From James Taranto at WSJ:
Even by the standards of the World’s Greatest Orator, yesterday’s was a dreadful speech. We observed recently that Barack Obama’s reputation as the WGO rests largely on his talent for the insubstantial–for reciting “poetry” as opposed to expounding “prose,” in Mario Cuomo’s terms. Few subjects are more prosaic than the federal budget, the topic of the president’s talk yesterday.
Obama said he was going to start “by being honest about what’s causing our deficit.” It’s hard to cut spending: “You see, most Americans tend to dislike government spending in the abstract, but like the stuff that it buys.” It’s hard to raise taxes: “My finely honed political instincts tell me that almost nobody believes they should be paying higher taxes.” And politicians are selling voters a bill of goods when they “feed the impression that solving the problem is just a matter of eliminating waste and abuse.”
What’s needed, he claimed, is “a serious plan” that will “require tough choices.” He then outlined a four-step “approach”–it wasn’t detailed enough to achieve planhood–that showed his promise of honesty to be an utter fraud.
The first step is “to keep annual domestic spending low.” Wait, it’s low? He then adds this qualification:
“I will not sacrifice the core investments that we need to grow and create jobs. We will invest in medical research. We will invest in clean energy technology. We will invest in new roads and airports and broadband access. We will invest in education. We will invest in job training. We will do what we need to do to compete, and we will win the future.”
So when he said of government spending that Americans “like the stuff that it buys,” he was referring to himself. He seems less than determined to “keep” spending low, much less actually to reduce it considerably, which is what will be required.
……In fact, in a scene reminiscent of the president’s attack on the Supreme Court in the 2010 State of the Union Address, he heaped abuse on Rep. Paul Ryan, whom he had invited to sit in the front row, for being willing to think about “changing the basic social compact in America.” In a grotesque display of left-wing jingoism, he equated the welfare state to America itself:
“The America I know is generous and compassionate. . . . This is the America that I know. We don’t have to choose between a future of spiraling debt and one where we forfeit our investment in our people and our country. . . . We do not have to sacrifice the America we believe in.”
……The fourth step is to raise taxes on “millionaires and billionaires.” From Obama’s past proposals and the new taxes in ObamaCare, we know that the cutoff for “millionaire” status is $250,000, less for unmarried taxpayers. But don’t worry, the president assures us that “most wealthy Americans would agree with me. They want to give back to their country, a country that’s done so much for them. It’s just Washington hasn’t asked them to.”
So were his “finely honed political instincts” wrong when they said “almost nobody believes they should be paying higher taxes”?
More at the link: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704116404576262871386063668.html
Some examples of Obama’s two-faced bullshit from Jake Tapper:
Obama at the GOP House retreat, January 2010:
“We’re not going to be able to do anything about any of these entitlements if what we do is characterize whatever proposals are put out there as, ‘Well, you know, that’s — the other party’s being irresponsible. The other party is trying to hurt our senior citizens. That the other party is doing X, Y, Z.”
“One vision has been championed by Republicans in the House of Representatives and embraced by several of their party’s presidential candidates…This is a vision that says up to 50 million Americans have to lose their health insurance in order for us to reduce the deficit. And who are those 50 million Americans? Many are someone’s grandparents who wouldn’t be able afford nursing home care without Medicaid. Many are poor children. Some are middle-class families who have children with autism or Down’s syndrome. Some are kids with disabilities so severe that they require 24-hour care. These are the Americans we’d be telling to fend for themselves.”
This is coming from the same assclown who suggested that old people just “take the pill” instead of getting surgery:
A woman described her 105 year old mother as being in good spirits with a lust for life, in spite of her age. She received a pacemaker at the age of 99. She wanted to know if her mother would have qualified for the procedure under ObamaCare.
Jane Sturm: “Outside the medical criteria for prolonging life for somebody who is elderly, is there any consideration that can be given for a certain spirit, a joy of living, quality of life? Or is it just a medical cut off at a certain age”?
Here, in part, is THE ONE’s response:
“…..What we can do is make sure that at least some of the waste that exists in the system that’s not making anybody’s Mom better; that is loading up on additional tests, or additional drugs, that the evidence shows is not necessarily going to improve care….That at least we can let doctors know and your Mom know that, you know what? Maybe this isn’t going to help. Maybe you’re better off not having the surgery, but taking the pain killer.”
Obama wants to decimate a functioning healthcare system by cramming an additional 47 million+ people into a government mandated program rife with tax increases, higher premiums, Medicare cuts, punitive action against unwilling dissenters, and a death panel (government claims agents) who will decide whether or not your life is worth saving or if it’s “necessary” to provide treatment. Bottom line: his ObamaCare scheme will burden a smaller population of productive citizens with supporting a majority of citizens who don’t work or pay taxes.
Here’s “a serious plan” that will “require tough choices”: Stop spending this country into an economic black hole. Stop the gawd-awful waste of “discretionary spending” (which means billions of dollars in pork barrel projects). Stop giving welfare payments in the form of stimulus and bailouts, which includes payoffs to unions. The tax/borrow/spend orgy is unsustainable. There aren’t enough wealthy people in the United States to shake down in order to cover the skyrocketing debt. The middle class is also getting screwed by a class warmonger who considers them to be among the “wealthy”.
The ability of the population to fork over the billions needed to feed the maws of the government spending apparatus, is dwindling. It will get to the point where there won’t be any rich people to tax, which will put a big cramp in Obama’s “spread the wealth” Marxism.
He’s increased the national debt by 3,643,915,070,272 since January, 2009, and he wants to raise the debt ceiling. The deficit is over $1.3 trillion. His plan is to cut only $90 billion in spending and while getting $453 billion in increased tax revenue, for a $3.7 trillion budget for Fiscal Year 2012. In the meantime, the Fed will continue to spend like crazy.
But this piss-poor excuse for a “president” doesn’t want to “feed the impression that solving the problem is just a matter of eliminating waste and abuse.”
WSJ: Was he serious? (hotair.com)
Obama’s solution to deficit: spending, ObamaCare, and tax hikes (hotair.com)