to make spending cuts — many
of which we wouldn’t make if we weren’t facing such large budget
deficits — then it’s only right that we ask everyone to pay their fair
You know, last week, Speaker
of the House John Boehner gave a speech about the economy. And to
his credit, he made the point that we can’t afford the kind of politics
that says it’s “my way or the highway.” I was encouraged by
that. Here’s the problem: In that same speech, he also came out
against any plan to cut the deficit that includes any additional
revenues whatsoever. He said — I’m quoting him — there is “only
one option.” And that option and only option relies entirely on
cuts. That means slashing education, surrendering the research
necessary to keep America’s technological edge in the 21st century, and
allowing our critical public assets like highways and bridges and
airports to get worse. It would cripple our competiveness and our
ability to win the jobs of the future. And it would also mean
asking sacrifice of seniors and the middle class and the poor, while
asking nothing of the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations.
So the Speaker says we can’t
have it “my way or the highway,” and then basically says, my way — or
the highway. (Laughter.) That’s not smart. It’s not
right. If we’re going to meet our responsibilities, we have to do
Now, I’m proposing real,
serious cuts in spending. When you include the $1 trillion in
cuts I’ve already signed into law, these would be among the biggest
cuts in spending in our history. But they’ve got to be part of a larger
plan that’s balanced –- a plan that asks the most fortunate among us to
pay their fair share21, just like everybody
And that’s why this plan
eliminates tax loopholes that primarily go to the wealthiest taxpayers
and biggest corporations –- tax breaks that small businesses and
middle-class families don’t get27. And if tax
reform doesn’t get
done, this plan asks the wealthiest Americans to go back to paying the
same rates that they paid during the 1990s, before the Bush tax cuts.
I promise it’s not because
anybody looks forward to the prospects of raising taxes or paying more
taxes. I don’t. In fact, I’ve cut taxes for the middle
class and for small businesses, and through the American Jobs Act, we’d
cut taxes again to promote hiring and put more money into the pockets
of people. But we can’t afford these special lower rates for the
wealthy -– rates, by the way, that were meant to be temporary.
Back when these first — these tax cuts, back in 2001, 2003, were being
talked about, they were talked about temporary measures. We can’t
afford them when we’re running these big deficits.28
Now, I am also ready to work
with Democrats and Republicans to reform our entire tax code29,
rid of the decades of accumulated loopholes, special interest
carve-outs, and other tax expenditures that stack the deck against
small business owners and ordinary families who can’t afford Washington
lobbyists or fancy accountants. Our tax code is more than 10,000
pages long. If you stack up all the volumes, they’re almost five feet
tall. That means that how much you pay often depends less on what
you make and more on how well you can game the system, and that’s
especially true of the corporate tax code30.
We’ve got one of the highest
corporate tax rates in the world, but it’s riddled with exceptions and
special interest loopholes. So some companies get out paying a
lot of taxes, while the rest of them end up having to foot the
bill. And this makes our entire economy less competitive and our
country a less desirable place to do business.
That has to change. Our
tax code shouldn’t give an advantage to companies with the
best-connected lobbyists31. It should
give an advantage to
companies that invest in the United States of America and create jobs
in the United States of America. And we can lower the corporate
rate if we get rid of all these special deals.
So I am ready, I am eager, to
work with Democrats and Republicans to reform the tax code to make it
simpler, make it fairer, and make America more competitive. But
any reform plan will have to raise revenue32 to help close our
deficit. That has to be part of the formula. And any reform
should follow another simple principle: Middle-class families
shouldn’t pay higher taxes than millionaires and billionaires33.
That’s pretty straightforward. It’s hard to argue against
that. Warren Buffett’s secretary shouldn’t pay a higher tax rate
than Warren Buffett. There is no justification for it.
It is wrong that in the
United States of America, a teacher or a nurse or a construction worker
who earns $50,000 should pay higher tax rates than somebody pulling in
$50 million. Anybody who says we can’t change the tax code to
correct that, anyone who has signed some pledge to protect every single
tax loophole so long as they live, they should be called out.
They should have to defend that unfairness — explain why somebody
who’s making $50 million a year in the financial markets should
be paying 15 percent on their taxes, when a teacher making $50,000 a
year is paying more than that — paying a higher rate. They ought
to have to answer for it. And if they’re pledged to keep that
kind of unfairness in place, they should remember, the last time I
checked the only pledge that really matters is the pledge we take to
uphold the Constitution34.
Now, we’re already hearing
the usual defenders of these kinds of loopholes saying this is just
“class warfare.” I reject the idea that asking a hedge fund
manager to pay the same tax rate as a plumber35
or a teacher is class
warfare. I think it’s just the right the thing to do. I
believe the American middle class, who’ve been pressured relentlessly
for decades, believe it’s time that they were fought for as hard36
lobbyists and some lawmakers have fought to protect special treatment
for billionaires and big corporations.
