Democrats Obama, Pelosi And Reid Holding Tax Cuts For All Americans Hostage

Does it bother you when demagoguing hypocrites act like, well, demagoguing hypocrites?

Barack Obama, the demagogue-in-chief, spat out his latest batch of poisonous snake venom:

Obama: GOP holding middle class tax cuts ‘hostage’
House Democrats deeply divided over whether to support president’s plan

By NBC’s Athena Jones
NBC News
updated 9/15/2010 5:58:14 PM ET

WASHINGTON — Flanked by members of his Cabinet and his economic team, President Barack Obama urged Congress Wednesday to pass an extension of Bush-era tax cuts for the middle class and accused Republicans of holding the cuts “hostage.”

The president has proposed extending cuts for those who earn less than $200,000 and letting taxes on the wealthy rise, arguing that his plan makes more economic sense than spending $700 billion over the next decade to extend tax cuts for the top 2 percent of Americans.

But did the liar mention that the same study showed that the tax cuts he was proposing would “spend” $3 TRILLION dollars?

“President Obama’s plan to extend only middle-class tax cuts would add about $3 trillion to the national debt over the next 10 years, according to congressional number crunchers.”

Factoids like that don’t matter to the most dishonest liar ever to occupy the White House.

The whole argument that tax cuts for anybody amounts to “spending” money essentially boils down to the morally evil argument that the people belong to the government, rather than the government belonging to the people.

Brit Hume expressed the point in a few words:

“But the very language used in discussing these issues tells you something as well. In Washington, letting people keep more of their own money is considered a cost. As if all the money really belongs to the government in the first place in which what you get to keep is an expenditure.”

Then again, there’s also the fact that tax cuts increase revenues; they have always increased revenues every time they’ve been tried.

So by standing against the tax cuts for ALL Americans, Democrats aren’t just employing the Marxist arguments of class warfare and “spread the wealth around” redistribution; they are arguing against plain historical fact itself.

But let’s get back to Obama, liar and demagogue.  Let’s get back to his attack against Republicans that they’re “holding middle class tax cuts hostage.”  Because in the exact same vein, HE’S holding middle tax cuts hostage, to go with the fact that HE’S holding tax cuts for ALL AMERICANS hostage.

If Obama allowed the tax cuts to be extended for all Americans, the Republicans would gladly and joyfully vote for the tax cuts for the middle class.

For the factual record, it is the REPUBLICANS’ PLAN that represents the path of least resistance to extending tax cuts for the middle class and ALL taxpaying Americans.  And it is therefore OBAMA who is holding them hostage.

The bipartisan consensus is that ALL the Bush tax cuts should be extended; which means that it is OBAMA who is holding the tax cuts hostage.

I hope that most Americans can easily see through Obama’s shamelessly hypocritical arguments.

Advertisements

Tags: ,

6 Responses to “Democrats Obama, Pelosi And Reid Holding Tax Cuts For All Americans Hostage”

  1. Kelli Says:

    I hope that most Americans can easily see through Obama’s shamelessly hypocritical arguments.
    We can. And come November, we’ll do something about it!

  2. TechnoRational Says:

    Vitriol aside, I find your position confusing. In the first part of your post, you object to the $3 trillion cost of extending some the tax cuts. Then you argue that he should extend all the tax cuts, which, if we take the $3 trillion cost of the middle class portion and add it to the $700 billion that are saved by excluding the richest Americans, would cost $3.7 trillion dollars. So is he irresponsible for extending the cuts at all, or for not extending all of them?

    Also, you argue that he’s irresponsibly adding to the deficit and then you argue that tax cuts never add to the deficit, they always increase revenue. Which is it?

    It seems to me that if you’re going to start a post by accusing your opponents of being demagoguing hyprocrites, then there are two things you should avoid, at all costs, in your post: demagoguery and hypocricy.

    Wiktionary:

    demagogue (plural demagogues)
    1.(pejorative) An orator or leader who gains favor by exciting the passions and prejudices of the audience.

    You:

    “Barack Obama, the demagogue-in-chief, spat out his latest batch of poisonous snake venom”
    “Factoids like that don’t matter to the most dishonest liar ever to occupy the White House.”
    “Democrats aren’t just employing the Marxist arguments of class warfare and “spread the wealth around” redistribution; they are arguing against plain historical fact itself.”
    (I could go on.)

    Wiktionary:

    hypocrisy (plural hypocrisies)
    1.The claim or pretense of holding beliefs, feelings, standards, qualities, opinions or virtues that one does not actually possess. [from early 13th c.]
    2.Moral self-contradiction whereby the behavior of one or more people belies their own claimed or implied possession of certain beliefs, standards or virtues.

    You:
    “Does it bother you when demagoguing hypocrites act like, well, demagoguing hypocrites?”
    vs
    “Barack Obama, the demagogue-in-chief, spat out his latest batch of poisonous snake venom:”

    “But did the liar mention that the same study showed that the tax cuts he was proposing would “spend” $3 TRILLION dollars?”
    vs
    “The whole argument that tax cuts for anybody amounts to “spending” money essentially boils down to the morally evil argument”

    On the plus side, I guess you know your audience.

    You:
    “I hope that most Americans can easily see through Obama’s shamelessly hypocritical arguments.”

    Me:
    “I hope that most Americans can easily see through the anger of the right and assess their ideas on their merits, rather than the volume at which they are spoken.”

  3. Michael Eden Says:

    I’m quite consistent in my arguments. The problem is you’re very inconsistent in your understanding of them.

    I wrote an article titled “Tax Cuts Increase Revenues; They Have ALWAYS Increased Revenues.” And in that piece I factually demonstrate that marginal rate tax cuts have increased the government revenues every time they’ve been tried since federal income taxes were imposed in 1913.

    So your entire first paragraph is one big giant false premise and one big giant false dilemma. Which is to say that the problem is that you are ignorant; not that I’m a hypocrite and a demagogue.

    I think I was very clear – particularly if you examined my supporting links – that tax cuts DON’T “cost” the government treasury. Which makes me FAR more consistent than the Democrats, or yourself. For example, I don’t try to argue that tax cuts for ONE group of people “has to be paid for” or “costs the government,” but that tax cuts for ANOTHER group that would actually cost FOUR TIMES MORE ($700 billion vs. $3 TRILLION) don’t. So I don’t see how you can maintain that I’m being inconsistent when I’m being very consistent and your side is being MASSIVELY INCONSISTENT.

    If your side is going to argue that $700 billion is going to create deficits, then maybe they should have the basic honesty to admit that the $3 TRILLION they would add to the deficit by the same study kind of counts, too. I don’t AGREE with that study because – as I said in the article – tax cuts don’t create deficits. But if you’re going to tell me that tax cuts for the rich create deficits, you’d better also say that tax cuts for the middle class create MORE THAN FOUR TIMES THE DEFICITS.

    I’m consistent; you’re the hypocrite. And here you are demagoguing me while you’re the hypocrite.

    Then we move to your second paragraph, which says “Also, you argue that he’s irresponsibly adding to the deficit and then you argue that tax cuts never add to the deficit, they always increase revenue. Which is it?”

    I am entirely correct in arguing both. Obama has MASSIVELY ADDED TO THE DEFICIT. Obama added more to the deficit in only 19 months in office than every single president from George Washington through Ronald Regan COMBINED. And Obama added as much debt in only 20 months in office than George Bush did in his entire EIGHT YEARS.

    So I’m clearly correct if I argue that Obama has massively increased the deficit (although I don’t recall making that argument in this article).

    That massive deficit wasn’t created by Obama’s tax policy (he’s only trying to screw that up now); it was caused by his stratospheric spending. You know, his boondoggle porkulus and all the other massive wastes of money he’s presided over.

    I’ve explained this before about the disconnect between taxes and deficits. Let’s say I have a minimum wage job, and live within my means. Then I get a million dollar a year job. As a result of all this extra money, I go nuts. I buy a mansion, an yacht, a Ferrari, and a bunch of other luxury stuff. And next thing I know, I’m in debt. Would you argue that I collected more salary when I was getting minimum wage??? Because that seems to be your understanding. To put it another way, is the problem how much revenue I took in, or how much I spent, that caused me to go into debt?

    So, yes, tax cuts increase federal revenues. Because when you cut taxes and allow people to have more of their own money, and when you thereby reward their investment risks, they put their money to work and invest more. They increase the supply of goods and services, which raises the GDP. And that’s how tax cuts end up increasing government revenues.

    So, sorry to put you to all that trouble to collect definitions so you could try to assert that I’m something I’m not.

  4. Michael Eden Says:

    Kelli,

    Let’s go out and do some votin’.

  5. TechnoRational Says:

    I actually read the post you referred to before responding, and I think it has some interesting arguments. Although whether your claim is “factually proved” is somewhat subjective. Certainly we could find distinguished economists on both sides of the issue.

    In fact, if you read my comment, I think you’ll find that I quite carefully avoided either agreeing with or disagreeing with the point you were trying to make. I also quite carefully avoided calling you a hypocrite or a demagogue. Instead I asserted that your post contained hypocrisy and demagoguery, and I took care to provide support for my statements. Now, perhaps you do not appreciate the distinction, but to me it indicates exactly why we can’t have a real discussion about, well, much of anything in this country any more without devolving to name calling.

    In light of the tone of your response, I’m sure I’m wasting my time, but let me give it one more try.

    First of all, In your response, you attribute to me and my “side” your perception of the stock democratic position. But as I said, I haven’t taken sides. I certainly did not make nor do I endorse the statement that some tax cuts should be paid for and others shouldn’t. I agree with you that that’s an inconsistent position. (I make no statement either way as to whether anyone else has made such a statement. You provide no source.). I’d also like to point out that you accused me of hypocrisy based on this assumption, rather than the contents of my post.

    I’m also not going to get into an argument over deficit numbers. I would suggest two things, though — you should be looking at actual deficits rather than budget deficits. (You don’t say which these are.) GWB kept most of the war spending out of the budget. (I’m not picking a fight over that issue, just pointing out that it’s not fair to penalize Obama for an accounting change.) Second, you should really start Bush’s spending record in roughly October 2001 and Obama’s in October 2009, since those are the dates in which their first budgets started. Spending from inauguration through October is based on the previous president’s budget.

    Third, I think you’re clearly unjustified in accusing me of “demagoguing you.” I wrote very dispassionately, and I was clearly not attempting to gain your favor. Please refer to the definition above.

    I believe that covers everything except your claim that I misunderstood or misrepresented your position. I think this is easily dispatched. I think you clarified it somewhat in your response; the first sentence of the paragraph which starts “If your side…” explains your indignation at these two facts. But since you failed to make that connection in your original post, I don’t think my confusion was unreasonable. You did implicitly criticize the $3 trillion dollar tax cut by calling Obama a liar for neglecting to mention it. (By the way, did you see the statement or read the transcript? Just because he wasn’t reported to have acknowledged it doesn’t mean he didn’t. Just saying.) From this misunderstanding arose my suppositions that you objected to the cost of the tax cut, and, implicitly, that your concern about this cost was adding to the deficit.

    So, in truth, buried amongst the insults, you did manage to answer my question. For which you have my thanks.

    Meanwhile, since you have made it abundantly clear that you’re not interested in even a whiff of dissent by calling me an ignorant demagoguing hypocrite (well, not all together like that, but still), I’ll show myself the door.

  6. Michael Eden Says:

    I also quite carefully avoided calling you a hypocrite or a demagogue. Instead I asserted that your post contained hypocrisy and demagoguery…

    Techno,

    You go and see whatever you want to. What I see is that you swim in a see of meaningless and mind-numbingly trivial distinctions.

    My problem is that I know how to read, and I can comprehend an argument. So I noticed in your last post your first two paragraphs consist in your asking me questions which you mistakenly believe indicate that I am hypocritically contradicting myself. Then you say, “It seems to me that if you’re going to start a post by accusing your opponents of being demagoguing hyprocrites [sic], then there are two things you should avoid, at all costs, in your post: demagoguery and hypocricy [sic].” And the rest of your comment consists in your attempting to document as a fact – complete with definitions and quotes – that I am a demagogue and a hypocrite.

    So your entire project was an attempt to show that I’m a hypocrite and a demagogue, but yet somehow you’re entirely irresponsible for your obviously intended conclusion because you didn’t directly state that I was a hypocrite and demagogue. And because, after all, your gills are pumping in and out meaningless distinctions.

    I also love the way you constantly make mention that you loftily hover above the fray of taking sides. You say, “First of all, In your response, you attribute to me and my “side” your perception of the stock democratic position. But as I said, I haven’t taken sides.” You are just so above the petty common unwashed masses beneath you who take one petty position, or another. But I’ve seen that trick done before:

    “When President Obama returned from his first European trip, I observed that while over there he had been “acting the philosopher-king who hovers above the fray mediating” between America and the world… “Obama’s standing above the country, above — above the world. He’s sort of God,” Newsweek’s Evan Thomas said to a concurring Chris Matthews, reflecting on Obama’s lofty perception of himself as the great transcender.”

