Politics
President Barack Obama gestures during a news conference in the East Room of the White House in Washington, Wednesday, June 29, 2011. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak) President Barack Obama gestures during a news conference in the East Room of the White House in Washington, Wednesday, June 29, 2011. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)  

Obama turns spotlight on Republicans for not being willing to give up ‘sacred cow’

Photo of Amanda Carey
Amanda Carey
Contributor

President Barack Obama dug in his heels in support of eliminating certain tax breaks during a press conference Wednesday morning. In doing so, he put the spotlight on Republicans for defending what Democrats consider frivolous tax breaks.

Obama hammered congressional Republicans for not being willing to give up their “sacred cow” and agree to revenue increases when Democrats have expressed a willingness to make tough spending cuts in a deal to raise the debt ceiling. Several times throughout the press conference, the president referred to “corporate jet owners” as a prime example of recipients of the tax breaks Republicans are defending.

“I think it would be hard for Republicans to stand there and say tax breaks for corporate jets is sufficiently important that we’re not willing to come to the table and get a deal done,” said Obama. “I don’t think that’s a sustainable position.”

In the past few days, Democrats on the Hill have been visibly nervous that Obama will make concessions to Republicans during private talks about the debt limit. But the president largely put those fears to rest, saying that keeping certain tax breaks would mean cuts to things like college scholarship funds, food safety and vital social programs.

“Those are choices we have to make,” said Obama. “The bottom line is this: Any agreement is going to require tough choices and balanced solutions.”

“It’s only fair to ask oil companies and corporate jet owners to give up that tax break that no other business enjoys,” he added. “I don’t think that’s real radical.”

Obama remained optimistic, however, that Republicans and Democrats would be able to come to an agreement. “I think we can actually bridge our differences in a way that does not hurt the economy right here and right now,” he said. “Nobody wants to see the U.S. default so we’ve got to seize this moment.”

Until now, the president has largely stayed out of negotiations. But bipartisan budget talks, led by Vice President Joe Biden, fell apart last week when House Majority Leader Eric Cantor walked out. Since then, President Obama has entered the negotiations himself, meeting with Speaker John Boehner, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell in the last week.

But publicly, at least, there has been no significant movement. Republicans continue to insist any talk of tax increases — even on the wealthiest Americans — is a non-starter. On the other hand, Democrats are emphatic that spending cuts must be accompanied by revenue increases.

Obama also spent much of his opening statement calling on Congress to act “right now” to jump-start job creation and facilitate economic recovery. One example, he said, would be for Congress to act on pending trade agreements and put construction workers back to work building bridges and roads.

  • truebearing

    Obama managed to lie his way through yet another display of Alinsky tactics and Marxist class warfare. The Daily Caller reports the story, and right on cue, the moronic leftist trolls attempt, pathetically, to come to his defense with a series of truly idiotic comments. Some things never change.

    Are leftist trolls required to be complete morons or are there some smart ones somewhere?

  • BarackMugabe

    Unfortunately there isn’t a “free market” solution to providing health care to people with no money.

    That’s why we have Medicaid.

  • Andy Rose

    Is Obama holding a gun in that photo?

    • BarackMugabe

      Yes, he really should cool it with the violent imagery.

  • jay58sea

    The GOP is bound and determined to turn this country lock, stock, and barrel over to the giant corporations and the rich while driving this country into a deep recession-if not depression. They think that the American people will blame Pres. Obama for it but they are sorely mistaken. The country knows who the GOP are the ones who don’t give a damn about anybody but the rich. When Boehner the Weeper talks about how the GOP controlled (till 2012)house won’t go along with any tax increases because the American people don’t want it, he is referring to JUST the rich because everybody else says overwhelmingly tax increases for the top 2%! In his (and the GOP’s) small little world anybody worth listening to doesn’t include anybody but the giant corporations and the rich. The rich have the lowest tax rates they have ever had and the GOP wants it even lower! What an asinine idea. If lower taxes on the rich created jobs, we would of had great job creation under Bush–instead job creation was abysmal; but so long as the rich kept getting richer, that is all that matters to the GOP. Hey GOP-keep promoting these asinine ideas-keep kissing the ass of the tea party fruit loops-keep knowledge deprived people like Michelle Bachmann and Sara Palin as the face of the GOP-keep running off to secret meetings with the unpatriotic Koch brothers-you are just making it that much easier for there to be an Obama second term.

