‘Spending reductions in the tax code’?
Spending reductions in the tax code…that’s what President Obama called the thing that we commonly call “tax cuts” in his speech today.
Essentially tossing aside the budget he submitted just two months ago, Mr. Obama called for much deeper defense and domestic spending cuts and said while he will not trim benefit payment from Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid, more money can be squeezed out of the latter two programs in other ways.
The president also called for undoing the Bush tax cuts for upper-income taxpayers, and for canceling other tax cuts many of them receive such as the mortgage interest deduction — which he called “spending reductions in the tax code.”
Love ‘em or hate ‘em, cutting someone’s tax rate does not equal an increase in spending, in the tax code or anywhere else. It’s simply money the government doesn’t take in. Therefore, getting rid of their tax cut does not equal eliminating a “spending reduction” in the tax code. Or anywhere else.
I’d like to commend President Obama for his backhanded honesty on this, though. He has finally admitted that he thinks the money that you work for belongs to the government before it belongs to you. He just had to utter the most Orwellian phrase ever spoken by an American president to get the admission out there.
Teleprompter-Barbie gave his usual speech.
It is difficult to underestimate Obama. He is about as dumb as they come.
Humpty Dumpty has been very busy. Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland was quoted by Judge Bea in his acerbic concurring, but in reality dissenting, opinion in the Arizona immigration case recently decided by the 9th Circuit. He quoted Lewis Carroll’s word master Humpty Dumpty and compared the court majority to him:
Humpty would be proud of the characterization of taxes as spending and of tax increases as spending reductions.
Someone already noted this at The Corner, but this is just like President Lisa Simpson calling a tax hike a “temporary refund adjustment”.
I was impressed! Obambi must have practiced this reading. He actually sounded like he knew what he was saying, for a change.
The substance was still vacant, but, the boy sounded rehearsed.
Man! He’s pulling out all the stops for his defeat in 2012.
It’s going to feel soooooooo good to see him go down!
From the White House to low income projects in Chicago!
Should be under some bridge.
“cutting someone’s tax rate does not equal an increase in spending”
It does when you believe all wealth belongs to the state. As far as Obama’s concerned, we’re his subjects, not citizens.
The phrase “tax cuts” itself plays into the hands of the Left. Never use those two words alone. Always refer to “tax rate cuts”. The implicit assumption is that “tax cuts” are “revenue cuts”. Reducing the top marginal tax rate, if that rate remains above the Laffer Curve peak, will actually increase revenues.
Everyone understands how this works, if it’s explained correctly: On Black Friday, stores around the country drastically cut the prices (rates) they charge for their products, and increase their revenues, typically having their best sales day of the year. Cutting the highest tax rates so they’re below the Laffer peak is “putting taxes on sale”.
So when Obama spoke of his “failsafe” that would automatically kick in additional “tax increases” when the first round of tax RATE increases failed to bring in the revenue that static analysis ASS|U|MEs will come in, he has thereby promised two rounds of tax rate increases, at least “for the most fortunate”.
Of course, the very notion that it is possible to “tax the rich” ignores economic realities. Taxing income doesn’t just affect the person who writes the check to the IRS. It also hits the other parties to the transactions that generate the income being taxed. Those “rich” people, knowing the rates are going up, will be willing to pay less to their suppliers (including suppliers of labor) and will demand more from their customers. The result will be reduced employment, suppliers that make less money, and customers who chalk the increases up to “inflation”, not realizing that they are really embedded taxes hidden in the prices they pay to “the rich”.
The Monster says: “Those “rich” people, knowing the rates are going up, will be willing to pay less to their suppliers (including suppliers of labor) and will demand more from their customers. The result will be reduced employment, suppliers that make less money, and customers who chalk the increases up to “inflation”, not realizing that they are really embedded taxes hidden in the prices they pay to “the rich”.”
Why can’t you see that even your trusted leaders are playing this game?
The position of the “rich” is one which will never require bottomless sacrifice. Their mistakes, which cause the real loss of thousands of lives, are ultimately just “write-offs.” It must be so comforting to know that one has God, physics and the GOP on their side when making such difficult business decisions.
Why on Earth do so many people blindly support this system of chaotic risk and reward? If many do not support it, why do they envy the masters of such a game? One imagines the players must be sacrificing something; anything! Well, what other than humanity itself is sacrificed in the worship of those who cater to our most selfish desires?
I see that I have nothing of value to give you, nor to President Obama. The difference is that he does not ask. I give everything only to the deeper paths of human experience in the face of your despicable and juvenile black-and-white philosophies.
Slaves, not subjects. Democrats have always been the party of slavery, which is why they love communism so much. Making every person the slave of the state must get them giddy with excitement.
Now I feel like we’re united.
Serfs have got to stick together, after all.
“spending reductions in the tax code.”
Hmm. Let’s try “spending Deductions” (not Reductions) in the tax code. Tax deductions for certain kinds of spending.
I think he simply misread it, because he has no idea of the meaning of what he is reading. Think “corpseman”.
“Do not ascribe to malice that which can be explained by stupidity.”
Of course, it can be both at the same time.
We’re all grunts now.
And a grunt can take it. A grunt can take anything.
Carry on.
Obama is acting as sophist lecturer and socialist community organizer..ranting and railing against ‘the rich’…telling us that ‘the rich’ want to harm our grannies and children and…
But the Ryan plan is a precise, clear plan to enable us to support ‘our grannies and kids’. At the moment, the US is unable to sustain its expenses – and that means…those grannies and kids.
By the way – Obama keeps talking about ‘millionaires and billionaires’, but his chief focus is on anyone making over $200,000 a year which he says is a ‘rich person’. Since when is $200,000 annual income defined as being a millionaire/billionaire? Only in the virtual cloud-world of Obama?
And doesn’t he realize that most small businesses operate as ‘individual enterprises’ – even though they may employ a few people..and thus, Obama plans to increase the tax on small businesses – which are the wealth-producing backbone of a population.
Obama wants to expand govt – and increase taxes. But private enterprises are the only means of wealth production in a society. Govt’s don’t create wealth; they just devour it…in their bloated bureaucracies with their high wages, benefits and pensions secured by their rapacious public service unions….and in supporting more and more people who do NOT WORK..but live off the work of others.
Get.Rid.Of.Obama.
Well, if The One defines anyone earning more than $200K/yr. as “the rich”, it includes himself, as the salary for being POTUS is $400K/yr. plus $50K expense account, $100K non-taxable travel account (over and above use of limos, Air Force one, Marine One, etc.), a $19K “entertaining account”, and other benefits as well.
Just taxing His various emoluments at the 47% rate being called for by the Democratic Caucus in their “People’s Budget” would put $267,430+ back in the Federal kitty.
Of course, being who He is, you can bet He will be carefully exempted from the tax hammer He and his minions want to apply to everybody else. Just like all those Democrats who are so eager to stick their hands even deeper into everyone else’s pockets, and still are determined to spend even more than that. Never mind that they are going to be spending money that doesn’t exist; they are sure they can get it out of the rest of us somehow.
After all, it’s the Chicago way.
clear ether
eon
You are an idiot. the president doesn’t pay taxes on his/her salary while in office. P.S. You can’t know what Ryan’s plan will do because it doesn’t specify anything other than cutting metacaid, etc.
Well, I know that Ryan doesn’t view us as slaves on the Copperhead collective, like you and your Fearless Leader do.
Before calling anyone an idiot you should have your facts correct. The president pays taxes the same as any other citizen while in office. Contrary to your ignorant libturd fantasy world does in fact specify more than just Medicaid.
You can get copies of many Presidential tax returns, including those of Obama, here:
http://www.taxanalysts.com/www/website.nsf/Web/PresidentialTaxReturns
Kinda surprised at that, given his penchant for privacy and all…
I must be an idiot, too, because I don’t know what “metacaid” is.
Sounds kind of sci-fi, like an ointment that will regenerate a limb zapped off by a laser beam.
Tears are streaming down my face from laughing so hard at this level of stupidity.
Libtard is an accurate descriptor.
