For Obama 2012, it's all about the 99 percent

He should have thought about this in 2009 when he had the Middle Class killers in a corner. I, like many, am aware that the GOP can’t do economy, because they lack scruples and compassion and begin perspiring profusely in the presence of people who earn less than a few million a year investing in China, but many other’s prefer to forget, having been trained to forget anything that happened three days ago. That is the disastrous effect of TV, by the way.

And Obama needs to stop the Afghan War now! It is a war fought by the 99% for the interests, mainly, of the 1%, or certainly the top 10%. And absolutely no more wars or disproportionate military spending in the MENA. Cut off Israel and send Israelis with American passports back home, and with out our citizenship too.

Isn’t it funny that he runs against a Party that stands only for the rich and that cannot demonstrate any success at generating middle class jobs? How can he possibly lose?

Hollow words. He dished out over $14 trillion to the 1%, the greedy, grubby “banksters”, the likes of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. There’s not much difference skin deep, between Obama, Gingrich and Romney. They will say anything, try anything to fool the ordinary citizen to perpetuate their own power ride. The only US politician on the radar with well thought economic ideas and the sincerity to implement these for the benefit of the 100% is Ron Paul – the 99% sorely needs him as the next President, not Obama (O)bummer.

Hollow words. He dished out over $14 trillion to the 1%, the greedy, grubby “banksters”, the likes of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. There’s not much difference skin deep, between Obama, Gingrich and Romney. They will say anything, try anything to fool the ordinary citizen to perpetuate their own power ride. The only US politician on the radar with well thought economic ideas and the sincerity to implement these for the benefit of the 100% is Ron Paul – the 99% sorely needs him as the next President, not Obama (O)bummer.

The basic sentiments are correct: To the millionaires: If you want to play in the American marketplace, which is essentially a huge machine oiled with the sweat and tears of less fortunate people (and no-one could ever make a cent without the rest of that machine working smoothly); you should pay your fair share toward the welfare of the workers and the upkeep of that machine. It’s time to recognise the hard work that goes into creating an educated, healthy, well-motivated work-force!

Why Obama doesn’t start talking explicitly about the _100%_? It certainly _IS_ class warfare, from both sides, when we start talking about “the 1%” & “the 99%” as “them” & “us”.
United we stand! Let’s start cheering for the _100%_!

We all do better INCLUDING the 1%, and our grandchildren will all do better including the grandchildren of the 1%; when no willing labourer is left behind. This fact has long-since been substantively proven by the data.

@ Talleyrand02 One advantage to waiting: the Republicans and 1% have truly shown themselves who they really are. Plus, the platform by which this new fight can take place is now set.

was there anything he did not promise to do?
you could hear lil orphan annie singing in the background.

the gop has only two agendas – both spoken in private only:
1. eliminate taxes on the wealthy and large corporations.
2. eliminate all public programs.
nothing else matters. all else they say is just lip service, smoke and mirrors. what the rest of us propose is to return to tax rates they have already paid, before 1980, and between 1994 and 2000. that is not an increase, just giving back the lucrative breaks given by reagan and bush2. they were wealthy then they will still be wealthy. America is not an oligarchy yet and i trust that the 99% will understand it cannot become one, and that their votes will always outnumber the gop. but we have to vote! they have at most 25% of the population that swallow everything the gop, fox, & the radio bobble heads say.
abortion? didn’t the gop have all four branches of govt in total control for 6 years? why then was nothing done about roe v wade, or for that matter a balanced budget, deficit control, social security, medicare, medicaid, healthcare? for the answer see #1&2 above. smoke and mirrors – wake up before they ruin this country – they came much too close the last time they were in control.

My heart and my best intentions still tell me that’s true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not. Ronald Reagan

Why didn’t he do any of this the first time around?

If President Obama wins or looses in November, it really won’t matter. We are headed towards bankruptcy either way. With VERY few exceptions, everyone who is running for office is signed up to party machine politics. No such person can be given to actual reform. We are finished because:

1) We continue to be an ‘open borders’ welfare state. Any little up-tick in our ‘economy’ will simply draw a fresh tsunami of humanity over the fence to keep wages down and ‘social services’ outlays up.
2) What little industry that remains in this country is under constant attack by evermore regulations and gouging lawsuits. Neither party is serious about stopping this slide and reversing the decay.

Folks, unless you are pulling some raw material out of Mother Earth, mauling it into something of value underneath a smokestack and selling it on the open market, you are not ‘adding’ to any economy. In the absence of such industry we are simply pouring our money away to the countries that DO make things underneath smokestacks. This, coupled with the predominant mindset that people are ‘entitled’ to get free money and can ‘qualify’ for free stuff – without contributing anything at all – means we have no more money left to speak of. We only have debt.

The Democrats seem only interested in increasing public outlays and Republicans seem only interested in increasing corporatism and corporate profit. This is a VERY grave situation we are in. We, the U.S. citizens remain divided against each other, largely on irrelevant lines of dispute, like how much to tax rich people – and if the government has any business ‘making’ you buy health insurance, etc.

I joined the Tea Party to oppose the Republican Corporatist State and their acquiescing to bailouts. I sure wish there could be some such protestant group of Democrats that oppose the welfare state.

Don’t assume higher tax rates will affect the rich more. The tax rate may even have steps above the linear, but that does not take into account how the rich can game the system while the poor or middle income can’t. Hence no taxes is relatively better for the poor and middle income. All public spending is tax. There should be a threshold level of public spending on essential services, and all the rest e.g. military adventures/wars, bureaucracies, political grants, should be scrapped.
The undeniable fact is that you know better how to spend your own money than someone else ie the government. Private sector is more efficient than the public in general. And don’t confuse banks and other corporations, feeding off the taxpayer, as private – they’re the devil in disguise.

So glad i was watching internet pron instead of his speech. I feel less filthy now.

His speeches ooze with double meanings. It’s disgusting. One second its almost socialism and the next is almost endearing to the hard worker..

i’m waiting for the minute where he actually says something concrete like oh i don’t know.. All Members of Congress will pay ALL their taxes, and it will be public record.

The problem for obama as far as i am concerned is that it’s a bit wee too late for his combative mode. He could have fought when things were bad and he did not. He caved, and just procrastinated. So why should i believe that his cry for th 99% is going to be different from his cry in 2008 for “change you can believe in” ? Especially since he then if elected has nothing to loose. If he did not do much in his first term, how can be sure he will do more in the second? The only saving grace is that Americans really have not choice: just coffe and milk.

@gadfly: The Iraq war is over. The Afghanistan war is ending. Obama is fulfilling his promise and our troops are coming home. What more do you want?

@Sal: Except the bank bailout was Bush, not Obama. Obama’s bailout hit the auto industry, the money was actually tracked, and has been paid back. Bush’s money to the banks has mostly disappeared and will never be recovered. Don’t confuse those two issues.

Also, you must not have been listening when he spoke about closing tax loopholes and making sure that these taxes actually get paid. Give the man some credit, instead of assuming everything he says must be wrong just because you oppose him.

@jaham: Maybe he was too busy creating jobs, putting up defenses against another global economic meltdown, creating consumer protection from the health care industry, banks, and credit card companies, and ending two wars? Besides, he’s handling it now. Are you really going to be indignant about it?

@Rail: See my response to jaham above. Obama has done plenty of concrete things, some of which have probably already benefited you. Stop complaining.

The biggest threat to this country is the ignorance of the people. I look at these comments, I look at the support for these ridiculous GOP candidates, and I wonder why even try?

@HolyChrist- because we have no other choice.

@CDN_Rebel: Journalists are not transcribers.

If all you want is a transcript, go to the source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/01/25/remarks-president-state-union-address

I don’t see how Newt Gingrich, the quintessential purveyor of fake facts and manic utopian fever dreams, could possibly win a. general election this year.

The President says he wants higher taxes on the wealthy. The problem is he hasn’t actually presented a legislative plan to do so. Let’s see the details, and then we can discuss it. Until then, we’re all talking in platitudes.

Furthermore, you can tax the rich all you want. The real deficit problem, looking decades out, is Medicare, which the President conveniently ignores. It’s more politically expedient to pander to the “99 percent” than talk about tough choices with practical implications.

Bill Dexter
That sums it up. Glad to see a Tea Partier that can see the GOP has it faults. Sad the other side can’t see their faults. Why no Dems protesting a welfare state? It’s not what they are about in fact they are in on and or behind the OWS bandwagon the Obama will ride to victory. So very conveinent. The title of the article says it all. For Obama 2012, it’s all about the 99 percent. Or the idea of it. Welcome to the new USA “us against them”. One nation, Under God, Indivisible…not any more…Tick Tock…

Talk is cheap. Until I see the fruition of his grand promises, my ever spiraling opinion of the man I voted in office, and will probably vote for again, will not rise. I judge Mr. Obama, and all our political servants, on what they do not what they say.

@Sensibility: So you didn’t hear him say he was already working with Republicans to make changes to Medicare in his speech last night? Or how he did propose specifics for his tax plan? Please comment on what Obama ACTUALLY said, not what you assume he said since you have already decided to oppose him.

@Crash: It’s the 1% who made it “us vs them” by preying on the poor and middle class for decades. Obama’s message last night was about evening the playing field, bring the 1% back down to earth where the rest of us live. That’s not class warfare. It’s not a welfare state. It’s the only way our country can survive.

The 99% is a wack job group of anarchists with no coherent message our cities spent hundreds of thousands of tax dollars disinfecting our public parks after they trashed and used them as open restrooms! Please Obama do not insult decent people by associating us with the trashy “99%” anarchists. Under Obama more jobs were created overseas than in US. We import engineers. We export manufacturing jobs. We buy from China. Obama caters to the least successful offering handouts to keep them placated, unemployed and living off the dole voting “Democrat” forever.

FLATTAX.ORG

I was an Obama supporter during the last election. I was fresh out of college and had a choice between a guy who mixes up Sunni and Shiite, or a well-spoken lawyer. Do I want a guy who mixes up the components of an astronomically expensive war leading our country? I mean come on… plus, I’ll admit I was seduced by the idea of “change”.

I no longer support Obama, and haven’t for some time now. I see a candidate who stands for REAL change, and it isn’t Smitten Mittny in his leather coat, or an amphibious fornicator. I’m in finance, and a balanced budget looks pretty nice from over here. Stop this back and forth BS about 99% this, or 1% that. I want REAL change. I will be voting for Dr. Ron Paul.

@Crash866 ‘Why no Dems protesting a welfare state?’, because we do not have one, except with maybe subsidizing the rich and big corps.

Did you even watch the speech?, it was actually not very partisan. Particularly when you consider all the commentary in the run up to it. If calling for Americans, in Congress and otherwise, to work together to solve our problems partisan, then you are beyond reason(probably true already though).

Personally I would rather have a president looking out for the 99% instead of the 1%, but maybe that is just cause i am not part of the 1%.

@Sensibility…’The real deficit problem, looking decades out, is Medicare, which the President conveniently ignores.’ Once again did you even watch the speech? He said he was open to medicare/medicaid and SS reforms, but there also had to be an increased revenue component with a fairer tax code in it. He smartly is not going to put the whole burden on balancing the budget on those that can afford it the least.

I think Obama just talks because that is one thing he can do. He is always running for election, because that’s the only thing he knows how to do. You can’t get yellow paint out of a can of red paint. I doubt any of you hard core Democrats will ever see the man for what he is. If you do the numbers on collecting the taxes on the 1% this will not bring jobs or balance the budget. This speech was nothing but smoke and mirrors.

Sensibility – “The President says he wants higher taxes on the wealthy. The problem is he hasn’t actually presented a legislative plan to do so.”

