President Obama: Public is 'sold' on tax increases in a debt-ceiling deal

[cal04]

Source: The Hill

President Obama on Friday kept up the pressure on Republicans to agree to revenue increases in a deal to raise the debt ceiling, claiming 80 percent of the public supports Democrats' demand for tax increases.

"The American people are sold," he said. "The problem is members of Congress are dug in ideologically."

Obama said 80 percent of Americans are on his side in the debate over what to include in the debt package. Voters are paying attention to "who seems to be trying to get something done," the president said. "It's going to be in the interests of everybody who wants to serve in this town to make sure they are on the right side of that impression."

"I hope (Republicans are) not just listening to lobbyists and special interests ... I hope they're listening to the American people as well," Obama said, citing "poll after poll" showing Republican voters, as well as Democrats, believe in taking "a balanced approach" — including both

Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/171743-obama-public-sold-on-tax-increases-in-debt-ceiling-deal

[elleng]

1. Thanks for this.

Love "It's going to be in the interests of everybody who wants to serve in this town to make sure they are on the right side of that impression."

Means, get your acts together, idjots, or you'll be OUTTA HERE next time around!!!

[Drale]

2. Of course they are only listening to lobbyists and special interests

they do not care one bit about regular people like you and me.

[FreakinDJ]

3. Real Bitch listening to voters and all

[earcandle]

4. Are we waking up yet? Governments job is to levy taxes to pay for services.

Are we waking up yet? Show your understand and solidarity by proudly wearing a TAX ME T-Shirt that clearly states the issue. http://www.cafepress.com/+noodle_brain_productions_womens_cap_sleeve_t,249156846

At least consider the statement posted on the T- shirt:

Governments are not profit seeking,

but exist to meet citizens demands for services,

consistent with the availability of resources

to provide those services.

Our main resources come from our taxes.

Reduced taxes equals reduced services.

Reduced services = third world economics.

so, TAX ME!

[Igel]

13. There's not a good upper bound.

Your argument winds up being unconstrained.

So Obama wants spending at 25% of GDP. Why 25%? Increase services--after all, if there are services that government can do but isn't doing it's failing.

We've seen governments were the postal service, utilities, water, transportation (rail, air, bus, local and intercity), phones, computers, car production, food production/processing/transport, stores, education, etc., etc. are government services. They were often funded by user fees superimposed on rationing, mostly because government found that its production couldn't be fairly distributed. That's a quibble--surely the best and brightest can produce a good solution.

So you can go to the store and pick up what a bureaucrat decides you, given whatever your usefulness is, merit. Since housing is government, you register for housing. Your admission to college is dependent on a government official's approval; your major is subject to government approval; your job after graduation is subject to government approval.

The problem is, whatever each of those governments started out saying they all wound up doing three things: Becoming corrupt, mismanaging the economy, and encouraging a rather capricious and self-serving distribution of resources. If the president is (D), he'd help his tribe; if the president is (R), he'd help his tribe.

But there's one more thing they all wound up: Since the government belonged to a party and was essentially all-powerful, the party was all powerful with the primary focus being on maintaining and extending power.

Now, tell me how your argument that services must be in line with resources, but you maximize services to consume all potentially aviable resources doesn't lead to this. "La-la-la-la!" is a response, but not an answer. (Many stimuli have responses, after all.)

[socialist_n_TN]

16. I assume you're talking about the deformed

bureaucracy of the Stalinist USSR?

[JDPriestly]

23. The challenge is to control corruption.

Clearly the Communist system had no checks and balances on corruption.

At this point, neither does ours.

The Communists brainwashed people through constant repetition of ideological catchphrases that people accepted as givens, that people assumed to be true because the heard them so often.

The conservative ideology is simply a mirror image of Communism. In fact, I suspect that the leaders of the conservative movement studied the techniques of the Communists and copied them. Fox News is an excellent example.

In a free society, everyone has the right to think for themselves, to do the research and question the assumptions, the repeated catchphrases, the givens.

Right now, the conservatives are repeating over and over that tax hikes will cost us jobs, that the wealthy are the "job-creators."

That is simply false. Wealth is created (and everybody becomes wealthier) when capital is invested in buying raw materials and hiring people to use the raw materials to produce products and services for which there is demand.

Our economic problems are due to the fact that the distribution of wealth is such that those in the top 5% are gambling with their money rather than investing it in producing products and services.

And the reason that the wealthy are not investing in producing products and services is that they don't make much money when they do because there is no demand.

There is no demand because the wealthy are hording and gambling with their money rather than hiring workers and paying them decent wages.

If the jobs were plentiful, wages would rise, and workers would have money with which to buy things. The wealthy would invest and make more money.

That is how things are supposed to work in a free society. The checks and balances come from the wisdom, independent thought and hard work of the people (both rich and poor).

When the wealthy gamble, we get messes like we had in 2008 -- boom that is built on dreams and illusions turns into a bust.

The solution does not have to be socialism. (Although if we get into too much of an impasse, many people may cry for that just to get us out.)

The solution is for wealthy people and the conservatives they brainwash into voting to protect their wealth to get wise, return to becoming productive members of society (and credit where credit is due, a few of them never stopped being that) and start hiring people and PAYING DECENT WAGES so that there is demand for products and services.

The wealthy are hurting themselves with their excessive gambling.

The deficit would not be a problem if we had a fair distribution of wealth. And we don't necessarily have to have the government intervene and distribute the wealth if the wealthy do what capitalists are supposed to do -- start thinking about real investments in jobs in the US.

Right now, maintaining the tax breaks for the wealthy will just impoverish the nation more because the wealthy will either gamble with their money or invest in China or India.

What the wealthy do not realize is that the money they invest in China and India could be confiscated by the people and governments of those countries at any time.

A lot of people live under the illusion that we are the mightiest military force in the world. But, in fact, our military power is nearly completely dependent on steel produced in another country, oil produced in other countries, and even guns and military uniforms produced in another country. We produce some military items, but often from materials we import. So, the wealthy are fools to do what they are doing.

[left on green only]

41. Hear! Hear! Well Spoken!

:toast:

[RandomKoolzip]

5. Good move on the president's part.

[Fearless]

6. And on NOT touching SS/Medicare/Medicaid... don't forget that. n/t

[indepat]

7. And what large percent don't want cuts in SS, Medicare, and Medicaid? Surely BHO is listening

to those voices if he really is interested in a 2nd term. :patriot:

[lark]

8. Don't think he's listening to us at all

He wants to attract right leaning Independents and moderate Repugs/Dems (aka right wing but not TOTALLY batshit) and to hell with progressives. He's still the one that put Medicare/Medicaid/SSI on the table in the debt talks and the only one that's pushing hard to CUT these mainstream programs that workers have contributed to for their entire lives.

[emulatorloo]

10. Oh I think he is. Republicans claim he is "not serious" about "entitlement reform"

That is their constant refrain. They want a Ryanification of Social Security as well as Medicare.

Obama is not giving that to them.

DU automatically assumes cost/waste cutting = benefit cutting. But that is not the case.

[kenfrequed]

21. Find me some waste

Seriously, if you really believe that you can cost cut and not lose service than do us all a favor and friggin find it!

Surely it would be a good enough reform that it could stand alone seperate from other budgetary concerns and if such waste is overwhlemingly intense then we should look at it rationally and seperately from the insanity of the right wing.

[JDPriestly]

24. You mean the Social Security Insurance.

Someone on Thom Hartmann pointed out this morning that the taxes we pay for Social Security are identified as Federal Insurance Contribution Act Taxes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Insurance_Contributions_Act_tax

Social Security is not an entitlement. It is an insurance policy.

Let's call it by its real name. Insurance, not entitlement. It does not entitle you to anything. It pays an insurance benefit.

[joeglow3]

33. Then you MUST means test it

This is something I have advocated.

That said, we can call it Grape Soda if we want, but it does not change the need for us to be cognizant of the economic impact of the program.

[JDPriestly]

34. Social Security is already means tested.

That is because only 1/2 of the Social Security benefit is tax-free. So if a person has a high income, most of their Social Security will go in taxes.

