ANOTHER Press Conference

Best line from last night? *:

Obama’s repeated calls for a “balanced approach,” Boehner said, can be translated thus: “We spend more; you pay more.”

Worst line? Oh, you don’t want to get me started. This was particularly egregious:

Most Americans, regardless of political party, don’t understand how we can ask a senior citizen to pay more for her Medicare before we ask corporate jet owners and oil companies to give up tax breaks that other companies don’t get. How can we ask a student to pay more for college before we ask hedge fund managers to stop paying taxes at a lower rate than their secretaries? How can we slash funding for education and clean energy before we ask people like me to give up tax breaks we don’t need and didn’t ask for?
That’s not right. It’s not fair.

Medicare math doesn’t work. And, why are students being subsidized by the government for going to college? Who are these students- is the distribution of aid “fair?” And we can slash funding for education because we’ve poured money into it at record levels with no improvement. Clean energy spending? Don’t get me started.

Keep in mind that under a balanced approach, the 98% of Americans who make under $250,000 would see no tax increases at all. None. In fact, I want to extend the payroll tax cut for working families. What we’re talking about under a balanced approach is asking Americans whose incomes have gone up the most over the last decade – millionaires and billionaires – to share in the sacrifice everyone else has to make.

Someoone making $250,001 is not a millionaire or a billionaire.

The worst, I thought was this. Pure demonization:

The only reason this balanced approach isn’t on its way to becoming law right now is because a significant number of Republicans in Congress are insisting on a cuts-only approach – an approach that doesn’t ask the wealthiest Americans or biggest corporations to contribute anything at all. And because nothing is asked of those at the top of the income scales, such an approach would close the deficit only with more severe cuts to programs we all care about – cuts that place a greater burden on working families.

So, the wealthiest Americans and the biggest corporations don’t contribute anything at all?

The biggest corporations contribute BY EMPLOYING PEOPLE. That is their biggest and most significant contribution to the American economy. And all those people who they employ, pay income taxes. There should be zero corporate taxes.

In addition “wealthy Americans” pay over a third of their income to the federal government alone. A third. A third of what they earn is taken right off the top. Before they pay property taxes and city and state taxes. It’s not hard to get that combined rate to top 55%. Yet, people are claiming that they don’t contribute enough. They work over HALF the year so everyone else in society can take from them.

Obama refuses to even consider a deal that doesn’t safely get him past the next election. This is purely political on his part.

This tentative agreement would increase the debt limit by about $900 B to $1 T, enough to make it into the first quarter of next year, packaged with a bit more than $1 trillion of spending cuts, discretionary caps, and no tax increases. There would be a second debt limit extension next year that would go into 2013, upon action of a joint committee of Congress that would make recommendations for further deficit reduction.

While this is inconsistent with the President’s Election Day demand, a debt limit increase that lasted into next year would be routine based on historic practice.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid took a plan to Obama yesterday, and Obama rejected. And then he took to the air last night in an attempt to convince us that this debt crises is everyone else’s fault but his.

It appears the three key Congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle reached a tentative agreement yesterday and the President blew it up.

The President and his advisors have said two things that are consistent but separable:

1. the President opposes an extension that would not go past Election Day; and
2. such an extension could not pass the Senate because of Democratic opposition.

Assuming that Leader Reid did not bring to the President yesterday a proposal that he opposed, the second no longer appears to be true.

So when talks about the dire consequences of what is occurring, the effect on the country and the credit rating (which is tanked ANYWAY because of the spending – huh)remember, that he is willing to take us to this precipice because primarily he cares about retaining his job.

Update –

The Morning Jolt today is hilarious.

CBS News’s Mark Knoller informed us, “WH would have preferred that Pres. Obama [had] the national stage to himself tonight without a GOP response.” It was enough to get Dana Perino to roll her eyes: “First, how do you put a major policy address together in 3 hours? Second, how can one be mad if someone schedules a response?”

Oh, come on, Dana, as Oprah assured us, he is The One. As Valerie Jarrett assured us, Obama has “never really been challenged intellectually.” He assured us all that “I’m a better speechwriter than my speechwriters. I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors.” Once you’ve slowed the rise of the oceans, a major policy address in 180 minutes is a snap.

As for the speech, well, corporate-jet owners, oil companies, and hedge-fund managers all made their traditional appearances.

“He just put previous speeches into a blender. This is the result,” concluded Dan Gainor.

Explore posts in the same categories: Uncategorized

3 Comments on “ANOTHER Press Conference”

  1. MJ Says:

    He’s caught in a circular firing squad.

    His policies have been proven to hurt the economy so he wants to put in place policies that by his own admission would further hurt the economy.

    If this keeps up, the election will be easy.

  2. Car in Says:

    My husband and I often wonder what motivates Obama. Is he stupid? Blind. Stubborn?

    Does he really think that we’re not headed for financial meltdown (with spending, not just the debt ceiling) or does he simply not care because HE and his are taken care of?

    I don’t think I’ve ever heard a liberal explain how we’re going to get out of this mess, despite the fact that it’s simply NOT possible to continue to spend at current levels even if we took taxes up to 100%.

    What’s their plan?

  3. Svenster Says:

    I’m leaving shortly via corporate jet for the secret lair of millionaires and billionaires where we will plot new ways to steal money from people who don’t have any. Bwa-ha-ha…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: