« Obama Speech To Wall Street
| Blagojevich Wants to Subpoena Obama »
April 22, 2010
Obama: As I've Always Said, I Promise I Won't Raise
"Any Form of Taxes" Income Tax on the Middle Class
Obama, shockingly, says he's open to the idea of a VAT. He just wants to know all of his "options" before announcing the decision he actually made three years ago.
What's actually a little surprising is that CNBC catches him altering his previous bullshit campaign promises:
Obama’s VAT admission may explain his recent attempts to alter the terms of his central campaign promise. Twice in the past two weeks, Obama has claimed his middle class tax pledge only applied to income taxes rather than “any form of taxes”.
In his April 10 Weekly Radio Address, Obama said: “And one thing we have not done is raise income taxes on families making less than $250,000. That’s another promise we’ve kept.” In a speech on the evening of April 15, Obama repeated the truncated promise: “And one thing we haven’t done is raise income taxes on families making less than $250,000 a year — another promise that we kept.”
The two recent statements stand in stark contrast to Obama’s original promise: “I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.”
Obama's "pledge" was always a lie, and the media repeated his promise incessantly, and uncritically, to sell Obama as a different kind of Democrat. They never inquired how it was he could spend so much more without bankrupting the country if he also did not raise taxes on the middle class -- a bit of easy math would have shown this as an impossibility, but, alas, the media was apparently told there would be no math in this election.
Obama originally planned -- and stated as much -- to tax the middle class by levying huge carbon taxes which would of course hit the middle class (and poor, for that matter). He confessed -- or rather proudly declared -- that his planned carbon taxes would "necessarily" cause electricity rates to "skyrocket" -- and again, the media simply ignored this, and again, simply insisted to the public that Obama's word was bond about not raising taxes. Even though he just announced that taxes would be raised in the form of "skyrocketing" electricity costs.
That was Obama's Plan A for raising taxes on the middle class -- taxing the living hell out of the motive force of our economy, energy, which every single human being and business uses in varying quantities.
His Plan B was the VAT.
This is not some kind of "readjustment" to "new realities." The man simply lied, and he did so deliberately. He always intended to raise taxes broadly on the middle class, either through Plan A or Plan B or some Plan C waiting in the wings. (Actually, he already has raised taxes on the middle class, of course; call those Plans Alpha through Epsilon.)
He gets to deliberately lie with impunity, however, and never be called what he is: Liar. Because he's special, you see.
But also because the media/political class knows in its heart that America must be a high-tax nation if it is to fulfill all its social-justice obligations, so they believe the public must be lied to for its own good.
Once again, we don't know what's best for us, and require leftist politicians and a leftist media to lie to us front, right, and center in order to deceive us into creating the "America that can be."
The GOP Lying Down on the Job: The GOP seems to have made a collective decision that they can't talk about this -- either it's racist to say a black man could possibly tell an untruth to get elected, or they are still scared of his personal popularity ratings (which aren't even that high).
But I know for a fact the media will never challenge Obama on his fundamental mendacity, and the only possible way to inject it into the country's consciousness is for the GOP to make a concerted effort at branding him a serial liar. The media will of course still flack for Obama, but they will at least be obliged to cover the controversy -- and note Obama's changing "promises."
I suppose they are poll-testing this, and finding it upsets people too much -- if they really have strong polling on this that indicates it's a loser, okay, I believe in polls.
Let me dispute those focus-group results. People like being "nice" and avoiding making decisions until they are absolutely forced too. Take NJ and the teachers' unions -- for 50 years the public has decide to be "nice" and offer no pushback whatsoever on outsized pension plans and benefits and regular-as-clockwork raises, because it's "nice" to be a sap and say nothing at all.
It's only now that the state is on the brink of fiscal calamity -- actually, eight feet beyond the brink -- that they are forced to engage the issue at all, and they're deciding it's better to be solvent than to be nice.
I think the same damn thing is going on in these focus-groups. (And I am sure they are saying "Oh it's not nice to say mean things, keep it on policy and "substantive issues." Don't make it personal.)
These focus groups always say that. People have this idea that they are all lofty-minded and want to just hear about "substantive issues." They lie to themselves about this every day. They just like hearing themselves burble "nice" sentiments. It proves they're, well, nice.
The GOP should get tough and get real. People are only saying that because they don't want to make a decision about Obama's character -- people like making as few decisions as possible, and if they can avoid making an unpleasant decision about someone's fundamental lack of honesty, they will.
But if you force them to make a decision -- well, the record is pretty clear about Obama's dishonesty. Yes, I'm sure the public would rather not be confronted with record of this clean and articulate young man's serial mendacity. And I'm sure they will be irritated at the GOP for injecting such a not-nice issue into the campaign, which is really an irritation about being forced to come to some kind of decision on the evidence.
But if forced to make that decision -- well, the evidence only goes one way.
Many independents -- not all, but many -- are simply not political-minded and not decisive. They are besmitted by the idea of being "nice." They are always on and on about the need for the parties to "come together and fashion common sense solutions," which is just another way of saying they want this stuff worked out behind-the-scenes so they they themselves are relieved of the obligation to intellectually engage with these issues and make a damned decision.
That's what a lot of these independents want, most of all -- they will vote for whatever party taxes their intellect the least. They want consensus compromises, because if it's a consensus, they don't have to choose. Politics just goes on in the background, niceand quiet, the way they like it.
A lot of the GOP's hesitancy in these matters is due to this impulse among many apolitical independents. The GOP tries to be nice and quiet because they know these wishy-washy decision-avoiders will actually tend to punish the party that demands they make a decision, and vote instead for the party that promises they won't have to decide. That they won't have to prioritize between any public good, they won't have to choose between higher spending and lower taxes, etc.
They are absolute chumps for the "you can have it all" non-solutions.
So I do understand the GOP's general trepidation about forcing these, uh, imbeciles to engage intellectually and make tough decisions. Subconciously they will feel anger about the party forcing their minds into action.
But sometimes, you really need to risk that, especially when you have the facts on your side. Yes, these simps will resent being forced to think about politics. And yes, that's bad for the GOP. But they will be more angry at the Democrats who lied to them.
And the only way to make them come to this not-nice conclusion is to say it loud and often.
The Irony: I love Frank Luntz's focus groups where these soft-brained imbeciles bleat over and over again about "substance" and other feel-good buzzwords, flattering themselves about being "independent thinkers."
In fact, among all cohorts, it's this sort of person who does the least thinking of all about politics. Leftists are full of hate and lies, but they are generally better informed than this sort of independent.
Over and over they pat themselves on the back for, basically, refusing to do any sort of political homework whatsoever, demanding the parties fashion miracle solutions that advance all priorities equally, even incompatible ones (we want both more government spending and lower taxes!), just so they can be disobligated from doing any thinking on the subject at all.
Anyway, I guess you have to play this game with these cretins (who are so convinced they are the real "thinkers" in the country), but you can't go too far down that road, because soft liberalism is what you get if you allow everyone to avoid accountability and decision-making and instead vote for vague nonsense and general feel-goodery.
A lack of clear prioritization favors liberalism; that's how it advances. Not so much by the public embracing its particulars, but by the soft-minded cretins just taking the path of least resistance all the time.
The path of least resistance is always to just spend money and tax other people -- including the next generation.
Oh: As usual, I need to distinguish between this sort of "fuzzy-independent" and an independent who is actually politically engaged, and makes decisions, but is independent for defensible reasons (neither party attractive, etc.).
I'm not talking about, say, someone thinks the GOP is a sell-out party and therefore is conservative but not Republican. Or someone who is libertarian, and can't embrace either party. Or someone who lacks a name-brand ideology, but just doesn't agree with the GOP on this and doesn't agree with the Democrats on that, etc.
About half of all independents are that kind of independent.
But the other half -- and I gotta be sexist here: A lot of this sort of independent are women -- are this sort of fuzzy-headed let's-just-all-agree-so-I-don't-have-to-choose sort of independent.
There's a big distinction between the two types on independent: One is independent by active intellectual choice -- an affirmative decision that neither party is close enough to their ideal to support -- and the other is entirely a passive non-choice, a simple refusal to prioritize and categorize enough to make a decision at all.
One type of independent, in other words, actively rejects both parties, while the other passively accepts both parties, and in fact passively accepts everything. More spending, less taxes. Want to win the war, but also want a plan to evacuate the troops. Etc.
I can insult this sort of independent freely because one thing I know about them is they ain't reading blogs. They're not really reading anything political whatsoever.
Except maybe those lame-ass "Why are Politics So Crazy?" sorts of articles in Time and Newsweek.