The average benefit is less than $1,200. I know you hear that it is such a huge burden but first it really is not that much money per person. For most recipients it is all or the major part of their income.

Means-testing Social Security would require the government to set up an entirely new bureaucracy, and force elderly people some of whom are in various stages of dementia to fill out forms.

The best way is simply to continue to tax 1/2 of Social Security and raise the taxes on those with higher incomes including those receiving Social Security who have a higher annual income thanks to income from other sources.

[joeglow3]

35. Then, it is NOT an insurance program.

[JDPriestly]

36. The payments from the Social Security Insurance Fund are

not and should not be means tested. It is completely unnecessary.

If you get an insurance payment, it is to replace something and you don't pay tax on the payment because it is not considered to be income.

If you get a Social Security benefit, 1/2 of it is taxed as income. Ronald Reagan did that to us. It is quite wrong.

As I pointed out to someone, means testing Social Security would be a waste of time.

Wealthy people already pay taxes on 1/2 of what they get from Social Security.

Social Security would not save enough money by means-testing to make the bureaucratic mess it would require to do it worthwhile.

Leave it as it is. Seniors pay taxes on 1/2 of their Social Security benefits. They should not have to pay any taxes on it because it is an insurance fund, but that's the way it is.

The average person who relies on Social Security for most or part of their income has a very small income. Let elderly people alone, please.

There is something very sadistic in a person who wants to tax Social Security benefits. It's creepy.

[fascisthunter]

30. ok... please list the waste

I really want to know exactly WHAT "waste" means.

[LostinRed]

11. can you back those statements up

Only thing I've heard is that Obama is willing to except a deal that would means test Medicare. Which should be done.

[JDPriestly]

25. If you means-test Medicare, wealthier seniors will simply give their

children money on a regular basis and impoverish themselves to be eligible. They will do that to insure their children get some of the money they have saved to pass on to them.

[Major Hogwash]

40. Then wouldn't they be socialists if they did that?

Spreading the wealth like that, instead of hoarding the wealth.

[JDPriestly]

42. Wealthy people are usually socialists when it comes to receiving

money and benefits from the government, but not when it comes to paying money or taxes to the government.

Wealthy people are masters at passing their losses to the government while keeping their assets for themselves.

A lot of wealthy people will "donate" property to the government that has become a burden to them or that will be expensive for their heirs to maintain. I have seen an example of that recently. Of course, the property becomes a costly possession to the government. This is especially true when people donate their wonderful mansions. It's great when they do that. But taxpayers have to pick up the tab for maintaining the mansion.

[joeglow3]

47. When/how do you "donate" a mansion to the government?

In 10+ years as a tax CPA, I have NEVER seen this.

[JDPriestly]

50. The Barnsdall Park in LA is a great example.

The Autry Museum has now proposed a "donation" of the Southwest Museum to the City. It is more common than you realize.

[polichick]

29. Yes - that too!

[rurallib]

31. yes indeed - just every bit as much as they are on raising taxes

[Cherchez la Femme]

9. Hey! He found his Bully Pulpit!

Only took him 2 3/4 years.

[SpankMe]

12. The tax increase needed would be miniscule.

In fact, all they really need to do is expire the Bush tax cuts for the top couple of percent of earners. This gets a couple of trillion to pay our bills over the next decade or so. That, and end the wars and take about 10-15% off the Pentagon budget.

But, no. They're cutting education and NOAA funding so we can't see the storms coming.

Dems had better start hammering hard. Obama, Pelosi and Reid have put out some good statements. But, I want to see more elected Dems putting out scathing statements and hammering and drumbeating against Republican evil - ceaselessly. I want to see the national party engaging in low cost, "viral" type of promotion for Democratic goals and values. I know they need to conserve cash for the 2012 election. But, innovative YouTube videos, cheap newspaper and web ads are effective...low cost stuff that can influence things sooner.

[anamandujano]

18. Yup.

"Dems had better start hammering hard."

They'd get elected with minimal cost if they put in a solid statement with actions. Run the footage of their straight talk for ads. 10 seconds will due if it turns things toward the right correct direction.

