What if Obama does raise taxes on the rich? Then what?

I’ll admit it: There’s a part of me that wants President Obama to get every last tax increase he proposed this week.

Let him close the loopholes and raise tax rates on “millionaires and billionaires” — defined, in his world, as married couples who earn a combined $250,000 a year and individuals who bring in $200,000. Let him tax capital gains at the same rates as wages. Let him squeeze more revenue out of oil and gas companies. Let him sock it to the corporate jet owners.

And then, when the economy keeps foundering and the jobless are still out of work and the budget remains unbalanced, let him tell us what comes next.

You see, I don’t think there is a Plan B, because I don’t think his proposals amount to a Plan A for growing the economy, or creating jobs, or balancing the budget — or for anything besides raising taxes for the sake of raising taxes.

Obama’s quest to raise taxes, especially on “the rich” and corporations, has reached Ahab-like levels of obsession. The question doesn’t matter; for him, the answer is “raise taxes.” The $447 billion piece of legislation he proposed earlier this month was not so much a jobs bill as it was a tax increase-justification bill.

Obama’s already admitted more than once that he knows better than to believe infrastructure jobs involving the federal bureaucracy are truly “shovel ready.”

He may already be too late in calling for schoolhouse renovations if they’re to be completed by the end of next summer.

We’ve already seen, with the bankruptcy of the solar panel manufacturer Solyndra — in the exact month analysts predicted, and despite a half billion in federal loan guarantees — the folly of trying to shove taxpayer dollars out the door to private ventures quickly enough to count as a job-creation measure.

But none of that matters, because I don’t think that’s the point for him.

I don’t agree with those who think his intention is to destroy the economy or ruin the country. I don’t know if he believes his tax maneuvers will have an effect that’s opposite of what basic economics suggests — although I am certain he believes that a more muscular central government is in the public’s best interest.

I don’t know why he would continue to think people will put stock in super-investor Warren Buffett’s anecdote about paying a lesser share of his income in taxes than his secretary, when there are piles of data that make clear this situation is not an epidemic in our country.

I do know that we’ve known about this tax-the-rich tendency since the 2008 campaign. During one debate, Obama said he would raise capital gains taxes even if doing so resulted in less federal revenue, out of his sense of “fairness.”

I don’t know why he would feel that way. There are plenty of dime-store psychological analyses of Obama out there, if you’re into that kind of thing. I just know that one constant for the man who came to the White House as a self-proclaimed “blank screen” has been the push to tax the rich more heavily.

But ultimately, satisfying my curiosity about what Obama would do and say differently if he got his way on taxes, and proved it didn’t work, isn’t worth the collateral damage. Because here are a few other things I know:

I know the Reverse Rumpelstiltskins in Washington can’t take gold out of private hands and spin it into straw fast enough to do more good than harm.

I know that, even by the White House’s own projections, this soak-the-rich strategy won’t come close to balancing the budget — especially when it’s used to justify increasing spending even further.

I know the Obama approach — complicating the tax code even further, just to scratch this anti-rich itch — will only make it harder to reform the tax code. And that will make it harder to draft a broader strategy for reducing deficits and debt.

Finally, here’s something I can only suspect: that Obama’s answer to “what comes next?” once the millionaires and billionaires have been tapped will not be to cut spending as needed to achieve fiscal balance. Instead, it’ll be to define “millionaire” much lower than people who earn just a quarter of that amount.

(Note: This post, my column from Thursday’s print edition of the AJC, draws and expands on a few thoughts I posted earlier this week.)

– By Kyle Wingfield

Find me on Facebook or follow me on Twitter

419 comments Add your comment

Joel Edge

September 22nd, 2011
5:31 am

I agree. I’m sick of arguing the obvious. We need to start addressing the size of the government. Multiple agencies doing the same job. Layers of bureaucrats on top of bureaucrats. Pass every freaking tax you can and afterwards we’ll clean up what’s left. I guess, we’re going to have to learn the hard way.

Rick in Grayson

September 22nd, 2011
5:36 am

He can find $105 billion/year in savings (more than a trillion in a decade) by simply mandating the use of E-Verify to deny jobs to illegal aliens! If they can’t work, the vast majority will go back to the home countries.

Will he get $100 billion/year in savings going after millionaires?

No, but he will grant illegal aliens work permits to take jobs from US citizens and refuse to reduce legal immigration by 90% until US citizens have jobs.

How can we trust a President who puts the interests of illegal aliens before those of US citizens and legal residents?

