Slog Music

Music, Nightlife,
and Drinks

Thursday, April 14, 2011

Thank You, Mr. President

Posted by on Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 8:24 AM

The NYT article, "Obama [Deficit] Speech Defends Liberal Principles," ends with this quote:

“They want to give people like me a $200,000 tax cut that’s paid for by asking 30 seniors to each pay $6,000 more in health costs,” Mr. Obama said. “That’s not right, and it’s not going to happen as long as I am president.”
It is impressive that he made this point. And it's a point that can not be said enough to the public. Many do not understand or are not willing to understand that tax cuts for the rich do not simply liberate money for the economy (ideology) but creates a loss that's transformed into a cost for many others (the reality). The money was never free to be liberated. It was an integral part of the governing system. Its removal from this system only demands a replacement.


Comments (13) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
Seniors should have to pay more for their healthcare. They don't pay into Medicare, and they're the most expensive people to cover.…

Why do very expensive old people get socialised medicine that they never pay enough into and covers way too much when the rest of us have to fight for ourselves?
Posted by andrew on April 14, 2011 at 8:29 AM · Report this
Cato the Younger Younger 2
Yes, Obama gave a pretty speech but doesn't he always do that?

Sadly his track record has been to cave to whatever the corporations want. It won't be any different this time around. This speech was just to get the left flank of the party behind him. And since pretty speeches seem to do that, he accomplished his task quite well.
Posted by Cato the Younger Younger on April 14, 2011 at 8:36 AM · Report this
The Republicans attacked Obamacare because it imposed limits on what Medicare would pay for (sorry granny but the rest of us need healthcare to) now they are in power and they want to do away with Medicare altogether. Oh they irony.
Posted by Ken Mehlman on April 14, 2011 at 8:54 AM · Report this
dirac 4
@1 Totally agree. Stupid old people. Everyone should have to fend for themselves! Obama said old people shouldn't be subjected to the private insurance industry but he made sure that everyone under 65 was subjected to the private insurance industry.

@2 Totally agree. Obama's conservative policy will be defined as "left pole" and he'll compromise that position to "go to the center" or further right.

Posted by dirac on April 14, 2011 at 8:56 AM · Report this
Lissa 5
@1: You do realize that someday you too will be old don't you? Come back to me when you need a hip replaced and some youngster, deciding it to be too expensive, dooms you to immobility.
Posted by Lissa on April 14, 2011 at 9:22 AM · Report this
OuterCow 6
@2 Yup! Bold words, cowardly actions. If only the majority of liberals in this country would fucking remember which one is supposed to speak louder.

As soon as it comes time to fight for any of these things, either the lobbyists will change his mind first, or the Repubs will take us hostage again, to which Obama will throw up his hands and turn to us and say "What, did you want me to let them kill you?" and cave, cave, cave until they're content for the time being.
Posted by OuterCow on April 14, 2011 at 9:31 AM · Report this
Westlake, son! 7
Well said, Charles, well said.
Posted by Westlake, son! on April 14, 2011 at 9:55 AM · Report this
Fnarf 8
The country simply cannot function without more tax money from the rich. Any attempt to balance the budget with cuts is not just morally offensive, it's laughably incapable of accomplishing its goal.

The rich are of course doing extremely well these days, never having suffered any Great Recession at all, but people are unaware of just HOW well. The lower ninety percent -- NINETY PERCENT -- are no better off than they were thirty years ago, when Reagan was president, and the majority of that group are WORSE OFF, and continuing to fall.

In the meantime, the richest of the rich, the Top 400, have never in our history seen their incomes rise so fast, and never in our history have they paid less tax. Many of them pay no tax at all. The top 400 even pay dramatically less tax than the mere multi-millionaires who come after them -- the 400 pay a lower tax rate than the next 140,000.

This is insane. A country cannot be run this way. Not even oligarchies like Mexico are rigged this badly against ordinary people.

It's working perfectly, though -- falling incomes and rising tax loads on middle- and low-income people keeps up the "cut taxes!" pressure on politicians, while taxes on the skyrocketing incomes of the rich keep plummeting. The rich have NEVER IN OUR HISTORY been better off tax-wise than they are today.

Read this:…

and this:…

and this:…
Posted by Fnarf on April 14, 2011 at 9:58 AM · Report this
@5 by the time I'm retired, in 40 years or so, Medicare won't look anything like it does now, thanks to the current crop of politicians and they old folks who vote for them.
Posted by andrew on April 14, 2011 at 10:32 AM · Report this
@8 I had to laugh when Michelle Bachman said that history teaches that when we tax the job creators we destroy prosperity. Did she mean the 1950s when income was taxed at a rate of up to 90%? Or maybe the 1990s when tax hikes by Bush Sr and Bill Clinton set the stage for an era of unprecedented economic growth? I can only assume that Ms. Bachman was referring to the history of an alternative universe in which the American Revolution began in New Hampshire instead of Massachusetts.
Posted by Ken Mehlman on April 14, 2011 at 10:47 AM · Report this
Will in Seattle 11
@10 good thing they can't show any TV portraying such an alternate universe on Chinese TV anymore - she would use that for more fundraising from her comrades at the Chinese-owned US Chamber of Commerce.
Posted by Will in Seattle on April 14, 2011 at 12:21 PM · Report this
CharlesF 12
Truly, Charles, you are a genius. What titanious intellectualist of our times (save you) would dare challenge the crypto-white-supremacist philosophy that claims a difference between "it's" and "its" ? For truly, are they not meta-grammatico-spiritually one and the same? I remain forever flabbergasted by your fine insights. (And truly, only an ironically limp-wristed fool would say "cannot" when he can implicitly overturn cis-gendered power structures with "can not". Bravo--if I may say so)
Posted by CharlesF on April 14, 2011 at 12:23 PM · Report this
Isn't that quote missing the word 'again'?
Posted by subwlf on April 15, 2011 at 12:22 PM · Report this

Add a comment

Commenting on this item is available only to registered commenters.

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy