Skip to main content

Poor people understand deficit spending, too

The consequences of long-term deficit spending--whether by the previous administration or this one--are a choice between a crashing currency or significantly higher taxes.

President Obama has repeatedly promised that we can have it all: stimulus spending, two foreign wars, bail-outs for banks and entire industry sectors, and health insurance reform without raising taxes on anybody but Americans who make over $250K.

He's still saying it:

"I have not proposed any plan that would put the burden on middle-class families in order to deal with this'' healthcare plan, Obama told the audience Saturday at a "town hall'' meeting in Grand Junction, Colo. "So when you hear people talking about I'm raising your taxes, the only tax policies I've implemented for middle-class families is a tax cut for 95 percent of working families.'' ...

"When I was campaigning,'' Obama replied, "I made a promise that I would not raise your taxes if you made $250,000 a year or less. That's what I said. But I said that for people like myself, who make more than that, there's nothing wrong with me paying a little bit more in order to help people who've got a little bit less. That was my commitment.''


Nearly 70% of American citizens, however, appear to think he's full of it:

The apparently pervasive fear of higher taxes – with 68 percent of all Americans surveyed by the Gallup Poll saying they expect higher taxes by the end of Obama's term – could help explain widespread uncertainty about the president's plans for overhauling the delivery of health care and insurance.


What's more significant is that poor Americans [including a lot of Democrats, apparently] also understand what the President apparently does not: you cannot continually toss out money without eventually paying for it--one way or the other:

Even though the Obama administration has advanced no plans to raise taxes "on any but the wealthiest Americans,'' Jones notes, the newest Gallup Poll shows that "even a majority of Americans in the lowest income group -- whose annual household incomes are less than $30,000 -- believe their taxes will go up.

"Much larger majorities of middle- and upper-income Americans expect their taxes to be raised,'' Jones adds, noting that this might in part be explained by the fact that "upper-income Americans tend to be more Republican in their party orientation.''

Among those with an annual household income of $75,000 or more, 80 percent have told Gallup's pollsters that they believe they will pay higher income taxes by the end of Obama's term.

"But even Obama's political base has doubts about his being able to hold the line on income taxes,'' Jones reports, noting that 48 percent of Democrats expect their taxes to rise during his term.


Under President Reagan, the saying among small-government believers was Starve the Beast--the idea that the very best way to reduce the size of government was simply to take away its funding.

Under President Obama we are now feeding it.

Comments

Nancy Willing said…
You probably don't live in NCC where we have had 5 years running of deficit spending. The WNJ regurgitated yet another Coons' presser today about how proud he was in cutting his deficit in half. Too bad he's mainly doing it by raising our taxes each year splitting the difference with huge water and sewer increases and not reducing staff.

He had Cassandra write him a propaganda post on how everyone was fine with paying more. That was a big lie.
Mike W. said…
I'm glad people are waking up, but where was this skepticism during the campaign? Obama was promising us everything under the sun while simultaneously saying "no new taxes."

Anyone who wasn't blinded by "hope & change" could see what he kept saying didn't fit with reality.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...