Originally Posted by tonton
Bullshit. Bull. Shit.
Continuing the extortionate tax cuts for the richest of Americans is not a spending spree "for his cronies", that's a spending spree for the right wing fucks who blackmailed him into responding to "show me the money" being sung by THEIR cronies. Continuing the pace in Afghanistan as it has been is not a spending spree for Obama's cronies. If you are saying it is, then you are lying. If you are saying Obama has not (regrettably) crossed the aisle, you are lying. If you are saying that Obama has kept any of his promises on cutting taxpayer dollars being dished out to (Republican) big Oil, (Republican) Wall Street, you're lying.
First, I don't think he's out to enrich his "cronies." I really don't. But FloorJack has a point. "Deeds, not words." The issue with the speech is that Obama has governed nothing like his rhetoric from last night. I suppose time will tell if he means what he says.
I'd like to address your post more specifically. Man, you folks on the left just CANNOT get off the "tax cuts for the rich" wagon, can you? I find it a fascinating view, but one that makes no sense. That is, unless your goal is different than mine. To me, taxation is supposed to fund the essential operations of government. I get the impression that both you and the President (and many Democrats) think taxation exists to redistribute wealth; to make things more "fair" and outcomes more equal. Is this correct?
If taxation exists to fund government, then soaking the rich is not effective, nor moral. Also consider that many of the "rich" are not rich at all. Many are operating small businesses as S-corps. They can reinvest after tax income back into business, which creates increased commerce and...wait for it...jobs. Add to this that the "rich" create demand for goods and services. Should they pay a little more than others? Absolutely. But they already do. That is, unless you're talking about truly wealthy people...those making say, $5 million+ a year. We could add a "luxury" tax of sorts on them. This would make more sense then soaking people that make $500,000 a year.
Consider this realistic hypothetical: We have a married couple, both of whom have worked their whole lives. They have three children and live in the suburbs in a house they built 10 years ago. Both are teachers. Both started teaching in 1980 and made about $15,000 a year. The husband has worked longer, and has had the opportunity for more education, so he makes $125,00 in a very good suburban school. The wife took time off for children, and as a result makes about $80,000...bringing their total income to $205,000. Their children are starting college soon. They didn't overbuy their house, but they needed more space. 10 years ago, they spent $225,000 building their home. Their mortgage and property taxes are $2000 a month. They buy used cars and pay $800 a month for two reliable, safe and comfortable vehicles. They pay their taxes, are members of their local church, and give $250 a month to charity.
So let me ask you: Are these people "rich?" Of course not. They are comfortable. These are the kind of people you're talking about taxing more. These are the kind of people that buy goods and services in our consumer-spending oriented economy. Good idea.