Phony Presidential Outrage

[Whirlaway]

Trying to stir his base at his 1st press conference in a year, Obama said this...

"If we do not have revenues, ... It means food inspection might be compromised. I've said to Republican leaders, 'You go talk to your constituents and ask them, "Are you willing to compromise your kids' safety so some corporate-jet owner can get a tax break?"

So why did his Democratic Congress do this?

From the Associated Press in 2009:

Just a few months after lawmakers scolded auto executives for flying to Washington in private jets, Congress approved a tax break in the stimulus package to help businesses buy their own planes.
The incentive -- first used to help plane makers recover from the 2001 terror attacks -- sharply reduces the up front tax bill for companies who buy assets like business planes.

This guy is an Elmer Gantry phony.

[TexTushHog]

They did it, presumably, to stimulate the economy and preserve jobs in the aircraft manufacturing sector at the depth of the recession. Now that deficit reduction is (mistakenly, I believe, at least at this time) the political priority of the day, you've got to cut somewhere. This is a good place to do it.

I considered upgrading planes under this provision but you couldn't use it on used planes, so I kept what I had. Frankly, I'm nor sure that it's really enticing new buyers into the market. I think it's primarily just handing out tax breaks to those who would buy anyway. But that's just a gut feeling. None of my colleagues who are buying new planes are talking about the tax breaks. They've just hit big licks and want a new plane.

[Whirlaway]

So why doesn't Obama submitt his defecit reduction plan to Congress? Oh, that's right he doesn't have one...and everbody knows that to get at true defecit reduction we are going to have to reign in entitlements; the $3b in private aircraft deperciation won't even come close to closing the defecit/debt. But it allows him to play the class warfare card.

Obama doesn't want to lead the nation into recovery, by proposing entitlement reform, instead he is a poser, trying to look like he is managing the problem, while playing golf and fiddling. Leaving the heavy lifting to Republicans.

Did he even mention entitlement reform in his WH presser?

[Guest050715-1]

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

They did it, presumably, to stimulate the economy and preserve jobs in the aircraft manufacturing sector at the depth of the recession. Now that deficit reduction is (mistakenly, I believe, at least at this time) the political priority of the day, you've got to cut somewhere. This is a good place to do it.

I considered upgrading planes under this provision but you couldn't use it on used planes, so I kept what I had. Frankly, I'm nor sure that it's really enticing new buyers into the market. I think it's primarily just handing out tax breaks to those who would buy anyway. But that's just a gut feeling. None of my colleagues who are buying new planes are talking about the tax breaks. They've just hit big licks and want a new plane.

Really, are you seriously against deficit reduction? Why?

[TexTushHog]

Not against deficit reduction, per se. Just against it right now. The economic recovery is still very fragile and slashing government spending is a sure-fire prescription to further reduce aggregate demand, thus returning us to the liquidity trap that caused the recession. Cut government spending enough and you will have a depression, not a recession. In a liquidity trap, when aggregate demand stalls, often government spending is all that keeps the economy afloat (especially when interest rates are at the zero bound).

[Whirlaway]

I hope the Republicans don't fall for that one; they did with Bush I. Remember the agreement that future spending cuts would be $2 for every 1 dollar in immediate tax increases? Never happened.

And remember the orginal Amenesty Program under Reagan. Congress agreed to Amenesty for every illegal in exchange for securing the boarders and getting illegal immigration controlled? Well we got the amenesty but not the controls...never happened.

The only first step is to cut spending; then when the economy recovers, make the changes to the tax code !

Otherwise, we will never get this runaway spending under control.

[Guest050715-1]

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Not against deficit reduction, per se. Just against it right now. The economic recovery is still very fragile and slashing government spending is a sure-fire prescription to further reduce aggregate demand, thus returning us to the liquidity trap that caused the recession. Cut government spending enough and you will have a depression, not a recession. In a liquidity trap, when aggregate demand stalls, often government spending is all that keeps the economy afloat (especially when interest rates are at the zero bound).

Ok, I see your point. I do think that there needs to be some spending cuts, across the board and a repeal of the Bush tax cuts though. I, like many people, will vote that way. We have to start somewhere. Otherwise it's just kicking the can down the road. And I think I'm in pretty good company when I say that we are pretty much at the end of the road.

I think it is arguable whether we are in a recession or a depression. I know it has to have a certain consecutive quarters of certain benchmarks, but I personally believe the benchmarks such as inflation and unemployment are being significantly toyed with.

[MrGiz]

Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

Ok, I see your point. I do think that there needs to be some spending cuts, across the board and a repeal of the Bush tax cuts though. I, like many people, will vote that way. We have to start somewhere. Otherwise it's just kicking the can down th e road. And I think I'm in pretty good company when I say that we are pretty much at the end of the road.

I think it is arguable whether we are in a recession or a depression. I know it has to have a certain consecutive quarters of certain benchmarks, but I personally believe the benchmarks such as inflation and unemployment are being significantly toyed with.

For clarification purposes... When you say "We have to start somewhere.".... Are you referring to spending cuts.... or tax hikes?

[Guest050715-1]

Originally Posted by MrGiz

For clarification purposes... When you say "We have to start somewhere.".... Are you referring to spending cuts.... or tax hikes?

Both. But I agree with what TTH says because it makes sense. I don't think extreme cuts and tax hikes are a good idea, but moderate ones are needed.

[Boltfan]

TTH's economic theories have been debunked many times over. You were on the right track with cuts Olivia.

[Guest050715-1]

Originally Posted by Boltfan

TTH's economic theories have been debunked many times over. You were on the right track with cuts Olivia.

I think so. I think with all things they need to be moderate. But to some extent, I see his point. The federal government is a very large employer. But still, all things need to be cut and no matter how much we don't want to, we have to start paying for our wars and entitlement programs. Not that I have anything against entitlement programs, but I'd like to see a gap analysis on the government and it's functions as it goes about the business of governing. Just the low hanging fruit alone could go a long way.

[gnadfly]

That was Obama's "Crisis of Spirit" Speech. The only things missing were the fireplace and sweater.

BHO had two years of majority of House and a while with 59 Dem Senators.
He couldn't get a (substantial) tax increase or budget passed.

Now he is playing "the adult in the room?" Sadly outrageous.
This man doesn't understand the Presidency, political capital or the country at large.

Please vote this buffoon out before he does more damage to the country.

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

Please vote this buffoon out

Ok, I promise to vote out gnadfly the buffoon.

Your new name seems quite appropriate but a little long. How 'bout Buffy, for short?

[TexTushHog]

Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

Both. But I agree with what TTH says because it makes sense. I don't think extreme cuts and tax hikes are a good idea, but moderate ones are needed.

We very clearly need both. However, now is not the most opportune time to engage in either. A sensible policy would be to agree to cuts in spending and increases in taxes, but for both to kick in only when the economy meets certain triggers based on economic recovery.

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

We very clearly need both. However, now is not the most opportune time to engage in either. A sensible policy would be to agree to cuts in spending and increases in taxes, but for both to kick in only when the economy meets certain triggers based on economic recovery.

+1

The only change I would make to the above statement would be to specifically state a modest increase in taxes!