    • BarackMugabe

      That’s a VERY impressive recitation of the sheep Marxist talking points.

      The only thing missing was “HALLIBURTON!”

    • thephranc

      Do you enjoy being economically illiterate and intellectually dishonest?

    • empiresentry

      Its simple. If you have less money, there are less things you are able to do with your money.
      If your taxes go up, then there is less money left over to do things, oh for example, HIRE PEOPLE.

      The demand to raise taxes on the rich “someone has more than me” includes all the small mom and pop shops and small businesses. Small businesses file S corp and pay taxes as individuals. If they have more than 3 employees, they very likely have a gross income of more than $250,000 (gross means the income before they pay salaries and expenses). If they hire someone at $9 per hr, it costs $18 for that person. If gov takes half of the fifty cents the new hire is earning for the small business, why hire anyone at all?

      Your evil wicked large big business pay taxes in a different bracket.
      Your evil wicked big business are the same that donated to Obama and now get no-bid government contracts (GE, Northrup, Booz, etc), free stimulus money (Citigroup, BOA, etc) and union bailouts (too many to list).

      We are asking that you take blinders off, look at the facts and ask yourself why you support Obama when he is doing the very same thing you are upset about.

      • loudog

        Big business donates to every candidate they think is going to win. According to the Supreme Court, they have a first amendment right to buy the politician of their choice. It’s good to see conservatives agreeing that it’s wrong.

        There was plenty of small business and wealth creation during the 90′s, and even a balanced budget. Going back to those rates won’t destroy America and it’ll even help pay for 10 years of nation building around the world, “pay as you go”, etc.

        • 8second.ride

          “Going back to those rates won’t destroy America”

          Rehab or AA meetings don’t do a drunk any good when the drunk stops for a beer on the way home. The dems have programs lined up , i.e. Obamacare, to quickly dissolve any further revenue from tax increases. Stop giving out social engineering meth to the addicts.

          • loudog

            Lets say you had a 14 trillion debt in your checkbook. Do you just “slow the rate of growth” to pay down the debt or do you get a second job and increase revenue? We need to cut spending and increase revenue to pay for the last 10 yrs.

          • BarackMugabe

            Lets say you had a 14 trillion debt in your checkbook. Do you just “slow the rate of growth” to pay down the debt or do you get a second job and increase revenue? We need to cut spending and increase revenue to pay for the last 10 yrs

            Last 10 years?

            The last 3 years have had ruinous, multi-trillion dollars deficits. Prior to that, they were in the $100-$200 billion range. High, but not calamitous.

            The “revenue increases” you’re talking about amount to tinkering at the edges and don’t address the problem. We have a massive, reckless spending problem right now and it’s not being addressed by this president in a serious way.

          • 8second.ride

            “or do you get a second job and increase revenue?”

            Again, I ask, what good does a second job do if the drunk spends it all at the same liquor store. STOP THE ADDICTION to spending!

        • jdkchem

          You’re conveniently forgetting that Republicans controlled the purse strings through much of the 90′s. That pretty much covers everything you lying libturds take credit for. Even funnier is your precedent’s ignorant claim regarding tax breaks on private jets. Yet here you are pathetically whining about “big business” when it is lying cowards like you that gladly do their bidding. You joyfully kill off small business through bigger government then squeal that capitalism is evil. Obamacare is benefiting the people you claim to loathe yet you cannot muster one peep of outrage. Crawl back under your rock. You and your ilk’s desire for massive government and massive entitlements are the cause not the solution. Only a blind ignorant coward would believe any different.

          • loudog

            Clinton’s democrat only Omnibus Budget Act of ’93 raised taxes on the wealthy and mandated a balanced budget.
            But you’re right, with a Democrat President, Republicans actually helped balance the budget until they gained the majority in congress and gained the Presidency and then flushed it down the toilet with deregulation/borrowing/spending/nation building.

        • BarackMugabe

          Lou, you’re big on bluster, but short on facts.

          Big business donates to every candidate they think is going to win. According to the Supreme Court, they have a first amendment right to buy the politician of their choice.

          No, they’re not allowed to donate to candidates, but they CAN support issues that are important to them. The First Amendment gives them the right to take some of their own money, use it to support causes important to them and to spend some of it to express their point of view and to fight back against the slander of those who attack them. It’s a basic, American concept that you find odious. You think it’s perfectly fine for unions to issue such ads, and think that the company should just take the demagoguery and lies without response. Sorry, but even entities that you dislike have the right to express their opinion. It’s called “liberty.”

          There was plenty of small business and wealth creation during the 90’s, and even a balanced budget. Going back to those rates won’t destroy America and it’ll even help pay for 10 years of nation building around the world, “pay as you go”, etc

          OK, let’s go back to the SPENDING of the 90s — the REAL reason for balanced budgets. Thanks to Newt and company.

          • loudog

            NYTimes – “Overruling two important precedents about the First Amendment rights of corporations, a bitterly divided Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that the government may not ban political spending by corporations in candidate elections.”

            Yes, stop funding Iraq/Afghanistan/Libya and cut back to 90′s spending!

          • BigRmv

            Loudog, you did it again. You’re mixing tenses so as to pretend that this corporate support has been happening, yet you forget to mention (from the same article, even!) that the “Overruling two important precedents about the First Amendment rights of corporations…” part of you answer refers to laws from 1990 and 2002. The decision you cite is from last year–2010.

            So, how do you justify your statement that, “Big business donates to every candidate they think is going to win. According to the Supreme Court, they have a first amendment right to buy the politician of their choice.”

            If you really knew anything about history (or had lived it) you might recall that the arguments being made back then–the ones that were rejected–was that the Unions were side-stepping those corporate limits by saying, “No, the Teamsters didn’t donate $20 million dollars to Clinton, Local 505 donated x amount. Local 123 donated x amount,” etc. In otherwords they said, “We’re all separate entities and we all stayed under the dollar limits.” Which was BS of course.

            But I guess it doesn’t count unless the other guy disagrees with your side, right?

          • loudog

            Good point. Actually, I favor publicly financed elections and getting both unions and corporations out of buying candidates.

    • OldNavyChief

      I have a solution for you “tax the rich” guys. Everyone pays 10% with no deductions, and I mean everyone. No slugs and non performers getting away without paying. I am certainly not “rich” by any means but I am sick and tired of those of you who want to blame the private sector corporations for our problems. It is the social spending that is a large part of the problem.

      • BigRmv

        Works for me, Chief.

        I’d pay less and the welfare recipients get to see how much money someone working for that amount has to shell out. Plus “the rich” don’t get all those evil deductions that the left is always complaining about.

        One problem, ‘though. Obama wouldn’t recognize any of his appointees if they all suddenly paid their taxes.

  • libertyatstake

    The ‘sacred cow’ is the economy. The Empty Suit has already chopped off all four legs. Now he has his blade aimed at the neck.

    d(^_^)b
    http://libertyatstake.blogspot.com/
    “Because the Only Good Progressive is a Failed Progressive”

  • gmabobbie

    Well, once again I just want to thank the republican’s. You are the ones who cast the deciding votes for the Healthcare package that went through…then call it Obamacare and pretend like you never had a thing to do with it. You condemn the stimulus, yet the republican Governor’s were all happy to take the money. Considering how much perry had left…where are the jobs he was supposed to stimulate? Instead of saving it for a “rainy day”, shouldn’t he be using it to create jobs right now? And then you have the tax breaks…that your leaders believe in to the point that they were willing to throw all unemployed American’s under the bus…at Christmas time. And please don’t try to tell me only democrat’s are unemployed. That’s just not true and you know it. Like it or not, we are all in this together, republican and democrat, and the only way out is working together. Don’t you think it’s time to start?
    BTW, call me all the names, mock me all you want…when faced with fact, the less intelligent resort to name calling, as that’s all they have.

    • tdogco

      Blaming republicans for Obamacare ? That’s pretty creative.

      What my minds eye sees when I hear Healthcare is Nancy Pelosi carrying that oversized gavel through a tea party crowd, gloating and trying to provoke a negative, hostile reaction. It didn’t work but showed how childish and spiteful she and that congress was. Acting like it was a high school basketball game against a crosstown rival with the parading and gloating. Criminal.

      Sorry pal, that won’t fly anymore. Anyone paying attention knows that Pelosi/Reid/Obama shoved the HC law down the throats of the American people against our will. You just don’t do that in our Constitutional republic and it will not stand. Eventually, the POS will be overturned as a result of the way it was forced upon on by a clown wannabe-dictator and his evil minions.

      Nice try. Think about things please. We need rational thought right now.

    • BarackMugabe

      You deserve to be mocked, because you’re an imbecile.

      The fascist health care law was a DEMOCRAT debacle. The left has been pushing the idea for decades; and when you got your supermajority, you forced it down the country’s throat over its vociferous, angry objections. You own it, so don’t dare try to pin it on Republicans, fraud.

      The governors took the money? Why SHOULDN’T they? Their citizens are PAYING for it. You leftists constantly agitate for higher taxes — so then why don’t you voluntarily pay more? Same logic.

      Get a clue.

      • loudog

        “Comprehensive health insurance is an idea whose time has come in America.

        There has long been a need to assure every American financial access to high quality health care. As medical costs go up, that need grows more pressing.

        Now, for the first time, we have not just the need but the will to get this job done. There is widespread support in the Congress and in the Nation for some form of comprehensive health insurance.” – Richard Nixon, 1974

        What the heck happened to the GOP? Everything has become a marxist plot to destroy America. Glenn Beck has really F’d you people up.

        • BarackMugabe

          So now you like RINO Richard Nixon? Did Nixon call for an unconstitutional law that required that all citizens be forced to purchase a commercial product against their will? Was there “widespread support” for Maobamacare outside of mental institutions, bath houses and leftwing ‘think’ tanks?

          Everything has become a marxist plot to destroy America.

          Since the radical Marxist left has taken over the Democrat party, that’s exactly true. It’s self-evident to all but the willfully blind and ignorant. But the only “plot” involved are the lies, fraud and demagoguery the Marxists use to sell their collectivist agenda to an unwilling public.

          Glenn Beck has really F’d you people up.

          Glenn Beck has fooled HALF the country that opposes this radical, un-American agenda? Wow, he must be a pretty powerful guy.

          • 8second.ride

            Quoting Nixon and Stockdale, the economist, is the new fad for liberals. But, don’t get your hopes up — only two of their quotes are acceptable.

          • loudog

            I don’t think Obama’s a very good leader but people who cry ‘marxism’ at anything that isn’t a tax cut or a corporate give away are getting fed that nonsense from somehwere. If it isn’t the talking heads, who btw, all supported Bush when he had Republican majority and still managed to double the debt, then where does it come from?

            Health care is a basic necessity and Universal Health Care has been supported by both the left and right in the past, so how is that “unamerican”?

          • 8second.ride

            “are getting fed that nonsense from somehwere.”

            Unlike you, I believe that most American people have minds of their own….unless you want to contend that all liberals that spout the “it’s all Bush and the republicans fault” are being “fed” such nonsense from the many left-leaning media outlets? You’re not saying that when you beat the dead horse of “unfunded” this and that, you are just repeating what you were “fed”, are you?

          • BarackMugabe

            I don’t think Obama’s a very good leader but people who cry ‘marxism’ at anything that isn’t a tax cut or a corporate give away are getting fed that nonsense from somehwere.

            No, the “Marxism” charge comes from his actions, his associations, his words, his appointments and everything else he does. His “corporate giveaway” schtick is not “Marxism” in and of itself — it’s demagoguery in support of his Marxism.

            Few called Bill Clinton a Marxist, though his wife arguably had such leanings. But people ARE calling Obama a Marxist because he IS one. And so is much of the radical Democrat leadership. At least one of them (Bernie Sanders) has the guts to call himself what he is (and Obama’s to his left).

            If it isn’t the talking heads, who btw, all supported Bush when he had Republican majority and still managed to double the debt, then where does it come from?

            Bush was running $150-200 billion deficits, until the housing implosion. Too high, absolutely — but not even in the same universe as what we have now. It’s a different — and extremely dangerous — world now.

            Health care is a basic necessity and Universal Health Care has been supported by both the left and right in the past, so how is that “unamerican”?

            It’s un-American when you force a system on the country that the country doesn’t want. It’s un-American when you create an unaffordable Ponzi scheme YOU KNOW will collapse, while OTHER Ponzi schemes (SS, Medicare) are in the process of collapsing all around you. It’s un-American to lie about “deficit savings” when a third grader knows the books were cooked with chicanery, lies and fraud to arrive at that fiction. There’s a reason Republicans won 75 seats in the last election and all of that played a part.

            There are ways of providing health care for people WHO NEED IT BUT CANNOT AFFORD IT (about 10 million people). We didn’t need to shove the entire country into a fascist system to deal with “pre-existing conditions” and other problems. That was a distraction for the con men to help them defend this despicable unAmerican act.

            But go ahead and keep trying to defend it.

        • 8second.ride

          Stop, loudog. Why on earth would you let yourself be sucked into the far left nutjobs’ meme of “evil Beck” influence. Puhleeze, dawg. Less than 2% of all the voting public follow Beck.

          I hardly think, that when Nixon made that statement, he envisioned an Obama presidency and a Pelosi speakership, let alone a DHHS that would use the Commerce Clause to force Americans to buy a product that they can neither afford nor one that would NOT solve any health CARE (CARE!!!!) problems.

          • loudog

            Then exactly where does the ‘marxism’ paranoia come from? Exactly who is trying to turn us into N Korea? Where do you even attempt to find common ground with people who shout marxism at every turn?

            Nixon probably never envisioned 16% of our GDP going to a broken health care system and a Republican Party that would work so hard to maintain that broken system.

          • 8second.ride

            Marxism? No Korea? My, oh my, you sure do put a lot of stock in internet comments. That’s a shame. I thought you were a facts kind of guy — or at least made that effort.

            “Republican Party that would work so hard to maintain that broken system.”

            Last I checked, the republican party was the only one with plans on how to fix “problems”. It is the democrats, as proven by their lack of “reading the bill before they pass it” and their lack of budgetary proposals, that are keeping a “broken” (your opinion only) system intact.

            Go here:

            http://www.forbes.com/2010/01/31/health-care-gdp-reform-opinions-columnists-john-tamny.html

            Read. Enjoy.

          • loudog

            You’re right, people who claim marxism and fascism should be ignored.

            The health care system is hopelessly broken, here’s a good article about a country that figured it out:

            http://www.swifteconomics.com/2009/08/07/healthcare-reform-the-public-option-or-the-singapore-model/

          • loudog

            That’s a good article, I can buy that, but it doesn’t solve the problem of 40 million uninsured Americans.

          • 8second.ride

            You’re never going to “solve” the problem of uninsured Americans when you have a system that, literally, forces people into unstable economic situations. If you go to work, you’re punished. If you make money, you’re punished. (I’m not talking about LOTS of money, btw) Oppressive taxes on working people that want to create jobs, capital gains taxes on people that want to create new business and estate taxes on people that want to invest in themselves and their families. “Progressive” ideas are merely oppressive ideas that are designed to keep people dependent on the government. Name one current “progressive” idea that does not involve the federal government in some manner. There is not one single idea being proposed by the current democratic leaders that has not been shown to fail in the past, or is simply political pandering. At least a few republicans, i.e. Ryan, Cain, Pawlenty, McCotter, are proposing something new that can be debated. The dems have offered nothing in over five years — stale, moldy bread to feed the masses.

            “health care system is hopelessly broken,”

            I assume you meant the financial/economic part of the health care system. There is nothing wrong with our health CARE. Unfortunately, it has become intertwined into the economic/political mess. Once it is separated from that albatross, it would no longer be “hopeless”. However, and very unfortunately, Obamacare does just the opposite. It makes our “health care system” a government bureaucracy. Nothing good will ever come from that.

          • loudog

            But even this shows that no country is perfect as there are still uninsured in Singapore:

            http://www.moh.gov.sg/mohcorp/mediaforums.aspx?id=23376

          • 8second.ride

            Enjoy the rest of your day, dawg. I have a straight 72-hour dutyrun starting in 5 hours — not sure I’ll be back today. You know, laundry and all that. Didn’t want you to think you got the better of me just because I disappeared.

          • loudog

            Unfortunately there isn’t a “free market” solution to providing health care to people with no money. Charity doesn’t cover cancer treatment for the poor and elderly.

          • loudog

            certainly not, adios.

          • BarackMugabe

            Unfortunately there isn’t a “free market” solution to providing health care to people with no money.

            Which is why we have Medicaid.

    • 8second.ride

      “when faced with fact, ”

      Let us know when that happens, because your post doesn’t have any “facts” in it.

      “great job creation under Bush–instead job creation was abysmal;”

      Case in point. When unemployment is 4.5%, who are you going to create jobs for?

      I absolutely hate it that leftwing mobys can’t understand that.

      • BigRmv

        8second.ride, please stop using math and facts. You know how the liberals hate it when you do that. It just confuses things.

        • 8second.ride

          Yes, I know — and then they call me cowboy or broncobillie…. with an “ie” of course.

    • empiresentry

      When faced with the reality that Obama did all the things you hate so much and you can’t blame anyone else for failed policies, free yourself from the fad of following the person. Honestly, its ok to let go.
      In the future, make your choices based on policy and experience, rather than glitz and hollywood hype.

  • MegaGorgo

    How about this. If I pay 25% in Fed income taxes (that includes the income that is taxed at 0%, 10%, 15% 25% and 35(?)% once it is all totaled up, then I expect, George Soros, Rush Limbaugh, the Koch brothers, Bill Clinton, Boehenr, McConnell and everyone else to pay the same. Since much of what I earn is self employed income that I make as a professional when I am not w-2′d with a client then if I also pay 25% on that then I expect EXXON, GE, Wells Fargo, Chevron, Boeing, etc, to pay what I pay.

    Right now corporations pay less than a third of what they used to pay under Ike.
    The wealthy have had their tax rate cut from 90% to as low as 15% or even 05.

    That sound plain enough for the low information voters out there?

    • Jess81

      Huh? You get to submit several tax returns (some based on 0%, 10%…)? The IRS just might be looking for you.

      And BTW, I think all the companies you listed paid taxes except GE, which is Obama’s personal pet.

    • BarackMugabe

      The top 1% of taxpayers pay 38% of all federal income taxes; the top 5% pays 59%; the top 10% pay 70%; the top 25% pays 86% and the top 50% pays 97% of all federal income taxes. The bottom 50% pays less than 3%.

      The rich pay FAR MORE than their “fair share.” The only ones NOT paying their fair share are the bottom 50% (ie, the category that includes most of the Democrat party). In fact, not only are the latter NOT paying ANY of their fair share, they’re STEALING from the rest of us.

      And US corporate tax rates are among the highest in the industrialized world.

      How do these facts fit into that low information skull of yours?