I’m not laughing. Folks like AJ are running the country and every institution that shapes our culture.
AJ, please, for goodness sake, either leave America alone or leave America. PLEASE.
It’s time for a call to action.
Today, on the Senate floor, Reid called the Sec. of Transportation because an air traffic controller fell asleep at Reno (after all commercial traffic was done)… and Harry wants disciplinary action…
then, today at the speech by Barry, media shows Joe Biden (the VP and a federal employee, like the ATC ) sleeping while Barry is speaking… a federal employee falling asleep on the job!
leaping to the breach, I ask that you take the same initiative I did…
Call your senators and representatives and ask them to call the White House (Biden’s boss) to report the VP falling asleep on the job, and tell them you want the VP to be disciplined as the air traffic controller will be disciplined.
tell them you expect them to go on the floor of the House or Senate and make the same statement on the record (as did Reid) calling for a hearing about a federal employee falling asleep on the job!
What? this man is one step away from the presidency and he sleeps on the job… with all else going on in DC, it’s time for a disciplinary hearing!
Correct me if I am wrong but doesnt the elimination of a tax cut mean that the government takes in more taxes? Call it what you want this equals a higher tax burden for someone.
That is how I interpret the phrase. He isn’t going to let us keep the money. He has said it before in more plain language ie he believes that the current tax breaks on the books are the problem causing the better part of the deficit. He has just re-labelled them “spending in the tax code”
I agree. The phrase is impressively Orwellian. But twisted is what we have come to expect of this administration. What is surprising is that they just keep hitting new lows all the time just when you thought they couldn’t get any worse.
I find it hard to understand how so many can fall for all the diversions of both sides in this ‘oh so serious’ dialog on spending and debt. The ‘spending’ is NOT the problem! The unconstitutional legislation and executive orders that allow for all the spending is the problem!
Through decade after decade and storm after storm, the socialists stay steadfast on point with their central platform, messaging and objectives while the GOP spends all its time flittering from one diversion, in defense, to another….without any central platform of strategy, messaging and objective. Step-by-step the socialists have abused the constitution for all their gains that has brought the nation to this point and the GOP….well, the constitution is obviously not a tool in their toolbox. Hell, the GOP can’t even mount a defense for all the points they know the socialists will use against them such as….poor granny and the kids will be left to starve and die, etc. The GOP can’t even be openly honest with the ‘people’ and fact the nation is divided and at war between the socialists and traditional constitutionalist Americans who believe the constitution still means something….and should be fully restored!
@ T.T. You’re precisely on point. As nauseating as it is to see such a noxious mix of stupidity and evil on display by the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave and his posse, it’s disappointing in equal measure to see so little leadership from the right. It’s all up to us… We have to stay on the wall. The November elections were just the beginning.
As Maggie said – “socialists always run out of other people’s money” – it will happen here too folks – this too shall pass. We just have to hope there is something left we can rebuild on…
Obama makes Bill Clinton look like an amateur when it comes to doublespeak. Parsing what he said is close to impossible. If America elects this socialist monster to a second term, it will get what it deserves; its destruction. It’s as simple as that, and I’m scared as hell.
I think you misunderstand. “Spending reductions in the tax code” means tax increases. He also said he wants to “reduce tax expenditures”. What this means is that every penny of taxes not collected (in other words, every penny of your money that you keep) is considered an expense to the government. In his mind, it’s not your money at all.
When Republicans propose spending cuts they never talk about cutting tax credits for companies like G.E. who recently announced some 5 Billion in profits – and paid no (ZERO) taxes – or to ethanol farmers – a stupid move that is causing food prices to skyrocket – or any of an array of tax credits going to companies and individuals for a bewildering assortment of tax credits that cost the country billions of $s. Got a nice big estate and don’t want to pay a pant-load of taxes? Have the farmer down the road grow some organic veggies on it. Tax bill diminished – or even zeroed out and you didn’t lift a finger. Money back to you from the farmer – and money saved on property taxes (New Jersey). These are taxes that prosperous companies and wealthy estate owners have handed to them on a regular basis and the best reason for a flat tax on income and property taxes.
