State of the Union Thoughts: Campaign Obama Is Back
Posted by Ashish on 01.24.2012
Obama offers stark contrast to GOP candidates...
Thoughts on tonight's State of the Union address from President Obama. Note that as usual, I'll be examining the speech from a political/tactical standpoint than a policy standpoint.
* Campaign Obama is back. The closing to tonight's State of the Union, a portion that will likely be part of his election stump speech in the coming months, was extremely strong and effective. It was the type of soaring rhetoric that won Obama the election in 2008. It remains to be seen if that type of rhetoric that Obama is famous for will work as well this time as it did last, but he still has those speech-giving chops and being able to deliver a strong, emotional, passionate speech is always an asset for a politician, particularly if he gets to run against Mitt Romney, a guy who generally lacks emotion and passion. Make no mistake, this speech was aimed at Romney, pretty clear Obama is expecting him to be the nominee. It was designed in almost every way to create contrasts to who Romney is and how he comes off.
* Romney picked a pretty bad day to release his tax rate. Most of the country agrees that the extremely wealthy should pay a higher tax rate, and with Obama stating tonight that millionaires and billionaires should pay a 30% tax rate, Romney's 13.9% tax rate is going to continue to be a huge target from now until November (assuming he is the Republican nominee). That 13.9% tax rate, fair or unfair, will be a huge albatross around Romney's neck.
* The speech was particularly effective, I thought, because Obama hasn't been on primetime TV like this in about five months. In those five months, we've seen the Republican vision in the debates and we've seen the caricature of Obama as a radical extremist who hates religion, hates business, hates money, hates the opposition, hates the military, etc. With that as the backdrop, the contrast of how Obama actually comes off in speeches was even stronger. As always, regardless of what you think of his policies, he doesn't come off as the caricature that Republicans have tried to paint him as.
* This speech won't change anything in Washington, D.C. The partisanship will continue. This speech was about a contrasting vision from what we have heard from the Republican candidates for months, and it was a strongly delivered contrast.
The speech was on the long side, but overall, a pretty effective speech that set the major themes for the 2012 election. More so, it served as a reminder of the level that Obama campaigns at. It's a level that is higher than the one that most of the GOP candidates have, so far, been at. The eventual GOP nominee, whether it's Romney or Gingrich, will have to be ready for what will be a very brutal election.
It also raised a big question -- will Obama's ability to deliver passionate, emotional speeches still be effective at a time of such high unemployment? Will the country still be receptive to that type of soaring rhetoric or will they just roll their eyes? The answer to that question will go a long way in determining who wins.
If tonight's speech is a guide, the 2012 election will offer a huge contrast on the issue of wealth inequality in America, particularly if Romney is the nominee. Should be interesting.
So the man who extended the Bush tax cuts for the rich is going to campaign on raising taxes on the rich. Romney is going to be the nominee, and his "corporations are people my friend" heel schtick will secure Obama's second term.
So who will you vote for: Corporate Whore Red or Corporate Whore Blue? It's amazing to watch the most prosperous nation in history be devoured by these parasites while 80% of the public bickers over which crooks are the better ones.
Posted By: Jason Douglas (Registered) on January 24, 2012 at 11:41 PM
Ashish, seriously, you're falling for populist speak again? Really?
Mr. Obama is the biggest hypocrite in the history of politics.
Where's the heavy media coverage for signing the National Defense Authorization Act?
Didn't he have 2 years of Congress support, where are the jobs?
Yes, all of the unemployment problems are rich peoples fault.
What a joke. Please, go ahead an vote this transparent, well-spoken, but essentially clueless politician in again. Sheep.
Posted By: Guest#0329 (Guest) on January 25, 2012 at 01:19 AM
It's important to note that though Mitt Romney is only paying 15% taxes, he's also paying 15% of his income to charity, which is tax deductible. Put those two together and you're at 30%, my friend.