    And just as I knew immediately that Obama was full of crap in – yes HYPOCRITICALLY PRETENDING HE WAS ABOVE IDEOLOGY THAT HE WAS NOT IN FACT ABOVE AT ALL – I know that you are, also.

    It’s not that you “haven’t taken sides”; it’s that you’re too disingenuous to acknowledge having taken sides. Just like Obama before you. And because you love trivial distinctions, you think the fact that you don’t specifically acknowledge what anyone with half a brain clearly recognizes somehow means something.

    So you clearly attack me as a hypocrite and a demagogue, all the while dishonestly maintaining that you are somehow not attacking me. And then you have the whining chutzpah to say, “So, in truth, buried amongst the insults…” And “the insults” refer to the fact that I had the awful impoliteness to “say that the problem is that you are ignorant; not that I’m a hypocrite and a demagogue.” After you very obviously wrote a post claiming I was a hypocrite and a demagogue.

    I proceeded to show that I was not doing what you falsely claimed I was doing in your first two paragraphs. Which you didn’t touch. Other than to say that I didn’t say that stuff in my article; but that I’d said it in a different article (omitting mention that I LINKED to that article in the one you responded to). So my claim that the problem is that you were ignorant in your accusations – which serves as the foundation of your infatuation with meaningless distinctions – stands.

    You begin your fluff by saying “Although whether your claim is “factually proved” is somewhat subjective. Certainly we could find distinguished economists on both sides of the issue.” As if the fact that experts disagree means something can’t be true. Let me simply say that there was a time when the “experts” disagreed on whether the earth was round or flat; but that that didn’t mean that the planet had no shape. In the same way, at one time Gene Shoemaker was the ONLY expert claiming that the earth had been bombarded by massive asteroid impacts; but that doesn’t mean that earth hadn’t been catastrophically impacted until all the skeptics agreed that it had been.

    Regarding my “factual proof,” you have only this to try to undermine it:

    I’m also not going to get into an argument over deficit numbers. I would suggest two things, though — you should be looking at actual deficits rather than budget deficits. (You don’t say which these are.) GWB kept most of the war spending out of the budget.

    But your “suggestions” are wrong. And what you try to do by way of undermining my argument is – again I have to use the word – IGNORANT.

    Here is the article I used from THE NEW YORK TIMES – not from the Bush White House – to FACTUALLY PROVE that Bush collected MORE REVENUE following his tax cut:

    Sharp Rise in Tax Revenue to Pare U.S. Deficit
    By EDMUND L. ANDREWS
    Published: July 13, 2005

    WASHINGTON, July 12 – For the first time since President Bush took office, an unexpected leap in tax revenue is about to shrink the federal budget deficit this year, by nearly $100 billion.

    A Jump in Corporate Payments On Wednesday, White House officials plan to announce that the deficit for the 2005 fiscal year, which ends in September, will be far smaller than the $427 billion they estimated in February.

    Mr. Bush plans to hail the improvement at a cabinet meeting and to cite it as validation of his argument that tax cuts would stimulate the economy and ultimately help pay for themselves.

    Based on revenue and spending data through June, the budget deficit for the first nine months of the fiscal year was $251 billion, $76 billion lower than the $327 billion gap recorded at the corresponding point a year earlier.

    The Congressional Budget Office estimated last week that the deficit for the full fiscal year, which reached $412 billion in 2004, could be “significantly less than $350 billion, perhaps below $325 billion.”

    The big surprise has been in tax revenue, which is running nearly 15 percent higher than in 2004. Corporate tax revenue has soared about 40 percent, after languishing for four years, and individual tax revenue is up as well
    .

    And so you IGNORANTLY continue to fail to understand the CLEAR difference between the FACT that tax cuts increase federal revenue, versus federal budget deficits. How much Congress foolishly spent money on Iraq or anything else after Bush cut taxes has nothing whatsoever to do with the FACT that he increased revenue by cutting taxes. Even after I explained it to you, you STILL can’t understand that. BECAUSE YOU ARE IGNORANT.

    Nor does your now-hopefully-proven-as-bogus-for-all-time argument about Bush do away with the examples of Andrew Mellon, Calvin Coolidge, Ronald Reagan, or John Kennedy.

    By the way, can I go ahead and put your “you’re not interested in even a whiff of dissent” diatribe in the “demagoguery” category, as you do similar statements of mine?

    Glad you found the door. Hope you don’t mind my locking the deadbolt behind you.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: