Free Markets, Free People


Obama tries to use the middle class to spin increasing taxes on the “wealthy”

Oh, my … the White House is on the offensive trying to save the middle class, or something:

The White House has launched a new offensive in its fight with congressional Republicans over taxes, arguing 114 million middle-class families will see their taxes rise without action by Congress.

A report from President Obama’s National Economic Council released Monday contends the families would see their taxes rise by an average of $1,600 if the George W. Bush-era tax cuts expire as scheduled at the end of the year.

A) they’re not tax cuts, they’ve been the tax rate for years.

B) Republicans have already made an offer.  They said they are willing to extend the rates for all so it is obviously not a tax increase the middle class must suffer.

Of course, that’s where the rub is, because the Democratic Senate and the White House want to raise taxes on a certain level of income earner.  They’ve staked their class warfare gig on it.

Because, you see, they’re trying to convince everyone that’s only “fair” and to further imply it will solve the insolvency problem.  Well they’re wrong, as usual, on both counts.

Here, take a look at this.  Even those who don’t count economics as their strong suit should be able to figure out what this means:

Bush-Tax-Cuts-Extension-Chart-580

That’s right, the problem isn’t revenue.  The problem has nothing to do with high income earners and their “fair share”.  It has to do with out of control spending which has accelerated dramatically under this president.  And, oh by the way, the increase in taxes on the wealthy would be a mere drop in the bucket of red ink Obama has charted out for the next 10 years.

So while he whines about a $1,600 tax per family if no action is taken, ask him what he’s adding in debt per family with a 10 year plan to spend $46.9 trillion dollars we don’t have, okay?

~McQ

Twitter: @McQandO

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • email
  • Print
  • Google Bookmarks

38 Responses to Obama tries to use the middle class to spin increasing taxes on the “wealthy”

  • Wasn’t it about a year ago that the “Bush tax cuts” were Obama’s flavor of the week excuse for why the recovery was so bad? He is a real class act, isn’t he?

  • Simple math: $14,242.42 tax burden for every man women and child, every year. And that’s just the part we can’t pay.
    If Half of Americans and all the non-Americans hardly pay a dime, now we’re up to $28,484.85 per sucker/per year, I mean taxpayer.
    Sane people ask: “when the rubber meets the road, then what?” We can’t put off debt forever. Do we plan on just screwing the Chinese? are we going to say Oh, so sorry…no money, wash dishes?
    Are we at the point where more people are on the cart then are pulling the cart? If so, we are literally ‘dead beat’ credit risks.
    So this was the ‘change’ Barry was talking about. We had better ‘hope’ the Chinese are good slave masters.

  • Sane people ask: “when the rubber meets the road, then what?” We can’t put off debt forever.
    Yes we can.  Have the Fed continue to monetize the debt.

    • You CAN monetize a national debt forever???
      How does that look?

      • 1) Get the economy growing faster than government spending.
        2) Keep inflation running ahead of both of those too through money printing, but just a bit.
        3) People being fooled by the growth, having jobs, and seeing government spending as % of GDP shrinking might be okay with it.

        Is that even technically possible?

        • China does something similar actually. Savers get screwed but they see all these skyscrapers going up and assume that everything is going well, so let’s now worry that we lose money on our CDs in banks after inflation.

      • Sure you can, if you’re willing to pay a billion Marks…I mean Dollars, for a loaf of bread.
        Well, that’d be okay if it’s Chompies.
        Instead of a wheelbarrow to bring the money to the store, we’ll need ATM cards capable of handling twelve digits.

    • Doesn’t that result un hyperinflation?

      • Most likely. But its better than telling old people that politicians over-promised them stuff years ago and now you have to live on slightly less.
        I think we can also default on all bonds held by foreign state institutions to help a little.

        • Eventually, however, you run out of rubes.  You cannot long sell your bonds to yourself, because eventually they are OBVIOUSLY worthless.  Seems to me…

          • The vast majority of people, even the bourgeoisie, don’t think THAT far ahead.

          • But the assertion was you can monetize forever.  Clearly not.

    • There are other countries out there who are really upset that the US can just print more dollars.  Meanwhile, this whole process generates a hidden inflation that has been degrading the equity markets and, hence, degrades the valuations of pensions and other retirement vehicles.

  • 114 million middle-class families will see their taxes rise without action by Congress

    But…whooooah…stop those presses….!!!!
    For two decades, we’ve been ASSURED by the Deemocrats these were “tax cuts for only the wealthiest Americans“.
    So…WTF…!?!?!

    • Just like most of the rhetoric Obama has been throwing around about the Bush tax cuts, that is bogus. These tax cuts benefited a lot of people, more than just the wealthiest Americans. But, that would be the truth and it doesn’t fit his narrative.

  • “ 114 million middle-class families will see their taxes rise ”

    Wait one. 114 million families X 2.2 people/family(a slight underestimate, I believe) = 250 million people. The total US population is 314 million. Thus, at least 80% of the population is middle-class. Sounds a bit high to me.

    • That includes dead Chicago voters.

    • “Wait one. 114 million families X 2.2 people/family(a slight underestimate, I believe) = 250 million people. ”

      He’s counting the population of all 57 states, you guys are only working with 50.

       

  • And yet you complain about the supposed half of all American who pay no income taxes, and if half of ALL their total assets (not just income) were taxed away, it would add up to less than this 3% increase on adjusted gross income over $250k.

    There is no way to either tax or cut our way out of this, though we should do both, but ultimately, the only way out of this hole is to grow our way out of it.

    As to how we grow our way out of it, the options vary along ideological lines, but ultimately we are consumption based economy, so unless we find some very big new growth components other than consumer spending, consumers are going to have to spend more. Since they already spend all they have, that’s going to be tough. Over the last decade or so, consumer spending was propped up with debt (less available now) and home equity (gone). More people working would increase the amount consumers could spend, but from my point of view, hiring won’t lead increases in spending, instead, consumer spending will have to lead hiring.

    Some folks have suggested protectionist policies that push some manufacturing back to America. I am generally not a fan of protectionism, but on the other hand, I see no reason why would should allow unfettered trade with nations that do not adhere to responsible trade practices. If we enact policies that enhance freedom and democracy (and cost) of foreign imports, we might lose the ability to purchase $19 chainsaws, but we might see improvement across the board.

    We cannot compete with virtual slave labor, and shouldn’t try. If we put tarrifs on imports from Communist countries, yes, the price of goods would go up.  That would make American-made goods more attractive to American consumers (still the largest consumer market on the planet); which would make production in the U. S. more attractive, creating jobs, increasing wages, and offsetting the increase in prices with real increases in wages.

    Maybe we would have a trade war, but I think that is a foregone conclusion anyway, better we have it from our position of relative strenght now then later when we are in deep trouble.

    just a thought.

    • “We cannot compete with virtual slave labor, and shouldn’t try.”

      Well, except for the low wage benefit we receive from allowing ‘undocumented workers’ to flood across our southern border to ‘do jobs Americans won’t do’ (for $4.00 an hour in cash….).

      And I blame whichever party for this since neither of them seem particularly keen on stopping it.

      • I don’t disagree Looker, and I don’t think anyone in power particularly wants this stopped (or it would have been). But in a good economy, we don’t really care, and if every undocumented worker that was being paid under the table disappeared tomorrow, it would not put a dent in the problem.

        We had a nasty hail storm in my neighborhood last month and it seems that about 75% of the roofs in the neighborhood are being replaced. As I walk around my neighborhood, Spanish seems to be the only language I hear. Whether these folks are American citizens, or legal immigrants, or undocumented workers with fake ID’s, or illegals being paid under the table I have no idea. But employers do what they think is best for them, and if it is easy, cheap, and profitable to hire illegals, with no real negative consequences, of course that is what they are going to do. It may even be that a roofer could not even compete in the business if they didn”t do “what everyone else is doing”.

        Still, our cheapest illegals are virtual millionaires compared to the wages paid to cheap labor in the countries that make many of our imported items. I’d rather be illegal here than legal in a factory in China.

    • Again, you come out in favor of limiting individual choice via BIGGER government.
      Heh.
      Like Erp, constant as the Northern Star.

      • “Again, you come out in favor of limiting individual choice via BIGGER government.”

        Do you support open borders, or a big government solution to prevent people we don not want from entering the country?

        But when I suggest the same thing regarding products imported by big governments (don’t forget, China is still a Communist country), you call it a big government solution to be dismissed out of hand.

        Are you just a hypocrit, or do you really not understand your own ideology.

        • You REALLY do not begin to comprehend the BIG GOVERNMENT v. small government dichotomy, do you?
          Or is it you just chose to lie?
          Controlling our national borders is not a BIG GOVERNMENT activity.  Any viable nation does it.
          Or was that just another of your red herrings to deflect from your Collectivist choice-robbing urge, lying behind your real world-view?

          • It takes big government to control borders, it also takes big government to manage trade rules.

            Do you believe that the federal government should not have the power to make trade rules relating to foreign interests, would you have open borders for trade with no restrictions whatsoever, or is trade another big government power you wish to have continued?

          • It takes big government to control borders

            Yep.  You are too stupid to get this stuff.  Thank you for participating in this demonstration.

          • It doesn’t take ‘big’ government – it takes a government doing the job it was tasked with, and staying the hell out of job’s it has no business doing.

            Like Health Care.

    • “There is no way to either tax or cut our way out of this,”

      Right. Because that trillion dollars of “temporary” spending for ‘shovel ready’ stimulus projects has somehow become an essential permanent part of our economy. To some of us, that comes as no surprise.

      • Of course, predictable though it was, it is still Bulls**t. With a capital B.

      • “Because that trillion dollars of “temporary” spending for ‘shovel ready’ stimulus projects has somehow become an essential permanent part of our economy.”

        Are you now asserting that we have a trillion dollars in stimulus spending every year?

        We may have a trillion dollar deficit every year, but that has little to do with new spending and great deal with lower revenues following a revenue/budget situation that was heavily in the red when the economy was goos.

        Do you think that since most posters agree with anything that attacks the left and supports the right that no one is going to notice when you make things up? Perhaps that is the way of it.