Today, President Obama made his populist pitch to the American people. He proposed $1.5 trillion in new tax revenues, targeting people making over a million bucks a year. Major hat tip to Warren Buffett here, as the White House dubbed this The Buffett Rule. This plan would be part of a total 10-year deficit reduction package, netting the government more than $3 trillion.
"We can't just cut our way out of this hole," the president said during his speech in the Rose Garden.
Obama vowed to veto any bill that cuts Medicare benefits without raising taxes on the big corporations and the extremely wealthy. Under this plan, "rich" is defined by individuals who make more than $200,000 per year and families who make more than $250,000 per year.
Obama denied a case of class warfare. "It's math. The money is going to have to come from someplace," said Obama.
The president says the money flow would come by letting the Bush tax cuts expire for these high-income earners, cuts to entitlement programs and withdrawing troops from Iraq and Afghanistan.
The Republican presidential candidates fired back in predictable fashion: Tax increases kill jobs.
Mitt Romney released a statement reading, "President Obama's plan to raise taxes will have a crushing impact on economic growth. Higher taxes mean fewer jobs — it's that simple."
And Rick Perry responded, "President Obama's plan is a bait and switch that offers more than a trillion dollars in higher taxes for a promise of temporary tax relief. The president penalizes investment when it is needed most, discourages charitable giving and doubles down on a failed government stimulus strategy."
Obama presented his debt reduction plan in an either or scenario. "Either we ask the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share in taxes, or we're going to have to ask seniors to pay more for Medicare."
Leave a Comment:
Obama is toast. The anti-Clinton has not learned to compromise, starting with the closed door sessions of ObamaCare and into the present day "Jobs" bill. What a crock!!
Talk about crock. How about crooked. Norquist, the money launderer. Caught money laundering in 1997 for the GOP. Gosh, the who GOP is made up of crooked leaders.
rick,
what you see as compromise is the same as what the wahington republicans see as compromise. "give me what i want, or i will take my toys and go home".
how do you see that President Obama has not compromised? since his term began, he has constantly brought republican ideas to the table, starting with health care reform (the individual mandate, a republican idea). the jobs bill also has things that both democrats and republicans have supported in the past, and will require compromise from everyone, including the President.
the baggers and republicans have successfully changed this debate from "jobs" to the deficit. since the bush tax cuts are supposed to create jobs (according to republicans), WHERE ARE THE JOBS?
national statistics show millionaires by and large are paying taxes at a much higher rate than middle-class families.
NOBAMA and O'DONNELL lied to the public, middle class pay a lower rate.
national statistics show millionaires by and large are paying taxes at a much higher rate than middle-class families.
really????
who is national statistics?
Obama the Tax and Spender; I know why I don't watch MSNBC other than for a 2 minute laugh. So irrelevant.
At least he will use the taxes to better the country and its people. Not like the last president who use the surplus to make the wealthy richer, to start two wars one on them based on a lie and both of them without demanding the customary "war tax". Then joking when they did not find WOMDs while our young men and women die in Iraq. Then borrowed to help his friends move corporations overseas without asking profit sharing for the tax payers since they were the ones who foot the bill of moving over seas. Talk about being criminal.
Finally!!! I'm an Independent voter who had almost given up on Obama's being able to get fightin' mad!! Hallelujah!!! Now if he'll just stick to the script of today's Rose garden speech, maybe, just maybe...we can get out of this mess evenutally!!!
I never gave up. and to think I voted republican for 20 years. Now I am Democratic all the way and expect never to turn back to eat my own vomit. Since 1997 when the study came out on the 20% controlling 93% of the financial wealth, we said that as long as we have work, good wages and can take care of our families we could not care any less how rich the rich got. But now we see that all the policies designed were done by ALEC to protect their wealth and when we saw the congress behaving so unpatriotic I said not more. There could have been a chance but from the start of this presidency they have behaving hatefully.
This is the wonderful President I voted for... The hateful repuclicans can have something to chew on now... Go Obama !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!The people are on to the selfish republicans now........
So you are one of those that can't think for themselves
On the contrary we are the ones who have done our research and do not wait for our leaders to tell us what is right and what is wrong. We know it is unfair to ask the needy to share what they do not have. When most of us belong to the 80% who share only 7% of the financial wealth due to the greediness and unfairness of the tax code there is nothing more to be said. This is the president who is doing what is right, for a change. I hope the tax goes back to what is was during Eisenhower.
Tell me what the Eisenhower tax was. First time I've heard that.
@Afrommi-Why don't you try making your own money? Oh wait, that would take inginuity, energy and brains. I have a better idea, why don't you just move to Cuba?
james miller,
the republican president eisenhower taxed the rich at 91%.
president eisenhower is a true example of a compassionate conservative, probably one of the last republican presidents who can be described that way.
he believed in meeting the basic needs of the american people. expansion of social security, broad coverage of unemployment insurance, improved housing, and health protection for all people. he wanted the gov't to remain "warmly" responsive to the urgent social and economic needs of the american people. we do not see that from the republican party, today, especially in regard to minorities, women, and gays.
granted, we have come a long way in america since eisenhower was president. many things have changed. we are living longer, our population is larger, we have made several advances in civil rights for black americans, and now the gay population (DADT and marriage in some states). we are moving foward (albeit slowly) and not backwards as the republican party would have us do on many social issues. especially since the election of President Obama, we have seen the republican/bagger party try to oppress voting rights in states where they have a majority. they are also putting harsh regulations on women's health care centers making it impossible for them to stay open, thus making it more difficult for a woman to have an abortion (even in cases of rape or incest,) or to get birth control.
the republicans love to complain about regulations on how they make their money, but they don't care about the regulations that oppress the individual rights of everyday american people, like health care and voting.
rusty,
why do you assume that afrommi doesn't make his/her own money? and that he/she doesn't have ingenuity, energy and brains?
why does everyone have to believe like you, a bagger, or they should move to cuba?
@Suzzette-Because the country would be a much better place. Thanks for asking. But more because the type of life he and you want to force on everyone else is already alive in well in Cuba. So instead of you pushing your Communist "hate the rich" agenda on everyone else just pack your trash. Cuba is not far, you could still visit yearly, but hopefully you wouldn't.
kurt,
i do not hate rich people, and the democratic party doesn't either. i hear that comment made by the republican party all the time. "class envy", class warfare".
we are involved in several wars, we have a large deficit, why shouldn't everyone step up and help, as an american, as part of a bigger purpose?
my concern is the individual rights that the republicans are trying to take from people, like voting rights, and health care for women (abortion, birth control especially, but other things, too) and move the country backward in giving civil rights to ALL. this is the real class warfare.
Rick; I must agree but how do you take 2 minutes of this anti-American, small mind, Govt directed show. These people can not choose their own Ins company for Health Care, Need a tax free ticket for education, a battery driven car and someone to tell them how, why, where, when and why they should do something. Oh by the way they need a union to speak to management for them as well.
Yes, like ALEC, is not a union, like the AMA is not a union, like the ADA is not a union, and like the Chamber of Commerce and the Small Business Administration are not unions. Also all the clubs to which you pay dues and use your membership to advance their interests are all unions. And those unions have been in place for more than 60 years. This president has nothing to do with them. The wealthy need the 80% to be happy with sharing only 7% of the wealth, don't they otherwise they cry like babies. Are you part of the 20% and controlling 93% of the wealth. If you are not do not think Republicans care too much for you.
safeeng: And the rich get welfare in the form of unneeded and excessive tax deductions and want vouchers to send their kids to private schools, and they want no fees to park their jets at airports, and special considerations because, because, because, well just because they are rich!
I don't understand the argument or how this is being framed. In order to give these tax cuts to wealthy Americans in hope that having the additional money they will create jobs. First where is the evidence. More importantly these are people who are receiving tax breaks not on money the government has but is borrowing adding dramatically to the defecit. How do you make sense of that. This is like having a bankrupt neighbor taking out a mortgage to pay for a millionaires house. This is not a logical argument this is crazy.
This comment is about the Trumpster saying he may run for president. I guess the Donald wants to get more properties through the unjust use of the Eminent Domain laws. He did it in the City of New York, and in Atlantic City. He has been very successful in "convincing" (I say bribing) governors to condemn properties he is interested in, so they can be sold to him for next to nothing. To me he is scum of the earth, greedy bstrd. I wish he could run so the Democrats can bring his dirty laundry out. His laundry is dirtier that Norquist. That one got caught money laundering for the GOP in 1997. And I still can believe the Republican base want to still keep on sleeping on that side and continue to vote Republican. I wish they vote their conscience for once. Oh, may be that is their conscience..
Lawrence, I usually enjoy your show very much, but I draw the line at attacking people for using their middle names. My dad, my two uncles, many of the people in my family, including me, were always called by their middle names. We did NOT choose to go by them for stupid reasons. Give those guys a break unless you find they chose to change names in mid-life.
Lawrence, Of course the rich should pay more taxes because they have more to lose.
e.g. If you have an expensive house, you pay higher insurance - their insurance on their possessions insured by our military and all other protections this country offers, cost more to protect, even corporate jets, which I don't have and, therefore, I don't cost the gov. as much . Middle Class Jim - keep up the good work or I'll be lower class Jim
You said it!!!!