ByteMe

September 22nd, 2011
6:03 am

It’s simple, really, Kyle: we tried the exact opposite — lowering tax rates on the wealthy and not spending enough on infrastructure — and it failed miserably. So let’s go back to what worked before, regardless of whether you believe it’s a “plan”.

DeborahinAthens

September 22nd, 2011
6:45 am

Well we’ve tried the tax cut thingey since 2003 and we have had two recessions since 2001, two massive stock market crashes (over 50 percent) and we have shed millions of jobs.–following the Republican lead. Remember, you had total control for six years. So, Rebublicans, tell us what your master plan for job creation, economic stimulation is. Surely it can’t just be to cut taxes…or is it? Kyle, how can you continue to defend an indefensible position with a straight face? Just once I want one of the media talking heads to actually get a real answer from a Republican. So far every cut, slash and burn idea, should it be implemented, would actually cost jobs and send us spinning back into a recession.

Aurelius

September 22nd, 2011
6:50 am

First Obama is not going to raise taxes. Taxes will be raised by the combined actions of the House and Senate and then with the signature of the President.

Obama has never spent a nickle that was not approved by Congress.

We have been trying The Plan of low revenue and increased spending since January 1981. The result is the $14 Trillion Plus national debt we now “enjoy”. Lets all give ourselves a pat on the back.

As I see it we have two chores we need to do. First stop the slid into more debt. The New Plan should be to reduce the size of the federal government. I see no one, Republican or Democrat, issuing plans to reduce the size of government. The Plan is to reduce the amount paid out in entitlements and reduce the spending on education, at a time when we are producing one of the planet’s more ignorant work forces. But that is it.

Second, re-write the tax code. Every tax return pays, pick a number, say 18%, period. No ands, buts or ifs or deductions for the new dog collar. GE pays 18%, uncle Fred pays 18% and Kyle and I pay 18%. And Warren Buffet gets to pays his 18% along with his secretary. But this Plan requires a “tax increase” on GE, half of Congress has signed Grover’s Pledge, so this plan will not happen.

Bob

September 22nd, 2011
6:54 am

Deb, The unemployment rate was close to one half what it is now back in Bush’s terms. That was until Pelosi and Reid took over that is. Back when Kennedy cut the rates, that generated revenue, to bad Johnson spent it on an illegal war,

CarterFliptme

September 22nd, 2011
7:01 am

Kyle says he doesn’t agree that Obama is trying to destroy the economy or ruin the country, yet repeatedly admits he doesn’t know why Obama DOES this or that, doesn’t know why he THINKS this and that, and even on the things he seems sure of, it’s pure educated guess.
The point is, Obama’s not trying to ‘destroy the economy’. He’s trying to diminish America’s confidence in Free Enterprise and Capitalism, and the Constitution. He’s not trying to ‘ruin the country’. He’s trying to create enough doubt, chaos, and suffering to allow for this confidence to be broken, thus bringing on ‘fundamental transformation’.
I’m pretty certain it wouldn’t be a Libertarian’s paradise.

Ayn Rant

September 22nd, 2011
7:06 am

Obama’s “obsession” is to tax the high earners at the same rate they were taxed before the Bush tax cuts that blew the federal budget and ratched up the deficit to $1.5 trillion.

His plan is barely OK. What’s missing is a hike the tax on income and capital gains from “investments” that do not involve a ownership share of equities in American business enterprises.

Coaxing the wealthy to invest in job-creating enterprises has not worked. Making the alternatives less profitable will.

We need financial reform, not merely tax reform. It’s time to encourage capital to chase job-creating, profitable enterprise by imposing higher taxes on deriviatives, hedge funds, and other financial instruments that are gambles rather than investment in the economy.

Skip

September 22nd, 2011
7:10 am

When you write “tax increase” don’t forget to add ‘from the lowest rate any of us have ever seen”. I know it’s just a typo on your part.

JF McNamara

September 22nd, 2011
7:12 am

Bob,

When Kennedy cut rates, the top marginal tax rate was 91%. Do you even understand the Laffer curve, or are you just spewing something you heard on the radio?

Pelosi and Reid did take over, but all of the things that led to our decline were already in place. We already had a huge deficit, we bets on CDOs had already been placed, and people had been getting loans they couldn’t afford for years. No matter how you spin it, the Bush had a huge role in the problem.

mom of 3

September 22nd, 2011
7:13 am

I wouldn’t mind paying more in taxes if I had the confidence that my money would be used wisely. When the government makes a genuine effort to reduce fraud and wasteful spending, it can raise taxes. That day will never come.