Why is it neither party goes after this money – money that we pretty much all agree is not needed by the recipient? See ethanol subsidies if you are confused – that is a giant con – it forces us to buy a product that is pure crap – is hard on cars – it lowers the available power – and causes problems in metals in transportation – and produces costly damage to a cars working innards. If not for the subsidies the corn would be fed to hogs and not dumped into our fuel tanks – and we would enjoy better mileage.
Are the recipients of these tax credits the ones that fund most of the campaign money to candidates?
Something smells fishy to me…
I wish I knew, and I hope the GOP will be willing to tackle corporate welfare come 2012. (They could tackle it now if they like, but Obama won’t sign it; he’s in the corporate welfare queens’ pockets as surely as the damnedest caricature of Republicans by Lib bloggers.) There’s no way the right side wins this budget debate if it can’t slaughter its own sacred cows. Yes, that means defense spending too. Nevermind that it’s virtually the only thing the federal government does that’s legitimate; at 6 times 2nd place (China), it can be cut, and must be cut along with corporate welfare if GOP pols are to have any credibility with moderates and independents in this argument.
These are ares of the budget where it would be great to have a patriotic Democratic party living up to their liberal ideals. As we just witnessed, however, that sort of thing is just words for actual Dem politicians, far less important than lining one’s pockets with corporate donations from their future employers. So the GOP is going to have to slaughter its own sacred cows.
Me three. To appear legitimate, the Republicans may have to start going after “sacred cows” – oil companies, other special interests, even maybe subsidization of farmers, although that will raise food and oil prices. Getting rid of ethanol is a must, before they are declared “too big to fail”. The favoritism towards GE, GMC and unions by the Democrats is nothing more than blatant cronyism. All three are rewarded in billions of dollars in subsidies every year.
It is my understanding that the Ryan plan would cut many of these special interest tax breaks, in exchange for a slight decrease in corporate tax rates, like Simpson/Bowles recommended. This ends these special interest deductions, slightly lowers corporate taxes for those not now getting any special interest deductions, and actually raises equal or MORE revenue (Simpson/Bowles definitely raises MORE, Ryan might be EQUAL, either is reasonable). In any event, it is not a “tax break for big corporations” as Obama and the dems charge.
Obama and the dems would end the special interest tax breaks (good), but will not offset that with an overall corporate tax cut, resulting in a net corporate tax hike (bad). I prefer both the Simpsom/Bowles, and the Ryan approach, to the dem plan, which is just a naked grab for more taxes.
Is there a more dangerous liar anywhere on this planet?
“spending reductions in the tax code.”
All “refundable tax credits” come immediately to mind,but of course that isn’t what he means because that might reduce the 40% of 1040 filers that actually have a negative effective tax rate. He might do the home mortgage interest deduction, but if he does it won’t take effect until after the next election and will not be reported by the media.
I’m waiting for all these Fox News interviewers to start asking, “What about the 47% that don’t pay any taxes or win the tax lottery and get unearned income from filing their taxes? Shouldn’t they have some skin in the game?”
We have take charge of the phraseology in these interviews. The leftists do it in the lamestream, fight back. Some friends of mine in the late ’60s used to respond to the “Babykiller!” shout with, “No I’m a hippie killer, would you mind coming a little closer?”
Let’s not overlook “he will not trim benefit payment from Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid, more money can be squeezed out of the latter two programs in other ways.”
This is either (a) more smoke and mirrors about ephemeral savings from cutting “waste, fraud, and abuse”, or (b) real cuts to either the amounts the feds send to the states for Medicaid, essentially shifting the burden without cutting it and/or (c) real cuts to provider reimbursement, to programs that already pay less than the actual out of pocket cost of providing care. To the extent (c) obtains, it will translate, ultimately, into reduced access.
You cannot cut Medicare and Medicaid in real terms without cutting the benefit itself. That is the new third rail, and until someone grasps it, we are fiscally doomed.
This is a common thread with our President and his liberal collaborators. They obscure what he wants with redefined words and made up phrases. He wants spending reductions in the tax code (high taxes), he is leading a kinetic military operation (a war), radicals Muslims cause man-made disasters (terrorism), health care is a right (socialized medicine).
It’s not an isolated incident.
In other words we have achieved double-speak!
Would Orwell be surprised that he was only off by 27 years? I think he saw this coming.
Maybe the problem is with The Chosen One. Perhaps he can’t read too well and screws up the speeches written for him – leaving the loons scrambling to explain his gaffs.
“A man that insists on calling things by their right names would hardly pass the streets without being knocked down as a common enemy.” — Sir George Savile
And they kick in automatically if we spend a lot.
Someone ought to give Joe the Plumber a bumped hattip or something. He asked a simple question that called this guy out from the git-go, and was promptly vilified for it. It’s not like anyone should be surprised.
OOOOOOOOO!!!! Does “spending reduction” get a Keynesian multiplier too?
We should just call him the Acorn President. Obama is pretty much the same thing we would have gotten if the dems had put forth one of those ladies (explaining tax preparation to James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles)instead. He’s better looking and better spoken, but about the same caliber.
Gee, so if he can call a tax increase a spending reduction, then we can call a spending reduction a tax increase!!!! Problem solved!!!!
Taxing the rich to create jobs is like taxing doctors for better health care.
Owe-Bama’s financial proposal: “We simply cannot afford to stop stealing from America’s million and billionaires.”
ObaMao thinks he can blow smoke up anybody’s rear, and his lackeys will take care of the details.
That’s his sole purpose; Blow smoke and NEVER get involved in details. Best Party tool that the Democrats have ever had.
“He has finally admitted that he thinks the money that you work for belongs to the government before it belongs to you. He just had to utter the most Orwellian phrase ever spoken by an American president to get the admission out there.”
—-
Here’s one as bad- when Clinton was trying to explain away the prosperity of the Reagan years, he said:
“No wonder business liked us in the 80s- we cut them a check!”
Letting a company keep more of the money it earned is the same as “cutting them a check”- Could it be made any more clear that all money belongs to the government?
President Obama, and most liberals, view tax breaks as giving money back. Most conservatives view tax breaks as taking less money. The conservative view is better.
But he’s not a Socialist. Don’t you dare say that.
The dems were already getting pretty Orwellian when they started calling tax hikes “contributions”. But I must admit that calling tax hikes “spending reductions in the tax code” is a step up yet again in Orwellian newspeak.
And while Obama talks about the Ryan plan giving tax breaks to the rich, he forgot to say that all of Ryans rate decreases are more than offset by repeal of special interest tax breaks, so the Ryan plan actually gets MORE tax revenue from the rich.
OBAMA’S OMINOUS APRIL 13TH DEFICIT REDUCTION SPEECH
In a pervious piece I wrote that 13, the number of American colonies that declared independence in 1776 and defeated British tyranny, is a numeric symbol of liberty in US history. Being such it is an inauspicious number for Leftist ideologues who wanting to undo our revolution and spread the poison of state dependency and control-that soft tyranny which hardens over time-rob us of our rights and dignity and economic freedoms. And such has been the case of Barack Obama throughout his deceitful, ill-starred, freedom destroying presidency. For since the Senate passage of the stimulus recovery bill on February 13, 2009 the number 13 has been signaling the failing of Obama’s reckless agenda to remake and transform America. And yesterday’s terrible, unpresidential, duplicitous speech was no exception.
Indeed, coming just nine days after he launched his reelection campaign on the anniversary of Martin Luther King’s assassination, Obama gives a speech on the looming debt and deficit crisis on a profoundly inauspicious day……..
Click my name to continue reading this widely linked piece which one commenter called: “the most interesting, out of the box article that I’ve read on the speech.”
Obama’s choice of words is a reflection of his Marxist ideology, which believes that all wealth is owned not by individuals but by the government, and that the government should be responsible for distributing it “fairly.” To raise someone’s taxes therefore means only that the government is justifiably allowing that person a smaller share of the “communal piggy bank” and, as such, can be called a “spending cut” because the government is “giving” him less.