Lawrence, I usually enjoy your show very much, but I have to draw the line at your comments 9/19 condemning people using their middle names (Perry and Romney). Many people in my family, including me, were never called by their first names, only their middle names. This is a common practice in some families, and you have no business attacking people who go by their middle names, unless you determine it was a mid-life change-of-course, and even then I would question the attack.
OH come on Rick, you know what the real truth is. Face up to it! Tax and spender, we are the ones laughing at that statement.
Damm those Evil Rich people! Who do they think they are? They should be locked up and all their assets split among the workers! How was that? Can I be a liberal now?
NO!!!! because YOU sound like a dumbass republican that don't!!!! understand the issues, and can't except the truth. Liberals deal with FACTS!!!!! they don't play the CON games, that the CONservatives play................
No... you cannot be a liberal... Liberals believe (at least I do) that if you do what it is that made you wealthy, you should be wealthy, you earned it. We also believe that you should pay your fair share. BTW, if you make $50,000,000 and pay your 35% you still have $32,500,000. On the contrary if you make $50,000 you have $32,500.... Simple math, but I still used a calculator..... My school couldn't afford a goot math teachre... they evan had lest to hire a speling teatcher.
@rynoob-I couldn't agree with you more. A strait tax for everyone with no loopholes and no deductions. If you have trouble with spelling and math, don't feel bad, I do too thanks to the Union Teachers.
The reality is that tax breaks for the rich does not create jobs. This is so basic and I don't know why this isn't a talking point. Someone does not get rich by making foolish decisions. They will create jobs when there is a demand.... that is plain and simple. When the majority of the population can't afford to buy their product, they will lay people off, not hire more because they got a tax break.
OMG.... Billo the clown said that if his taxes were increased, he would have to pack it up. What a shame. Do you think Fox News would go off the air for the hour he vacated? Wouldn't bother me.
That is exactly what has happened to California for the last 20 years. I guess the left will not be happy until then whole country is "third world" because all of the evil rich people are gone. Good luck finding a job. Oh yea, you won't need one, that's what the government is for. How stupid of me....
I am sorry Kurt, but this web page does allow me to post in crayon... so you will need to follow a little closer. the point I was making is that if all of our country's job exporters... I mean job creators decide to stop making huge amounts of money because they are finally being taxed fairly, we would actually have an economic boom with all of the new business created to fill the void. Btw... if I could I would post a kitten for you too. Maybe you and a couple of your neocon buddies could have a party and cut it's head off or something.
You make no sence what so ever. Cut a kitten's head off???? That is the best you can come up with? You are an impressive person. You don't actually vote do you? Please say no.
Mr. O'Donnell:
Kindly do a Rewrite on what it means to 'make' a certain amount of money for purposes of tax policy. The common parlance is that the Bush tax cuts are for families 'making more than $250,000.' When asked, the average person would say they 'make' their gross income. Taxes are computed on taxable income after all deductions and credits. A family with more than $250,000 in taxable income has to 'make' considerably more in gross income.
Lawrence commented Tuesday on how the economy boomed after Clinton signed the biggest tax increase ever in the early 1990's. Lawrence should check his economic facts to learn first of all that the recovery from the recession of the early 1990's had started in early to mid 1992 and the economy was in a strong growth mode before Clinton took office. He also needs to be reminded that the boom in the 1990's was a result of the runaway dot com bubble that created immense growth in employment plus and tax receipts (from not only ordinary income but huge increases in capital gains taxes) but resulted in a crash in the spring of 2000 that put us back in a recession.
And I wish Lawrence would explain how and why increasing taxes on the wealthy will increase employment instead of just saying anyone that thinks increasing taxes will hinder employment growth is wrong. Hearing something more than Lawrence's simple platitudes may give me reason to abandon the simple facts of economics that I learned long ago such as if you want to increase employment, do what you can to enable employers to grow, not hinder their growth by increasing their costs by increasing their taxes.
@Kurt, why such an ugly comment. We are all blessed to live in a country where we can all have opinions. I lean to the left, but have never voted straight ticket in my 62 years, but I intend to vote straight Democratic in 2012. The GOP is in the tank with corporations and have made their sole goal to make President Obama a one termer...Their job is to work together and find pathways to get our great country back on track and produce jobs..Lame "job creators" comments have been proved false time and again...my advice is be civil post your thoughts and don't attack those who do not agree with you. Have a good day.
I usually have the same disposition as you, however, after being relentlessly attacked on this site by very closed minded and hateful people it has brought out the worst in me. Sorry.
Like me HAHAHA
I am not sorry to you rynoob, you are hateful and uneducated. Very bad combination.
Thank You President Obama!!
understand Boehner had to do a double tan along with a double martini after you call him and his GANG that could not think straight out!
Stay on the ATTACK!!!!!
you have 10tens of Millions of Americans behind you and that trumps (pun maybe intended) any MONEY that the rich can poor into this FIGHT!!