Are you seriously going to suggest that the wealthy shouldn't be allowed to deduct charitable donations from their taxes?
Posted By: Guest#3430 (Guest) on January 25, 2012 at 02:19 AM
Romney has no job. He is taxed on money made from investments (stocks, ETC) Are all of you really advocating for raising taxes on money made on investments to 35 percent???? REALLY????
See how much people invest when that happens.
Go ahead! Call for a 20 percent increase in taxes made from stock gains. GO AHEAD. You people are a joke.
Romney contributed 15 percent of his income to charity.....the mighty Obama...1 percent. 1 fricken percent. Joe Biden contributed 370 bucks.
Pathetic
Obama is only charitible with other peoples money.
Ashish fails
Posted By: J (Guest) on January 25, 2012 at 02:33 AM
Romney has no job. He is taxed on money made from investments (stocks, ETC) Are all of you really advocating for raising taxes on money made on investments to 35 percent???? REALLY????
See how much people invest when that happens.
Go ahead! Call for a 20 percent increase in taxes made from stock gains. GO AHEAD. You people are a joke.
Romney contributed 15 percent of his income to charity.....the mighty Obama...1 percent. 1 fricken percent. Joe Biden contributed 370 bucks.
Pathetic
Obama is only charitible with other peoples money.
Ashish fails
Posted By: J (Guest) on January 25, 2012 at 02:36 AM
It's important to note that though Mitt Romney is only paying 15% taxes, he's also paying 15% of his income to charity, which is tax deductible.
It's important to note that though Mitt Romney is only paying 15% taxes, he's also paying 15% of his income to charity, which is tax deductible. Put those two together and you're at 30%, my friend.
Are you seriously going to suggest that the wealthy shouldn't be allowed to deduct charitable donations from their taxes?
Posted By: Guest#3430 (Guest) on January 25, 2012 at 02:19 AM
Yeah.. to the Mormon church. That's gonna fly REAL well with the republican base and independents...
Posted By: poffo316 (Guest) on January 25, 2012 at 03:21 AM
So a regurgitated failed message from 4 years ago turns the lefts fancy? Good luck with that.
Posted By: Guest#0256 (Guest) on January 25, 2012 at 03:28 AM
uh.. Sen. Rand Paul Delivers State of the Union Response – Jan 24 2012. Search it, watch it, learn it.
Posted By: Obawho? (Guest) on January 25, 2012 at 05:13 AM
It's important to note that though Mitt Romney is only paying 15% taxes, he's also paying 15% of his income to charity, which is tax deductible. Put those two together and you're at 30%, my friend.
Are you seriously going to suggest that the wealthy shouldn't be allowed to deduct charitable donations from their taxes?
Posted By: Guest#3430 (Guest) on January 25, 2012 at 02:19 AM
This is a nifty piece of sleight of hand. Yes, Romney donated a lot to charity, and for that he should be applauded, but that is not why he paid only 15% tax.
The bulk of Romney's money comes from capital gains and dividends. This is why he pays less than 15%. That's the maximum tax rate for income earned in that way.
And this underscores the real issue: It's not about Romney, it's about a tax system that is geared towards the middle income rate and designed to let the wealthiest pay as little as possible.
If Romney had paid 0% to charity, he would still only have paid 15% in tax. Why is that?
Why is it that a means of income that is beyond the reach of the common person (or at least beyond our reach as our primary form of income) should receive a lower tax rate than my middle class salary? What possible justification do we have for this system?
Posted By: Guest#7612 (Guest) on January 25, 2012 at 05:58 AM
"Are you seriously going to suggest that the wealthy shouldn't be allowed to deduct charitable donations from their taxes?
"
He never said anything like that. Nice strawman. Besides, charity is not taxes. Charity won't pay for things like our military expenses. So if Romney is pro military he should be willing to pay for it too.
Posted By: Guest#5969 (Guest) on January 25, 2012 at 08:06 AM
"Yes, all of the unemployment problems are rich peoples fault."
Well according to the Republican platform, business are responsible for creating jobs. If you accept that, they should be held responsible for unemployment as well. Can't have your cake and eat it too.
Posted By: Guest#2404 (Guest) on January 25, 2012 at 08:12 AM
"Romney has no job. He is taxed on money made from investments (stocks, ETC) Are all of you really advocating for raising taxes on money made on investments to 35 percent???? REALLY????"
Hell yeah. You said it yourself, he has no job. Why should he pay less than 15 when people that actually work for their money pay as much or more.
"See how much people invest when that happens. "
So the government should subsidize Wall Street, how very socialist of you.
"Romney contributed 15 percent of his income to charity.....the mighty Obama...1 percent. 1 fricken percent."
Even after deducting 15% for charity and 15% for taxed, Romeny's take home pay would still be larger that then Obama's gross pay. So you were comparing apples and oranges in the first place, (and lying about it to boot.)
Posted By: Guest#4779 (Guest) on January 25, 2012 at 08:22 AM
"Ashish, seriously, you're falling for populist speak again? Really?
Mr. Obama is the biggest hypocrite in the history of politics.
Where's the heavy media coverage for signing the National Defense Authorization Act?
Didn't he have 2 years of Congress support, where are the jobs?
Yes, all of the unemployment problems are rich peoples fault.
What a joke. Please, go ahead an vote this transparent, well-spoken, but essentially clueless politician in again. Sheep."
Posted By: Guest#0329 (Guest) on January 25, 2012 at 01:19 AM
Umm, NO. Calling someone a sheep while you're the one screaming "bah-bah" is the epitome of hypocrisy.
Do us all a favor and go play on the freeway. Seriously, please do!
Posted By: Da Truth (Guest) on January 25, 2012 at 08:29 AM
So the man who extended the Bush tax cuts for the rich is going to campaign on raising taxes on the rich.
Posted By: Jason Douglas (Registered) on January 24, 2012 at 11:41 PM
Being a contributer here Jason you really should know better.
The REASON that was done, was to extened unemployment in 2010 and get a Social Security Tax Cut. The ONLY way he could get that done was to extend the Tax Cuts for Republicans.
It is what used to be called compromise in order to get stuff done. However know it's apprently called being a corporate whore.
Posted By: you fail (Guest) on January 25, 2012 at 08:29 AM
So the man who extended the Bush tax cuts for the rich is going to campaign on raising taxes on the rich.
Posted By: Jason Douglas (Registered) on January 24, 2012 at 11:41 PM
Being a contributer here Jason you really should know better.
The REASON that was done, was to extened unemployment in 2010 and get a Social Security Tax Cut. The ONLY way he could get that done was to extend the Tax Cuts for Republicans.
It is what used to be called compromise in order to get stuff done. However know it's apprently called being a corporate whore.
Posted By: you fail (Guest) on January 25, 2012 at 08:29 AM
This.
To add, Obama(and I did not vote for him but will be in 2012) has actually been very consistent on keeping his word, if you agree with it or not is one thing, but he made 508 promises in his campaign and he has the unique ability to say he has acted on all 508 and has actually made good on 162 so far. That is impressive.
I'm also not anti-business at all, I think what he has done for business has been good, we are actually back to pre-economic crash jobless claims, GE is the biggest car manufacturer, and if you are in small business(I am) you have seen a ton of small business tax breaks and more importantly available credit.
He is far from perfect but I have honestly been impressed with him and his speech last night was targeted to adults where the GOP debates have been the equivalent to politics from Nickelodeon.
Posted By: Guest#4331 (Guest) on January 25, 2012 at 09:59 AM
I think we CAN blame a lot of the unemployment on the rich...
The Bush tax breaks, along with the entire concept of paying the lowest tax rate on investment type incomes, ensures that the wealthy pay a pittance (you can look at absolute dollar values but in doing so you piss on every tenet of a progressive, marginal tax system).