"all they really need to do is expire the Bush tax cuts for the top couple of percent of earners."

This is something that I'm betting most people don't know. I didn't. Why doesn't someone with access to a microphone say this and unmuddy the waters?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

32. it is so easy really - SACRIFICES start at the top - expire the Bush tax cuts for top 2%, end wars

Why can't they see this? Money has to come from top.

[spooked911]

45. EXACTLY! This is the maddening thing! Heck, I wouldn't mind paying a couple perecent more

but it has to be everyone in my bracket and higher to do so, or else there is no point.

[ProfessionalLeftist]

14. He said he was going to take it to the people....

....and he's right - we (the majority of us) fully EXPECT revenue increases to be part of the deal.

[socialist_n_TN]

15. Can everyone say, "FINALLY!"

The top of the Dem Party is finally SAYING what the American PEOPLE have been saying for months and maybe YEARS. Thank you President Obama for coming out and SAYING it too.

[patrice]

17. Do the right thing, Mr. President and we will back you! all of the way! nt

[lovemydog]

19. I'm glad the President said this

The teabaggers are in a very small minority of moron voters who don't want to raise taxes on the rich.

[bertman]

20. The Big Question is WHO is going to pay the higher taxes? The top earners? Hell no.

It's you and I and the rest of the working class.

This is all BULLSHIT. The problem is THREE WARS and THE RICH NOT PAYING THEIR FAIR SHARE.

[wordpix]

27. +1000 "THREE WARS and THE RICH NOT PAYING THEIR FAIR SHARE"

That says it all right there

[Plucketeer]

22. Woooooooooooooooooooowwww!

So he DOES remember us. Cryin' shame it takes a number like EIGHTY percent to make him feel confident.

OK..... so.... who's gonna be first to take a swipe - a really SIGNIFICANT swipe at the gluttonous military appetite??? Anybody? Nobody?

[Better Believe It]

26. Is the public also "sold" on cutting Social Security, Medicare and other social programs?

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[midnight]

37. Public is sold on who's taxes increasing?

[and-justice-for-all]

38. They better make the rich and corporation pay taxes

and if they want to raise everyone elses taxes, they better damn well let every one sign up for Medicare.

[Major Hogwash]

39. Yeah, but about 225 morons in the House of Representatives don't care, Mr President!!

And that's what the problem is.
That's what the problem has always been.

They want to use the "nuclear option"?
Fine.

Sign a few executive orders in place and see how they like it!!
Do it, Mr President.
Push them over the cliff!!

[The Wizard]

43. Social Security and Veterans benefits

are not entitlements, they're earned benefits. Stop using the Republican frame. Entitlements imply handouts. Reforming how earned benefits are distributed is not the same as cutting benefits. If Social Security, Medicare and Veterans benefits can be administered more efficiently and equitably then that would serve to benefit everyone. The fact that Social Security and Veterans benefits haven't increased in three years means they've been cut because they don't address cost of living increases. Essentials like food and energy have radically increased in the last three years. The cutting has already been done. What the Republican jihad proposes is immoral. Terrorizing and oppressing the most vulnerable is countervailing to American principles and ideals. Eric Cantor is anal leakage.

[BREMPRO]

44. looks like Obama is FINAlly learning to use the bully pulpit properly

he's set them up to look like intractable ideologues, and now using the public's overwhelming support to force the their hand on taxes and loopholes 4 the wealthy. nice work!

[spooked911]

46. yes, he's getting better-- I hope he can move public opnion more against Repugs

I saw Drudge yesterday citing Obama's 80%, and then citing their own poll with only 40% people wanting taxes raised, to counter Obama.

[Major Hogwash]

49. He held two press conferences in just 1 week!

And he wasn't just using them to talk about the new doilies they were going to use at the future White House dinners, either!!

The fucking Washington Press Corps had better get with the fucking program pronto.
Obama is in charge, not Boehner, Cantor, or McConnell.

[Cool Logic]

48. Most reasonable people realize the need to increase revenue and cut spending.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/148472/Deficit-Americans-Prefer-Spending-Cuts-Open-Tax-Hikes.aspx
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1624