12

Obama administration “balanced approach” short on the “balance” part

Obama administration staffers discussing President Obama’s proposed balanced approach to reducing the deficit a few dollars – there is no interest in discussing the debt or unfunded future liabilities – have shown little or no interest in spending cuts.

Please read this post and share with Democrats and liberals. Preach to the choir if you’d like, but we must reach out and start a reasonable discussion with supporters of Obama and liberals. 

Honestly, this is a win-win situation for Obama in the political and media arena. He can just keep speaking of a balanced approach, but all he really says is “the rich” need to pay their “fair share.” That’s not just a code word, it’s an outright demand individual earners who make more than $200,000 and families making $250,000 pay a higher tax rate on every dollar they earn over the target.

If the president does not get that higher percentage he can just not move forward with anything. He’s drawn a line in the sand with the GOP and is more than willing to go over the cliff since he can blame Republicans for not compromising and the media will back him up.

Just as a side note, the administration refuses to draw a line in the sand with Hamas or Iran…

From The Weekly Standard. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner visited with Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)…

Geithner suggested $1.6 trillion in tax increases, McConnell says, but showed “minimal or no interest” in spending cuts. When congressional leaders went to the White House three days after the election, Obama talked of possible curbs on the explosive growth of food stamps and Social Security disability payments. But since Geithner didn’t mention them, those reductions appear to be off the table now, McConnell says.

Talking points for the day. You must take action and share these points not just with like-minded conservatives, but with Democrats who support Obama and the liberals. Start the discussion. Emotion is the only thing not on our side… bring them logic and facts.

  • The president’s proposed tax rate on income earned more than $200,000/$250,000 will bring in little if any revenue. I calculated the proposed increase would bring in $40 billion a year after stacking the deck in Obama’s favor. I remember Bret Baier at Fox News mentioned $80 billion, and Charles Krauthammer called it a rounding error.
  • The estimate is so fragile, there is a good possibility revenue to the federal treasury from all those “rich people” would actually go down in the immediate future. That’s right, I think their overall federal tax rate as a percentage of income could go down.
  • Obama and Warren Buffet are lying to you. The rich certainly do pay a much higher percentage of income in federal taxes as compared to the middle class. Buffet is an extreme outlier and tax policy should not be driven by extreme outlier examples.
  • The president has proposed no meaningful cuts to the size of the federal government. None. As usual, Democrats (and Republicans for that matter) do not seem to be interested in relinquishing power back to the states to reduce the size of the federal deficit and eventually the debt.
  • Yes, this means state budgets would growif we wanted the services. But then we’d have 50 states competing to do everything better. Admit it, you’d want to live in the state that provides quality services to you for the lowest cost. At the federal level it’s a government bureaucratic spending monopoly.

Time to act. Share the above talking points via Facebook, Twitter and email. It’s time to get out of your comfort zone people. You must have conversations with liberals, Democrats and Republicans that just don’t get it.

Filed in: Economics, Featured, Government Tags: , ,

Related Posts

Bookmark and Promote!

From the owners: This section is for comments from Radio Vice Online's registered readers. Never assume the owners of this site agree with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use - a must read if you wish to contribute here - may lose their posting privileges. Just because we've let a similar comment stand in the past does not mean we'll let it stand in the future.

Trackbacks

12 Responses to "Obama administration “balanced approach” short on the “balance” part"

  1. yeah says:

    See, this is where I get lost, this whole “take action” thing, where you “contact your congressman” and they “listen to your concerns” and then somehow “take action on those concerns” and dont just give you a pre-canned form-letter telling you how sympathetic and caring they are to the plight of their citizens – and that they’ve already analyzed the matter and have come to the opposite conclusion as you, so sorry, since “if you live in Corrupticut, if you’re a conservative, us legislators have no need to listen to you.”

    • I’m sorry, I should be more clear. Forget contacting the congress-critters, you need to contact your friends, family, co-workers and acquaintances and start convincing THEM. Get out of your comfort zone and start having those uncomfortable conversations.

      • yeah says:

        Ya know Steve, I dont know that I’ve ever convinced anyone, no matter how much data you have in front of you.  Anyone with half a brain and half of the available information can easily reach the correct conclusion on it, but anyone with less or that’s already convinced of their gravy train ride, there’s no way they’re going to change their mind.  With all the debating people I did running up to the election, there were still a lot of people that just said “well I dont trust romney, so I’m voting for Obama”…super facepalm!
        “Touching entitlements is still a no-no,” no matter how much the math tells you it is absolutely INSANE and self destructive to leave them as is.

      • yeah says:

        IOTW, we have to really be experiencing what Greece is before people are going to wake up about it.  I’ve come to simply expect such a scenario.

  2. Murphy says:

    We are just secured with a helical fastener, they didn’t pass a budget and or address this in the last four years and they got voted back into office anyway.

  3. Dimsdale says:

    Democrats always ridicule “anecdotal” evidence, but using outliers is perfectly okay, although they are the true anecdotes.
     
    The “I won” mentality has worsened with the “I won again” mentality.

  4. Dimsdale says:

    Øbamanomics is inherently unbalanced, both mentally and economically.

  5. stinkfoot says:

    The hubris of “It’s balanced because I SAY it’s balanced”.  This administration has demonstrated that it places zero premium on being forthcoming to the public so I fail to see anything surprising here- and to be reelected on a record of such blatant contempt for what’s best for the country I refuse to get stressed about something that has yet to play out.  Clearly we’re fated to follow this destructive process to the bitter end- when the radical left runs out of other people’s money.  Any talk of balance is to placate anyone marginally paying attention.

  6. JBS says:

    Equality to a Liberal is: He/she has half a horse, you have have half a chicken. They will say, in effect, it’s equal. We each got a half!
    I dislike that the Left has defined the terms of their narrative. The MSM echos their dialog. Terms like, fair, equal, outcomes, balance, etc. have become code words. They can nudge and wink at each other, speak in cliches (e.g., lump of coal), all without thinking about anything. Talk about comfort zones.
    This thing, sad to say, has to hit a LOT of people hard in the wallet before a majority will even admit that there is a problem. Getting them to even think that they are the problem, that’s a stretch. 
    How about Barry sets the example by only taking $1 per year as HIS salary? He did say he had more than enough money.
    On spreading the word, let’s just say that being a missionary in a land of political heathens is tough.
     

  7. Lynn says:

    This election proved an incumbent with a 7.9% unemployment rate could get re-elected. After Franklin D. Roosevelt, this was thought to be almost impossible. Could it be that the electorate just doesn’t care about facts? If they get their news from John Stewart and Bill Maher, why would they listen to facts? Being cool is all these math phobic robots care about. 
     http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20068682-503544.html

  8. Lynn says:

    Ok, maybe during the Christmas season, I will put the rose-colored glasses back on. 

© 2008-2014 Radio Vice Online Inc. All rights reserved | FAQ | Terms of Use | Advertise
Implemented and managed by Spider Creations LLC.