Oh and he doesn't pay FICA or Medicare on most, if not all, of his income either. There's another 5.7% he isn't paying.
Posted By: Guest#4283 (Guest) on January 25, 2012 at 11:17 AM
I am blown away by how many people want to raise the tax on income from investments from 15 to 35 percent. Why don't you guys make that the democratic platform? Go ahead, that would guarantee a republican victory.
"WE need to take twice as much of peoples investment income and re distribute it!!!"
Clowns
Posted By: Guest#5385 (Guest) on January 25, 2012 at 11:39 AM
Do you middle class champions on here realy believe Obama is the guy to reduce your tax burden? Sure, he might raise taxes on the rich, but that doesn't mean your taxes are going down. Defecit math says everybody's taxes are going to go up if you want all the things Barack Obama promises. Because as history shows, the rich can always hide their money when it's about to be confiscated, which means guess what? Good ol' Barry will reach his hands right into your pockets to fund his utopian fantasies, while he charms you with his "soaring" rhetoric (whatever Ashish--read some of Hugo Chavez's speeches and see how closely him and Obama view the rich). You then limit your chances and opportunities, with the more you encourage Obama to shrink the private sector in favor af a bigger and bigger government. If barely getting by at your government job is all you hope for in life, with no chance for advancement or new opportunites and challeneges, then vote for Obama. He can make that happen for you. Once he's done taking care of all his fat cat buddy/campaign donors from Wall Street that is.
Posted By: Da Man (Guest) on January 25, 2012 at 11:42 AM
To 'Guest#7612'
Great post, and pretty hard to argue with your logic. Too bad simple questions like that will never see the light of day in this political climate.
It’s way too easy just to scream at the other guy, and accuse them of being 'libtards' or 'whores' etc.
Every once in a while, I see a posting here in 411 politics that makes trudging through all the chaff worthwhile. Yours was one of them.
Posted By: Brian in Vancouver (Guest) on January 25, 2012 at 12:47 PM
I am blown away by how many people want to raise the tax on income from investments from 15 to 35 percent. Why don't you guys make that the democratic platform? Go ahead, that would guarantee a republican victory.
"WE need to take twice as much of peoples investment income and re distribute it!!!"
Clowns
Posted By: Guest#5385 (Guest) on January 25, 2012 at 11:39 AM
Would it? Is that the result of your empirical study?
Posted By: Guest#9882 (Guest) on January 25, 2012 at 12:59 PM
Here is our plan:
Step 1: Punish those who invest in companies
Step 2: Force those who make money investing in companies to pay more taxes
Step 3: Take the tax money we earn and give it to poor people
Step 4: Repeat this until we have no money or people stop investing
Step 5: We have not thought that far ahead...
Posted By: Liberals (Guest) on January 25, 2012 at 02:09 PM
I think maybe you guys need to listen to what Obama is saying again. First off this isn't about cutting capital gains he isn't going to do that because it is wrong. He is looking and has been since July at trying to close most of the loopholes that benefit people making over $175k annually. These cuts (in theory) equate to over 1 trillion in lost revenues annually. This includes incentives for companies that ship jobs overseas, but is not designed to hinder export which Obama has done an excellent job of increasing and is on track to actually double exports by 2015.
He also addressed the other elephant in the room and that is the millions of jobs that are unfilled because workers are not skilled enough to fill them. He has been and is still promoting tuition paid partnerships, preventing the loan interest rate from doubling, and more importantly giving tax breaks and credit to companies that are hiring and hiring jobs that have increasing wages.
Honestly it is like the GOP is attacking a candidate that does not exist. The made up an fake Obama rather then face the shortcomings of the real one. I assume because it would take more then a soundbite to do so. I'm not a huge Pro-Obama guy but it seems to me the alternative is nothing short of absurd.