Nobody wants to punish
success in America. What’s great about this country is our belief
that anyone can make it and everybody should be able to try -– the idea
that any one of us can open a business or have an idea and make us
millionaires or billionaires. This is the land of
opportunity. That’s great. All I’m saying is that those who
have done well, including me, should pay our fair share in taxes to
contribute to the nation that made our success possible. We
shouldn’t get a better deal than ordinary families get. And I
think most wealthy Americans would agree if they knew this would help
us grow the economy and deal with the debt that threatens our future.
It comes down to this:
We have to prioritize. Both parties agree that we need to reduce
the deficit by the same amount — by $4 trillion. So what choices
are we going to make to reach that goal? Either we ask the
wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share in taxes, or we’re going
to have to ask seniors to pay more for Medicare. We can’t afford
to do both.
Either we gut education and
medical research, or we’ve got to reform the tax code so that the most
profitable corporations have to give up tax loopholes that other
companies don’t get. We can’t afford to do both.
This is not class
warfare. It’s math. (Laughter.) The money is going to
have to come from someplace. And if we’re not willing to ask
those who’ve done extraordinarily well to help America close the
deficit and we are trying to reach that same target of $4 trillion,
then the logic, the math says everybody else has to do a whole lot
more: We’ve got to put the entire burden on the middle class and
the poor. We’ve got to scale back on the investments that have
always helped our economy grow. We’ve got to settle for
second-rate roads and second-rate bridges and second-rate airports, and
schools that are crumbling.
That’s unacceptable to
me. That’s unacceptable to the American people. And it will
not happen on my watch. I will not support — I will not support
— any plan that puts all the burden for closing our deficit on
ordinary Americans. And I will veto any bill that changes
benefits for those who rely on Medicare but does not raise serious
revenues by asking the wealthiest Americans or biggest corporations to
pay their fair share. We are not going to have a one-sided deal
that hurts the folks who are most vulnerable.
None of the changes I’m
proposing are easy or politically convenient. It’s always more
popular to promise the moon and leave the bill for after the next
election or the election after that. That’s been true since our
founding. George Washington grappled with this problem. He
said, “Towards the payment of debts, there must be revenue; that to
have revenue there must be taxes; [and] no taxes can be devised which
are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant.” He understood
that dealing with the debt is — these are his words — “always a
choice of difficulties.” But he also knew that public servants
weren’t elected to do what was easy; they weren’t elected to do what
was politically advantageous. It’s our responsibility to put
country before party. It’s our responsibility to do what’s right
for the future.
And that’s what this debate
is about. It’s not about numbers on a ledger; it’s not about
figures on a spreadsheet. It’s about the economic future of this
country, and it’s about whether we will do what it takes to create jobs
and growth and opportunity while facing up to the legacy of debt that
threatens everything we’ve built over generations.
And it’s also about
fairness. It’s about whether we are, in fact, in this together,
and we’re looking out for one another. We know what’s
right. It’s time to do what’s right. 38
Thank you very much.
- If the act will “lead to” new jobs, who
will follow? Where is the demand for the goods and services to be
produced by those new hires? Where is the money to pay their recruiting
costs, wages, benefits & payroll taxes while waiting for
markets to develop? How many jobs will this act lead to, and how
much will each of them cost the taxpayers?
- Have you considered restoring the old jobs
that were lost? Millions would be happy to have their old jobs
- New Jobs: for unionized labor only; so
that their dues will flow into your campaign war chest. When you
list beneficiaries, you are selecting winners– the favored few who
vote for you– and losers; that is not the proper role of
- How will you “pay for” those tax cuts? How
large will they be: will they be enough to pay for one re-hire for each
- Extraordinary claims call for extraordinary
proof. Prove that every small business will have its taxes
significantly cut. Prove that “virtually every working” man and woman
will have their taxes significantly cut. Show us the money!
- It could wait for months, then
for weeks until after your luxury vacation to Martha’s Vineyard but now
it seems to be an item of the utmost urgency. We are not so stupid; we
remember how you rushed through Obama
Don’t Care with such great urgency that they had to “pass it to
find out what’s in it”. We want the House of Representatives to
deliberate carefully before killing this bill.
- A proposal is only “fully
paid for” if you have ready cash in your checking account; cash not
needed for operating expenses or already allocated to something else.
Taxes are dynamic, not static. There is no assurance that your tax
proposals will raise the anticipated revenue.
you want to reduce the debt,. first quit borrowing, then start making
periodic payments on the principle instead of rolling over the
debt. Quit wasting borrowed money!
in new hires requires surplus funds over and above anticipated
operating costs & inventory. You can’t cut business taxes
enough to finance hiring. Businesses require profits. They
need increased sales and increased profit margins. Increased demand
must proceed hiring. Time bombs such as increased
costs and taxes associated with Obama
and new energy related regulations and taxes militate against
hiring. If you want to create jobs, remove those artificial
threat of unemployment is a major factor in economic insecurity and
lack of confidence but it is not the only factor. Energy costs,
particularly motor fuel and heating oil are at the top of the list of
factors detrimental to consumer confidence because they raise the price
of everything. When you can’t afford to fill your fuel tank, your
ability to get to and from work is jeopardized. The remedy is
obvious: remove all federally imposed artificial barriers to domestic
petroleum exploration, production, transportation and
refining.Increasing the supply and reducing the price of fuel is a
vital component without which no economic recovery plan can succeed.
Democrat Party bears most of the blame for profligate spending; the
RINOs in Congress share that blame. When Republican Presidents
succumbed to the blandishments of spending cuts in return for tax
increases, the spending cuts never materialized., they are always a
fond dream, just over the horizon.
cuts for multi-millionaires and
billionaires” waves the red flag of class warfare; the politics of
envy. Besides being a threat and promise to strangle the golden
goose, these class warfare attacks are part of an escalating rabble
rousing campaign designed to foment riots and race war. We
recognize what you are doing, and we find it beneath contempt.
Those with surplus funds, over and above their ordinary living
expenses, are the ones who invest, making hiring, innovation and new
products possible. When their disposable income is reduced
through tax increases, investment will be the first casualty.
Consumption of luxury goods and services will be the second casualty,
resulting in decreased income and job loss for those involved in their
production and distribution.
Mr. President, you are sowing envy, hatred & division when we need
unity more than ever. You are threatening reduced economic growth when
we need growth most. Your policies are counter productive,
reducing instead of increasing hiring. The time has come for you
- FDR’s Socialist agenda did not
pull us out of the Great Depression, do you have a clue what did?
The real estate bubble was the major factor in this depression. What
party was behind that artificial expansion? What role did Barney
Frank & Chris Dodd play in it? Who refused to reform Fannie
Mae & Freddy Mac? How much cheaper would the counter attack
on Afghanistan have been if we had nuked that den of demon spawn?
How many American lives would have been saved? How many
terrorists and tyrants would be having second thoughts about attacking
- When revenues declined, you
escalated spending. What did TARP, Stimulus & Porkulus
accomplish? Where did that money go except to your cronies &
- No, damn
you!! Washington must live within our means!!! Everything Washington
gets comes out of our pockets! You are taxing us to death and ruining
us with artificially inflated energy prices.
- Investment comes from
surplus. When there is no surplus, there can be no investment!
- Education is a state and local function,
- Have you ever heard about the
Highway Trust Fund? Its purpose is federal highway construction
you go again, rabble rousing with class envy. Nobody is
suggesting “balancing the budget on the backs of the poor” except
class warfare attacks must come to an end, preferably prior to January
- Define “fair share”; quantify
it. How much is fair? Justify your answer without appeal to emotion.
- Start with the benefit
packages received by the President & Congress.
- Those wars are
not won. The lid will come off of Iraq when we leave, and Iran
will take over, with terrible consequences for the long term. The
war in Afghanistan is lost so long as the population & government
remain Islamic. Until there is no Islam there is no victory,
there is a loss and a total waste, your refusal to identify the enemy
and your suicidal rules of engagement are wasting American blood &
treasure. When our troops come home, you will find an alternative way
to waste that money.
- Where is your 2011 budget? Where
is your 1010 budget? When will you submit your 2012 budget?
- Really? Or are you
screwing care providers and calling it cost reduction?
- Translation: import more
Mexicans & Muslims in hopes that they will breed workers to pay
taxes to support us geezers. In reality, they will add to the welfare
burden, not the tax coffers.
- Corporations do not pay taxes,
they pass them on to consumers. The middle class and poor will get
stuck with the knives you throw at the “biggest corporations”.
You are using us as human shields in your class warfare.
- What we can’t afford is your
spendthrift ways. Shrub’s tax rate cuts brought in revenue, they
did not reduce it. Everyone knows that you are playing class warfare;
divide & conquer and we won’t accept it.
- How about the
Alternative Minimum Tax, which was designed to snag the rich and now
eviscerates the middle class? Your party refuses to fix that problem,
asserting that “we can’t afford it”. The telephone tax was
supposed to be temporary. The income tax was supposed to be limited to
the millionaires. We all know how those promises turned out.
- Who wrote that complex code? Which party
ran Congress for 50 years, and held the chairmanship of the House Ways
and Means Committee?
- Do you mean General
- Retarded members of your party
understand neither economics nor mathematics. Multiplication problems
have two inputs, not one. Revenues can be increased by broadening the
base more easily than by increasing the rate. Economic growth will
broaden the tax base. Raising rates reduces growth and narrows the tax
should anyone pay higher taxes? Please answer that question
rationally, without appeal to emotion, particularly envy. Is Buffet
paying more in net taxes or less than his secretary? Why should
any income be taxed twice?
when do you give a damn about the Constitution? When you rammed through
your unconstitutional medical insurance mandate? Kiss off,
- The capital gains rate
is lower because that money has already been taxed twice, once to a
corporation and once to the dividend earner. If you want
corporations to be able to sell stock so that they can grow and hire
more workers, then you need to have a free flowing stock market.
Capital gains rates and rules dry up that flow, creating artificial
dams. Your class warfare policy is counterproductive.
- Fighting against the “wealthy”
is not fighting for the middle class, it is killing their jobs and
employment prospects. Your class warfare tactics must be exposed
- Do what is right, Mr.
President: resign. Take your Vice President, Secretary of State &
President of the Senate with you and elevate the Speaker of the House
to the office you are unqualified for and unworthy to hold.
No comments yet.