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.
"There is a lot that can happen over time," Summers said, adding that the administration believes "it is never a good idea to absolutely rule things out, no matter what."
During his presidential campaign, Obama repeatedly vowed "you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime." But the simple reality remains that his ambitious overhaul of how Americans receive health care -- promised without increasing the federal deficit -- must be paid for.
"If we want an economy that's going to grow in the future, people have to understand we have to bring those deficits down. And it's going to be difficult, hard for us to do. And the path to that is through health care reform," Geithner said. "We're not at the point yet where we're going to make a judgment about what it's going to take."
(hat tip, Ace)
Oh, just for the record, Instapundit dug up this vid of the Prevaricator-In-Chief on the stump telling you that '95% of Americans will not see their taxes raised.' Remember that one?
I pity the Obamabots..they didn't even get kissed first.Ah well..I guess you can always just keep blaming it all on Bush and see how far that takes you.
Yeah, now the poor wealthy elite will have to pay more than 15%. By not increasing their taxes, the Rockefellers, Waltons, the puppet master in the Illuminazis and so on will remain rich, while the middle class: left center and right will have to make up for their frivolity.
ReplyDeleteUhhh....thanks Anonymous.
ReplyDeleteYou let me know when the shuttle lands.
An increase in taxes right now will not bring the deficit down. It will do the opposite. Increasing taxes right now will strngle the economy even more and this will lead to a decrease in government revenues as opposed to an increase. Mr. Geithner and Mr. Summers must be aware of this. Surely they aren't that stupid.
ReplyDeleteI think they have another agenda. Increasing taxes right now is almost certain to make the economy worse. If the economy stays the same as it is now or gets worse, the Democrats will face an uphill battle getting reelected in 2010. If the economy improves, the Democrats coast to victory and likely increase their margins in both the House and the Senate.
Since their policies are likely to make things worse and not better and they must know this, apparently they plan to use a combination of the police, the military, and voter intimidation to stay in power. This formula has worked elsewhere in the world. Perhaps they think it can work here. Time will tell if they are correct.
Your last sentence I think is especially relevant. Blaming Bush will not work forever. Right now we are in the "Bush Economy." At least this is what the voters believe and every one knows how bad Bush was as President. As such, Obama is getting much more leeway from the voters than would typically be expected, however, the patience of the voting public is not infinite. At some point, they will expect results from Obama and if those results are not seen this will eventually become the "Obama economy."
I estimate Obama has until early 2010 for this to turn around before it becomes the "Obama economy." How long do you think he has or do you think I'm off base entirely? If you think I'm off base and you have time to respond to this, please explain what you think the flaws in my thinking are. As always, your responses are much appreciated.
Hi Poster,
ReplyDeleteFirst, this already is 'the Obama Economy'. This may help you understand why I say that.
I agree with you that the idea here is to make the economy worse, although I doubt that Obama and his cohorts see it that way. To them, it's a matter of 'remaking America' in their own image of neo-Marxism, with the idea of making huge portions of the American electorate desperate and dependent on government for their basic needs, thus cementing Democrat control for decades.
People don't vote against their paychecks, their health care ( even if it is rationed, poorly run and horrendously expensive) or their housing, even if it is substandard, dangerous and crowded. Deficits at that point cease to matter even if it means that productivity and the economy plummets, the American dream becomes a myth and a memory and the basic fabric of American society is destroyed. This is particularly true if you can somehow convince them that 'somebody else' is paying the tab.
Eventually, the whole house of cards collapses, but by then Obama and his posse will be long gone.
Why else do you think black people have continued to vote Democrat almost as a bloc, even when the party's policies clearly victimize them?
So no, I don't think Obama has until 2010 to turn this around. He's not thinking in those terms.
You also underestimate his narcissism, and the fact that he's not anywhere near as smart as he's made out to be.
Regards,
Rob
Thanks for the reply to may post. Sorry it took so long to respond.
ReplyDelete"People don't vote against their paychecks their health care..." This is all likely true, however, they do vote for these things and they are unlikely to vote for substandard health care or sub standard pay. These types of things will get the Democrats out of office very quickly, unless they can use the police and the military to cement their control.
In fact, this is probably what got Bill Clinton elected in 1992. He and his team managed to convince people that the economy was failing and if they did not vote for him they would all lose their jobs. In actuality, the economy was improving late in the term of George H.W. Bush and Mr. Clinton got to take credit for an economy that was already well on its way to growth even before he came into office!!
"Deficits at that point cease to matter..." With all due respect they become even more problematic than they are in a robust growing economy. Tax increases, at this point, will likely decrease the tax revenues flowing into government coffers rather than increase them. This hampers the ability to implement Obama's agenda. This can be overcome in one of two ways or a combination of them. Print more money or issue more government debt. Neither of these options are sustainable. In fact, a continuation of these polices would result in "house of cards" collapsing before Obama and company are long gone. In fact, it will likely happen by 2011 at the latest.
No, I don't underestimate Obama's narscissim. This is why I think he will go full speed ahead with his policies regardless what the electorate says, regardless what Congress says, or even foreign creditors say. If this continues and the American people don't stop him, as they can, foreign creditors such as China and others will stop him. I don't think we want to be on the receiving end of that.
You asked why blacks continue to vote Democrat. I'm not entirely sure, however, I think it has to with social polices pushed by Democrats. Unfortunately the policies they seem to like such as affirmitve action and the well fare state become more problematic to sustain during a time of economic challenges. During robust economic times people are more likely to tolerate policies of things like affirmitve action and Government handouts for people of certain demographic groups.
ReplyDeleteIn other words, it is worthwhile for a political party like the Democrats to support policies that benefit certain groups at the expense of others during robust economic times, however, during a deeply struggling economic time these such policies have the real potential to alienate more voters than they will win to the cause of the party or group who supports excessive benefits to a certain group based on skin color, political views or something simillar.
The "house of cards" of something like affirmitve action will eventually collapse, however, it could take some time. With that said, if the economy does not improve soon, the house of cards may collapse very soon.
Examples of the long range negative consequences of this are the appointment of officer candidates to the military academies based on factors other than ability means that unless this policy is changed the United States will fight future wars with inferior leadership. This could be devestating.
If there is a silver lining, one way or another affirmitve action and the well fare state end some day. These policies cannot be sustained in the real world. The question is can the United States survive these policies long enough to learn this lesson. If we are forced to fight the next war with inferior leadership, our enemies may teach us this leasson in a most unpleasent way.