Posted By: Guest#0319 (Guest) on January 25, 2012 at 03:28 PM
I think the ideas of liberty and individuals controlling their destiny is going to continue to catch on. Republicans and Democrats talk about many of the same problems, Republicans think the elite, the top 1% should handle everything while the Democrats believe the government should handle all the problems. We've seen the disastrous results of both approaches. Additionally, the elite and government frequently end up in bed together when it's convenient for their interests. If we want America to be prosperous again, we need to put the power back in the individual to make their own decisions and either reap the rewards or suffer the consequences. That's the America that can win the future.
Posted By: RP (Guest) on January 25, 2012 at 04:28 PM
I think maybe you guys need to listen to what Obama is saying again. First off this isn't about cutting capital gains he isn't going to do that because it is wrong. He is looking and has been since July at trying to close most of the loopholes that benefit people making over $175k annually. These cuts (in theory) equate to over 1 trillion in lost revenues annually. This includes incentives for companies that ship jobs overseas, but is not designed to hinder export which Obama has done an excellent job of increasing and is on track to actually double exports by 2015.
He also addressed the other elephant in the room and that is the millions of jobs that are unfilled because workers are not skilled enough to fill them. He has been and is still promoting tuition paid partnerships, preventing the loan interest rate from doubling, and more importantly giving tax breaks and credit to companies that are hiring and hiring jobs that have increasing wages.
Honestly it is like the GOP is attacking a candidate that does not exist. The made up an fake Obama rather then face the shortcomings of the real one. I assume because it would take more then a soundbite to do so. I'm not a huge Pro-Obama guy but it seems to me the alternative is nothing short of absurd.
Posted By: Guest#7134 (Guest) on January 25, 2012 at 04:50 PM
When did campaign Obama leave?
Posted By: Guest#7043 (Guest) on January 25, 2012 at 05:30 PM
Here is our plan:
Step 1: Punish those who invest in companies
Step 2: Force those who make money investing in companies to pay more taxes
Step 3: Take the tax money we earn and give it to poor people
Step 4: Repeat this until we have no money or people stop investing
Step 5: We have not thought that far ahead...
Posted By: Liberals (Guest) on January 25, 2012 at 02:09 PM
Yeah well here is out plan:
Step 1 - Cut any and all programs that help anyone other than the "job creators"
Step 2 - Make sure the "Job creators" don't have to spend a penny more on anything.
Step 2.5 - On second thought..let's just cut their tax rate to 0
Step 3 - Cut any tax breaks for anyone who is not a "job creator"
Step 4 - Continue plan until America goes the way of the French Revolution and people get fed up with it
Step 5 - By then, we will all be retired with our money in Switzerland so we really don't care what happens.
Posted By: Conservatives (Guest) on January 25, 2012 at 06:54 PM
There isn't a trillion in lost tax revenue based off loopholes for people making over 175K a year. Maybe the most ignorant thing ever said here.
Our GDP is 1.4 trillion a year, how could there be a trillion in tax revenue lost based off 1 percent of the population?
You could confiscate ALL of millionares wealth and it would cover goverment expenditures for 3 months.
Source it and don't use Huffington post.
Take a economics class
Posted By: Guest#3097 (Guest) on January 25, 2012 at 07:05 PM
There isn't a trillion in lost tax revenue based off loopholes for people making over 175K a year. Maybe the most ignorant thing ever said here.
...
Take a economics class
Posted By: Guest#3097 (Guest) on January 25, 2012 at 07:05 PM
You do all of your equations based on GDP per year. The Bush Tax Cuts have been in play for ten years...
Take a maths class.
Posted By: Guest#4206 (Guest) on January 25, 2012 at 08:04 PM
There isn't a trillion in lost tax revenue based off loopholes for people making over 175K a year. Maybe the most ignorant thing ever said here.
Our GDP is 1.4 trillion a year, how could there be a trillion in tax revenue lost based off 1 percent of the population?
You could confiscate ALL of millionares wealth and it would cover goverment expenditures for 3 months.
Source it and don't use Huffington post.
Take a economics class
Posted By: Guest#3097 (Guest) on January 25, 2012 at 07:05 PM
It's called google, use it. (I would give you the link but 411 seems to block my posts that do.) NPR did a full piece on it, and it has been in discussion for 6 months.
That being said, I saw that cute video about the top 1% not being able to pay off the deficit too. Despite many inaccuracies, it isn't wrong. Thankfully that isn't what Obama is talking about, the loop holes are not just for people, they include corporations, and hedge funds. He actually spells it out in the address, but again that goes back to my point of actually listening to him or reading the transcript.
Posted By: Guest#6911 (Guest) on January 25, 2012 at 08:09 PM
Do you middle class champions on here realy believe Obama is the guy to reduce your tax burden? Sure, he might raise taxes on the rich, but that doesn't mean your taxes are going down. Defecit math says everybody's taxes are going to go up if you want all the things Barack Obama promises. Because as history shows, the rich can always hide their money when it's about to be confiscated, which means guess what? Good ol' Barry will reach his hands right into your pockets to fund his utopian fantasies, while he charms you with his "soaring" rhetoric (whatever Ashish--read some of Hugo Chavez's speeches and see how closely him and Obama view the rich). You then limit your chances and opportunities, with the more you encourage Obama to shrink the private sector in favor af a bigger and bigger government. If barely getting by at your government job is all you hope for in life, with no chance for advancement or new opportunites and challeneges, then vote for Obama. He can make that happen for you. Once he's done taking care of all his fat cat buddy/campaign donors from Wall Street that is.
Posted By: Da Man (Guest) on January 25, 2012 at 11:42 AM
The rich have been hiding their money for the last two decades, moron. What do you think the Cayman Islands is? Why do you think Romney has most of his money there?
Your whole argument is that we shouldn't tax the rich because they will hide their money. We're not taxing the rich now (lowest tax rate in a century) and guess what: The rich are hiding their taxes. Maybe instead, we should invest in hunting down the money they're hiding and closing the loopholes, moron.
Oh, and the whole "this will stop people investing in Wall Street" argument... for fucks sake. The whole point of what we've discovered in the last few years is that Wall Street is thoroughly disconnected from main street. This whole "job creators" myth is a joke. 40% of profit in the American economy is now finance... meaning its profit from moving paper from one place to another... not actually in making more jobs and more products.
But the biggest point is that you provide nothing... NOTHING... beyond don't vote for Obama and don't raise taxes. You have no actual solution for how to we rebuild the job market (oh, sorry, yes, your magical belief in the fairies of the free market) or on how to provide a true path out of poverty that doesn't involve indentured servitude to student loans and an overpriced private education system.
Until you come in here with answers, something other than just saying no to everything, then fuck off. Because at the moment, your argument at one moment says "LEAVE WALL STREET ALONE!" in your best Britney Spears fangirl impression, and then crying "OBAMA'S IN THE POCKET OF BIG BUSINESS".
Split personality, much?
Posted By: Guest#3308 (Guest) on January 25, 2012 at 08:23 PM
There isn't a trillion in lost tax revenue based off loopholes for people making over 175K a year. Maybe the most ignorant thing ever said here.
Our GDP is 1.4 trillion a year, how could there be a trillion in tax revenue lost based off 1 percent of the population?
You could confiscate ALL of millionares wealth and it would cover goverment expenditures for 3 months.
Source it and don't use Huffington post.
Take a economics class
Posted By: Guest#3097 (Guest) on January 25, 2012 at 07:05 PM
Someone needs to take a reading comprehension class...the commenter said IN THEORY, never said it was a FACT
THEORY vs. FACT
See what happened there?
Posted By: Guest#7077 (Guest) on January 25, 2012 at 09:53 PM
of course for everyone hating on romney buffett does the same thing, and all buffett would have to do is check a box on his tax return or cut a check to the government, and oh yeah obama is a hypocrite, because back in 2008 as candidate obama, he said it would be insane to raise the cap gains tax to 30 %, and oh yeah for those saying the gop don't have a plan for medicare reform, if and when obamacare is ruled unconstioual by the scotous guess what wrong, and oh yeah they would keep a high risk pool for people with pre-existing condintions, and oh yeah would open up the health insurance to trade across statelines. Plus again most of the state of the union was recyled, and ideas already killed, not only by the gop, but also the first two years by the dems, as the dream act couldn't get passed in 2008 or 2009 when the dems controlled the government
Posted By: coby (Guest) on January 26, 2012 at 01:14 AM
There isn't a trillion in lost tax revenue based off loopholes for people making over 175K a year. Maybe the most ignorant thing ever said here.
Our GDP is 1.4 trillion a year, how could there be a trillion in tax revenue lost based off 1 percent of the population?
You could confiscate ALL of millionares wealth and it would cover goverment expenditures for 3 months.
Source it and don't use Huffington post.
Take a economics class
Posted By: Guest#3097 (Guest) on January 25, 2012 at 07:05 PM
Wow this is what happens when you spout off at the mouth without looking things up first. After I read the original comment I googled it and sure enough the first 6 links explain that there very well could be 1 trillion in lost revenue, and that isn't including what is hiding in offshore accounts.
Posted By: Guest#4281 (Guest) on January 26, 2012 at 06:20 AM
So the man who extended the Bush tax cuts for the rich is going to campaign on raising taxes on the rich.
Posted By: Jason Douglas (Registered) on January 24, 2012 at 11:41 PM
Being a contributer here Jason you really should know better.
The REASON that was done, was to extened unemployment in 2010 and get a Social Security Tax Cut. The ONLY way he could get that done was to extend the Tax Cuts for Republicans.
It is what used to be called compromise in order to get stuff done. However know it's apprently called being a corporate whore.
Posted By: you fail (Guest) on January 25, 2012 at 08:29 AM
The purpose of the SS tax cut is to undermine SS by making it a contributor to the deficit, creating the argument to cut it in the name of balancing the budget.
As for "getting things done", campaigning on reversing your own legislation is either a sign of insanity or a clear breach of an agreement he made. It's also utterly laughable to think he won't have another "compromise" prepared to extend the tax cuts again. I called his move six months in advance, and I'm telling anyone who will listen that abortion rights will be the bargaining chip to extend the cuts again because that's what Obama's handlers want. I can't believe anyone still falls for it.
Posted By: Jason Douglas (Registered) on January 26, 2012 at 07:30 PM
The purpose of the SS tax cut is to undermine SS by making it a contributor to the deficit, creating the argument to cut it in the name of balancing the budget.
As for "getting things done", campaigning on reversing your own legislation is either a sign of insanity or a clear breach of an agreement he made. It's also utterly laughable to think he won't have another "compromise" prepared to extend the tax cuts again. I called his move six months in advance, and I'm telling anyone who will listen that abortion rights will be the bargaining chip to extend the cuts again because that's what Obama's handlers want. I can't believe anyone still falls for it.
Posted By: Jason Douglas (Registered) on January 26, 2012 at 07:30 PM
If you really think Abortion rights are a "bargaining chip" you have totally lost your mind.
And you're just flat out wrong on the SS cut, just so wrong on that I don't even know where to begin.
As far as "reversing" your own legislation...you can't reverse something that wasn't implemented yet. Common Jason know you're just being a tool.
It's called bargaining, again as a political contributer here, I would think you have SOME political education or background right? That is intro to politics 101.
Should he have used something so important as a bargaining chip, of course not, but the alternative (IE no more unemployment for folks and a SS tax cut) was even worse.
Posted By: you fail (Guest) on January 26, 2012 at 09:22 PM
STAY CURRENT