Del

September 22nd, 2011
7:20 am

It will be a long road to recovery but it can only begin when the country gets this man out of the White House.

Ronnie Raygun

September 22nd, 2011
7:20 am

We’ve had tax cuts for the investor class and deregulation over the past decade and look where that landed us. High deficits and floundering economy. Isn’t the definition of insanity when you keep doing the same things and expecting different results? Or is that just the definition of stupid?

JF McNamara

September 22nd, 2011
7:22 am

Kyle,

After we tax the rich, we tax the poor and the middle class. The thing is, neither side really has a problem with that so it won’t be hard. We also end the wars and make a few changes to the social programs to get them under control at least for a small amount of time.

There is no way in which we even start to solve our problems without taxing the rich first, because they hold the majority of the country’s wealth. The top 20% of people in terms of wealth are 85% of this countries net worth. They have nearly all of the money, and we can’t get there without taxing them. If we tax the poor and middle class first, they’re the only people who will get taxed and we’ll just end up with more problems.

If you ran a business and 20% of your customers constituted 85% of your potential revenue, who would focus on selling to? Its basic business practice. The top 20% drive your bottom line. Focus on the bottom 80% of the customers if you want, but you aren’t really going to make any real money.

Joe the Plutocrat

September 22nd, 2011
7:26 am

I find it interesting that you continue to trade in meaningless, soundbite poli-speak, and yellow journalism. “tax the rich” has become the right’s “remember the Maine”. the very phrase suggests elitism and priviledge for one class, at the expense of the rest. I remain dumbfounded by the shills who support “the rich” as if people become “rich” in some social bubble. married couples earning $250,000 are not “the rich”. “the rich” are the billionaires and multi-millionaires who either inherited their wealth, or benefited from the DE-REGULATION of Wall Street. did you see the Forbes list of 100 richests Americans? every one has benefited from “regulation” (as if civil and criminal codes do not “regulate” the behavior of others? does not the 15% tax pate for “capital gains” or “investment income” as opposed to 23, 28 or 35% for earned income constitute a “regulation”? seriously, the profound lack of intellectual effort put forth by the right is depressing.

ByteMe

September 22nd, 2011
7:28 am

I wouldn’t mind paying more in taxes if I had the confidence that my money would be used wisely.

If you keep voting for the same people, why would you expect a different outcome??

dcb

September 22nd, 2011
7:30 am

Great op-ed piece Wingfield. But you’ve left out the most important piece. Obama loves the limelight – the power, the financial windfall, and all the perks that go with the job. That’s his goal and driving force – to win re-election. Bash the rich doesn’t need supportive evidence for the majority out there. Beating that drum is all that it will take to bring in the votes.

KyleKyleGoAway

September 22nd, 2011
7:31 am

Yet again, you prove what an epic moron you are. Yet again, you evince a profound misunderstanding (or blissful ignorance – I’m not sure quite which) of economic theory and its practical application (as in, the EVIDENCE IS COMPLETELY NOT IN YOUR FAVOR). That a respectable publication like the AJC sees fit to pay you anything to write nothing is at the same time galling, shameful and completely mystifying.

catlady

September 22nd, 2011
7:32 am

Kyle, raising the taxes IS plan B. Plan A was for the lower taxes and less federal mandates and more tax incentives to raise the rate of job creation. It didn’t work. Business owners, banks, etc, have sat on the money they saved and NOT CREATED JOBS. So, now it is time for plan B. Plan C could get VERY ugly.

Steve - USA

September 22nd, 2011
7:42 am

Then what? Then they say they need to raise taxes again. The beast will never be satisfied.

rwcole

September 22nd, 2011
7:46 am

Kyle and the rest of you nonconservative right wing fanatics know that the tax rates on everyone are too low and that the Bush tax cuts helped get us into this mess to start with. Why can’t one Republican, just one, admit that?? To hear Kyle tell it, all we need to do is reelect President Bush and everyone will have a job, the deficit will go away, and candy will fall from the sky. The class warfare that Kyle and his kind like to talk about actually started in 1980 and the rich are winning the war while America loses.

Plato

September 22nd, 2011
7:49 am

If the job creators aren’t going to step up and create jobs, which they obviously aren’t, then the government needs to step up and do it for them. One way or another money needs to be spent to create jobs. If the wealthy are going to hoard, then Obama needs to pry it out of their hands and put it to work. It really is that simple.

GB

September 22nd, 2011
7:50 am

Ronnie:

What deregulation? Could you please name one regulatory scheme that has been eliminated in the past decade? What industy has been deregulated? Can you name one? Just one.

Steve - USA

September 22nd, 2011
7:53 am

rwcole@7:46 – all we need to do is reelect President Bush and everyone will have a job, the deficit will go away, and candy will fall from the sky

Your confused. That was supposed to happen when Obama was elected.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36×8rTb3jI

Really?

September 22nd, 2011
7:54 am

@KyleKlyeGoAway — spot on. In one of the few cases in recent times Kyle has not cut and pasted a quarter to half is ‘blog’ from another source, although he is using other things written for the written addition etc which again proves he is basically lazy and not a journalist. The thought behind the article is a different issue (or the lack of thought).
Pitiful. Journalism? Really?

UcantCLA

September 22nd, 2011
7:57 am

Create a national sales tax of 5 cents that is applied to every transaction no matter how small or big. Use that money to only pay the national dept. Think about every on-line sale, cup of star bucks, best buy purchase their is a day and add 5 cents to that trannsaction. And everyone pays for the mistakes of congress and their overspending, no ducking it.

Ed

September 22nd, 2011
7:58 am

Why not give him his tax increase with a “trigger” that says it goes into effect for every year following certification by the Administration that the USG successfully spent as much or less than they took in? Such a tax would expire for the following year if the Executive failed to balance expenditures with revenues in any year.

Dare him to veto that.

DeborahinAthens

September 22nd, 2011
8:00 am

Bob, go to the Department of Labor and look at the real data instead of spouting off talking points fed to you by the Republican elite. Look at the reality!!!! Bush shed jobs by the hundreds of thousands, the numbers of which establish the base of our unemployment numbers today. Look at when the economy turned in 2009 and the job creation numbers improved. That is when the Repugs panicked. Knowing they didn’t have a chance in hell if the economy improved, they have blocked every move that has been proposed. They do NOT want the economy in good shape going into 2012 , and they don’t care who or what they destroy to to stop what little recovery we had. Now, Bob, can you show me some numbers to disprove what I am saying? Kyle?? Didn’t think so.

Ed

September 22nd, 2011
8:00 am

I forgot to mention that by law the increased revenue could only be used to buy down public debt.

Joe the Plutocrat

September 22nd, 2011
8:01 am

rwcole, there is “one Republican” who has; his name is Gary Johnson, but he gets very little attention (though he will be participating in tonight’s debate) because he is a “social liberal” (pro abortion, pro legal marijuana, pro same sex marriage). and guess what? know what these SOCIAL/theo-cratic issues have in common; none concern “jobs” or the deficit (except marijuan, which if taxed and “regulated” woudl ease the federal debt.

Tom

September 22nd, 2011
8:06 am

Kyle, you realize that b/c you remotely say anything bad about Obama, you are racist right? I don’t like Obama, so I must be racist too? At least that is the general attitude of the population. This is the “change” everyone(or the blacks) wanted, so I hope they are happy. And the blacks are. It doesn’t matter how bad this country gets, “man I’m black, the president is black, yyyeaaaahhhhhh ni**a.” That’s how they talk everyday and they know it.

President Obama is inexperienced and has absolutely no clue what he is doing. His display of arrogancy is to cover up for his embarrassment of being inexperienced. It is NOT the government’s responsibility to create jobs. However, they can try to create an environment that is good for creating jobs. Lowering corporate tax will allow companies to hire workers. Implementing the fair tax will allow people more freedom with their money to buy goods. If we purchase goods, companies will make more goods. Companies start producing more goods, chances are they might need workers. As a result, people will go to work. Simple concept huh?

DeborahinAthens

September 22nd, 2011
8:07 am

GB, the massive energy deregulation promulgated by the Bush Administration led to Enron. The repeal of Glass Stegall, done u der Clinton, when Congress was in control and he was told that they would override his veto led us to the 2008 banking meltdown. These were done over ten years ago, but they have had far reaching consequences for us poor slobs. I work in the financial industry and you have NO IDEA how harmful these two de-regulations have been to our economy. Then, when you have the opportunity to have a reasoned, intelligent person like Elizabeth Warren try to re-establish some sanity to the banking system, you useless pieces of pond scum crucify her. You are such idiots, voting over and over for things that are NOT in your best interest.

jayone

September 22nd, 2011
8:13 am

DeborahinAthens, Aurelius, JF McNamara: How true you all are. Again those die hard GOP’er have nothing of a plan other than to say No will not go along with this nor that. Where is the GOP plan oops they have none as does the GOP Candidates who hope to be President. It seems that every GOP’er wants to attack the President for what he proposes. I have yet to see Mitch or John put out a plan to help produce JOBS and reduce the deceits. Yet the only thing you hear from them is we should not be raising taxes on business to create JOBS. If they have the money to which I believe they do it’s not going to force them to create jobs if we go with the GOP plan. They will just hoard the money as they are now.

HDB

September 22nd, 2011
8:15 am

DeborahinAthens
September 22nd, 2011
8:07 am

Point well said!!

November 6, 2012

September 22nd, 2011
8:15 am

A simple solution to our Social Security and Medicare under funding and pending bankruptcy.

1) Take the CAP off of WAGES. I know, this is actually a tax increase, but folks something!!!!! has to be done and it’ll probably include raising taxes. Take all the additional money raised and put in a separate trust fund……do not mix it in with the general funds!!!!!! Our politicians will only spend it. This will not only help Social Security, it will help to shore up Medicare because part of the percentage we pay is for Medicare.
2) Eliminate COLAS for the next ten years. Everyone has to share in the FIX.
3) Raise the Medicare deductible by $100.00/year
4) Immediately institute a 2% National Sales Tax. Some of you may have seen this on O’Reilly. This TAX will be paid by EVERYONE, including the estimated Trillion Dollar underground economy. Put this money in the newly established Social Security Trust Fund mentioned in 1) above. DO NOT mix it with the general funds. All of this money should be for future generations.
5) On a selected date, put all monies collected for Social Security in the newly established trust fund and on a selected date, start paying all Social Security Benefits from this fund. This will stop the RAIDING of SS funds by our corrupt politicians.

I think our crooked politicians will begin to see that this country, my Beloved “United States of America” will have to stop all of the deficit spending.

Remember to VOTE on November 6, 2012 and VOTE RESPONSIBLY

Kyle is waiting by the fax

September 22nd, 2011
8:15 am

Don’t expect a response from Kyle…..he is anxiously waiting by the fax for his daily GOP talking points before offering a rebuttal to all of the well thought out refutations to his inanity.

dbell

September 22nd, 2011
8:15 am

The problem is the class war fare that is being thrown around. A family making $250,000 is not rich, well off yes, but not rich-especially if they live in certain areas of the country. I believe that the idea that one can work hard and make a good living is under attack. People that make $250,000 aren’t using the same amount of services that those that make less do. Shoot what about the people that pay no taxes or get back more than what they put in-something that needs to stop. If you only pay a few thousand in taxes and get an extra two or three grand back, isn’t there a problem with that. You see there really are some that aren’t paying their fair share-what ever the means.

The economy is stagnate because of the housing market. I didn’t buy more of a home than I could afford, but because of the foreclosures in my neighborhood, the values have dropped a 1/3, even with the money that we’ve put into updating our home. Banks are partly to blame, as are the homeowners who bit off more than they could chew.

Many were trying to keep up with the Jones’ and simply couldn’t afford it. Where are these people to blame about their finances? My family didn’t do that and don’t carry the debt loads of many Americans. Yet we hear nothing about this, only that it’s just the bank’s fault-which simply is not true.

Taxing corporations makes me laugh. Are people so stupid as to not realize that the consumer will be the ones paying those increased taxes? Corporations all have the same tax relief measures. Oil and gas companies have an 8% profit margin. Much of what you pay at the pump goes to the state and federal government and not the oil company. Gas stations cannot stand alone to be profitable, they need to have a convenience store to pay employees and give the owners a profit. The prices of goods have increase greatly already, because of the increase of materials and such.

The money that has been spent on these shovel ready jobs has again been wasted and will only benefit labor unions, and not many workers for the amount of money that will be spent.

I hope that those that make under $200,000 realize that they’ll be the next rich, and therefore will have their money taken from them next. I also hope that Obama realizes that go ahead and tax me more, but that will mean that I will not be spending money on clothes, on lawn service, for a pool membership, to museum memberships, to give to charities, and on continuing to fix up my home. The government can take from me, and I will adjust my spending, so that we don’t go in debt and think of ways that we don’t make so much money, so that we can keep more of what we make.

I’ve taken classes by Bill Ayers, and I am not sure if the O’bama will be happy until we’re all on the government payroll in either the form of working or welfare. I fear for the country that I thought was free, as our freedoms keep getting taken away slowly.

mom of 3

September 22nd, 2011
8:19 am

That’s exactly it, ByteMe. It doesn’t matter the face, new or old, or the letter behind a politician”s name. Nothing ever changes and I have zero confidence it ever will. But let’s continue the rallying cry of FAIRNESS.

Darwin

September 22nd, 2011
8:21 am

For one thing – we can try to get you right wing fanatics to stop the mindless spending on the defense industry machine and stop invading countries and spending BILLIONS of dollars without paying for it.

SBinF

September 22nd, 2011
8:26 am

Maybe the marginal tax rate for the job creators should be 0%. Boy, then they’d really be creating jobs! Right??

1961_Boomer

September 22nd, 2011
8:27 am

Bingo. I was ready for this argument to be over with the debt ceiling debate. Once Obama zings it to the rich with no boost in revenues from the rich, he is out of ammunition. So… disarm him.

mom of 3

September 22nd, 2011
8:28 am

Agreed, Darwin. Not the name calling part, or the invading part, but the helping out everywhere in the world when we can’t afford it part. That is what you meant, right?

real john

September 22nd, 2011
8:31 am

Good job Kyle, you really have the libs fired up today!!! Most of these bloggers are just pathetic. They are trying sooo hard to defend this incompetent man we have as president. Obama is so far over his head its funny.

The libs are scared(as they should be). People are finally seeing the light. The Dems are going to get crushed in 2012. Not just Obama, but the Senate and House as well

ILLEGALMEANSILLEGAL

September 22nd, 2011
8:32 am

DEBORAHINATHENS, what exactly do you do in the finance industry because there was this thing called the CRA that took housing down. Oh yeah, and Bush wanted to look at Fannie and Freddie but Barney Franck and the democrats said everything is fine up until the wheels fell off. Bush wasn’t perfect, but trusting a government where both sides caused this recession is asinine.

1977 Gen X-er

September 22nd, 2011
8:35 am

When the baby boomers die our country will shrink back to normal levels. We will not need as many governement services (Medicare and Social Security – How BIG and wasteful are these departments?????) WE’ll do away with entitlements for the elderly and this country will finally be able to move forward instead of hanging on to the “good ol’ days” when everything went to crap!

PoliticalMan

September 22nd, 2011
8:36 am

I don’t recall the economy going in the tank when marginal tax rates on the rich (excuse me, job creators) were more than double what they are now in the decades after WWII. Now we have essentially what the right wanted for decades: minimal regulation, free-trade agreements with the third-world, greatly reduced taxation – isn’t it all wonderful. Let’s get the tax rate to 0 for corps and the rich (sorry, job creators) and they will create nirvana and there will be rejoicing in the streets.

Reality

September 22nd, 2011
8:37 am

Kyle – Why do you ignor the part of Obama’s propsal that DOES reduce government? You are a typical republican that has selective hearing with no processing skills whatsoever.

Any economist (or even a house wife that keeps a household budget) knows that one must address INCOME as well as EXPENSES.

BY THE WAY….. Reagon did prove that “trickle down” economics don’t work. However, current republicans still march to that drum!

FINALLY – Obama didn’t start AT ALL with “wanting” to tax the wealthy. His initial proposal was to SIMPLY stop the tax breaks they had been given under Bush in order to force them to pay their fair share. And, in that I agree 100%. However it has been the republicans/tea party that has dug in their heels so deeply to allow the most wealthy to CONTINUE to become more wealthy through this recession (see yesterday’s ajc article)!!!!

carlosgvv

September 22nd, 2011
8:44 am

Kyle, first of all, if Obama gets “every last tax increase” he has proposed that is NOT soaking the rich. It is simply asking them to pay their fair share. Secondly, it is not the primary job of The President to keep the economy from foundering. He is The President of The United States, not the King of The United States. FDR probably did as much an any American President in history to try to improve the economy but, in the end, it was World War II that finally pulled us out of the great depression. So, Kyle, both you and I know that a President Perry would almost certainly not be able to do any better than Obama, economy wise, because that is not one of the main jobs of the President in the first place.

mom of 3

September 22nd, 2011
8:46 am

$10 cookies and $16 muffins? I repeat……..when the government gets serious about reducing fraud and wasteful spending, it will have a stronger case for increased taxes.

Butch Cassidy

September 22nd, 2011
8:47 am

carlosgvv – “So, Kyle, both you and I know that a President Perry would almost certainly not be able to do any better than Obama, economy wise, because that is not one of the main jobs of the President in the first place.”

ERRONEOUS!!! :)