There’s so much to critique in the State of the Union address that there’s still plenty left over after all the excellent critiques elsewhere on the site. I’ll note primarily that for someone who banged the populist drum so relentlessly last night, the President seems to have doubled down on policies that harm the middle class most of all.
I have more on that point in my column for the Daily Mail (which I wrote before I’d seen Speaker Boehner’s comments about the president’s policies being “almost un-American“).
"An overwhelming majority of Americans approved of the overall message in President Obama's State of the Union speech on Tuesday night, according to a CBS News poll of speech watchers.
According to the poll, which was conducted online by Knowledge Networks immediately after the president's address, 91 percent of those who watched the speech approved of the proposals Mr. Obama put forth during his remarks. Only nine percent disapproved."
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWith an approval rating in the low 40's, Obama's policies contributing to the sluggish economic recovery and most Americans calling for the repeal of Obamacare - the President's signature legislation - 91% of those folks who watched the SOTU speech approved of the President's message. Dream on!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt could be that only those who approved of the bamster actually could stomach watching him. I certainly did not waste my time.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere are two types of people who watch Obama's speeches these days.
1) Those who are paid to do so.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse2) Thoses who think having govt take from others and give to them is a good idea.
This is why demands from NRO and elsewhere for Mitt Romney to release his tax returns were wrong, wrong, wrong, as all his opponents, including Newt Gingrich, now have the exact numbers they need to demonize a hard working man for his success and distract us from the real issues of the 2012 election:
"News flash: Mitt Romney is way richer than you. How rich? A very cool - if incredibly maddening tool - can tell you exactly how long it takes for Richie Romney to make your salary (hint: not very long). Based on the presidential candidate's 2010 tax return, on a $40,000 annual income, the Slate calculator tells us: 'Mitt Romney made $40,000 in 16 hours 10 minutes and 34 seconds.' [The Daily Ticker]
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseObama says "graduated income tax" and you hear "politics of envy". One day you will actually listen to his arguments -- laid out in detail last night together with an answer to the "envy" canard.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTaking from those who have more than you, in order to give it to yourself is the very definition of class warfare.
Obama's claim that the rich aren't paying enough is the very definition of class warfare.
The fact that you like it when govt takes money from others in order to spend it on you, does not mean it isn't class warfare.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe Republicans claim that the poor do not pay their fair share and the tax bases should be extended. How is that not class warfare, but claiming that the super rich do not pay their fair share is tax warfare? Fact is that the upper middle class pays 35% federal tax rate on their income, while the super rich pay only 15% on their income (carried interest, capital gains, etc.). The super rich also have all these tax shelters and loopholes (Cayman, Swiss, etc.) that regular folk don't have. Why it is class warfare if you way that the super rich should not pay less in taxes than the upper middle class, but it is not class warfare if you say that the lower middle class should pay more (extend the tax base) or that all should pay the same (flat tax). A flat tax will also make the super rich pay more because now they are all cheating the system!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe Republicans claim that the poor do not pay their fair share and the tax bases should be extended. How is that not class warfare, but claiming that the super rich do not pay their fair share is tax warfare? Fact is that the upper middle class pays 35% federal tax rate on their income, while the super rich pay only 15% on their income (carried interest, capital gains, etc.). The super rich also have all these tax shelters and loopholes (Cayman, Swiss, etc.) that regular folk don't have. Why it is class warfare if you way that the super rich should not pay less in taxes than the upper middle class, but it is not class warfare if you say that the lower middle class should pay more (extend the tax base) or that all should pay the same (flat tax). A flat tax will also make the super rich pay more because now they are all cheating the system!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere is redistribution in this country - via government-imposed taxes - from the middle and upper middle class (who pay 25-35% in federal income taxes + payroll tax) to the super rich (who pay only 15% taxes and only on income that they are unable to hide in one of the numerous loopholes and tax shelters available to them).
The only way to fix this income redistribution and bring tax fairness is:
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse1. Tax all income at exactly the same rates. The income of the super rich (capital gains, dividents, salaries for money managers) should be taxed at the same marginal rates as regular income - just as when federal taxes were originally introduced in the USA.
2. Close ALL tax shelters and loopholes that the super rich use to hide a large part of their income (Cayman accounts, hundred-million-$ tax-free IRAs, etc.)
3. Reform (or, better, eliminate) the AMT to only target the super rich - as originally intended! Now the AMT mostly targets the middle class!
4. Introduce new tax brackets for incomes over $1M and $10M. When federal taxes were originally introduced in the USA only incomes of over $1.2M (in 2011 adjusted $) were taxed, at progressive rates, but now there is not even a separate tax bracket for incomes larger that $1M.
Ah yes, fairness demands that those who make too much as defined by alan have to turn it all in so that the govt will have more money to spend on alan.
It constantly amazes me the way so many people assume that all problems could be solved if only those who have too much were forced to give it to them.
Even if it were true that the rich were paying less than you, that would still not make it a transfer of wealth.
Letting people keep more of the money that they have earned, is not a subsidy.
The rich already pay way more than their fair share.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere is redistribution in this country - via government-imposed taxes - from the middle and upper middle class (who pay 25-35% in federal income taxes + payroll tax) to the super rich (who pay only 15% taxes and only on income that they are unable to hide in one of the numerous loopholes and tax shelters available to them).
The only way to fix this income redistribution and bring tax fairness is:
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse1. Tax all income at exactly the same rates. The income of the super rich (capital gains, dividents, salaries for money managers) should be taxed at the same marginal rates as regular income - just as when federal taxes were originally introduced in the USA.
2. Close ALL tax shelters and loopholes that the super rich use to hide a large part of their income (Cayman/Swiss accounts, hundred-million-$-tax-free IRAs, etc.)
3. Reform (or, better, eliminate) the AMT to only target the super rich - as originally intended! Now the AMT mostly targets the middle class!
4. Introduce new tax brackets for incomes over $1M and $10M. When federal taxes were originally introduced in the USA only incomes of over $1.2M (in 2011 adjusted $) were taxed, at progressive rates, but now there is not even a separate tax bracket for incomes larger that $1M.