He most certainly has. The original full-year payroll tax cut plan presented by Obama (and yes, the DEMOCRATS were the first ones to ask for a full year, contrary to what Fox news would have us believe) fully funded the tax cut by adding a 3% surtax to those making more than a million a year (aka the “Buffett tax”). This plan was immediately rejected by the Republicans, which is how we ended up with their ridiculous two month extension.

I am suspicious that some of these authors are paid to post by the Democratic Party. Especially the ones who are attacking other people’s posts. Anyone getting paid by a PAC here? …. it suddenly got quiet …..

USAP – “Did you even watch the speech?, it was actually not very partisan. Particularly when you consider all the commentary in the run up to it. If calling for Americans, in Congress and otherwise, to work together to solve our problems partisan, then you are beyond reason(probably true already though).”

True story. I love how all the supposed “constitutionalists” complained (most of them before we even heard the speech) that the SOTU address is not supposed to be a campaign speech. (Which it wasn’t, not that that matters to them.) What I want to know is, where in your supposedly beloved constitution does it say that every senator, congressman, governor and pundit from the opposing party should be given an opportunity to trash the president’s address before he even makes it?

> solve the problem of widening U.S. income inequality

The question is, how many people are going to fall for that?

The government exists to handle what we, as a collective society, decide to do together. It should ALWAYS act in the benefit for the greater good of the majority. We were tricked to think that helping the minority (the 1%) would trickle down, thus helping the majority (been going on for decades, not only the last few years). We need to get back on track and do what’s best for the majority… directly. Obama 2012.

All I want is for the GOP to say they want equality. What I am hearing is “re-invade Iraq”, “build military large enough so others are scared of us”, “if you are our enemy, we will kill you”.

The “majority” is not a uniform batch of clones. I drive by the Obama idiot pipe dream Solyndra every day. A beautiful, brand-new, CLOSED factory filled with machines to make the worst possible design of solar panels- Obama: brought you Cash for Clunkers (aka buy a Toyota with tax payer subsidis) and defunct Solyndra. And hand delivered our high tech secret drone to Iran. N’obama, no thanks, he spends our money like a spoiled teenage girl.

The “majority” is not a uniform batch of clones. I drive by the Obama idiot pipe dream Solyndra every day. A beautiful, brand-new, CLOSED factory filled with machines to make the worst possible design of solar panels- Obama: brought you Cash for Clunkers (aka buy a Toyota with tax payer subsidis) and defunct Solyndra. And hand delivered our high tech secret drone to Iran. N’obama, no thanks, he spends our money like a spoiled teenage girl.

TrueIronPatriot, you state – “It’s the 1% who made it ‘us vs them’ by preying on the poor and middle class for decades.”
Could you give an example of what ‘preying on’ is? I agree with you that to be very rich and lobby for your own financial interests is as much an element of class warfare as anything, but no tax break on the books ever happened without BOTH parties agreeing to it. So, what, if anything else aside from getting some tax breaks, constitutes ‘preying on’?

Also could you specify what you think (or think President Obama thinks) bringing the 1% back down to earth will do to allow us to survive? It’s easy to read that as a call for a simple one time ‘take from the rich and give to the poor’ scenario. I do not wish to assume that you meant that if that’s not what you meant. If you mean taxing the 1% more then okay, but what would become of that tax revenue? Do you mean to redistribute it to someone else and just don’t like the term ‘welfare state’? If so then okay, but an explanation of how that would do anything else but increase the cost burden on what little private sector we have left would be appreciated. If you mean to reinvest it somehow then okay, but many of us are very weary of the amount of waste, fraud and gouging that goes on in the public sector unions, the public contract contractors and the government bureaucracies. It seems to me these projects really just end up wasting almost all the money. If you find tax breaks for the rich more repulsive than any public sector pocket lining then okay, I can at least understand your sentiment. You may even find it to be a little poetic justice for the ‘working class’, but if that is to be then we still can’t compete in manufacturing, we still are paying people for nothing and up we STILL need an explanation as to HOW we are going survive by bringing the 1% down.

4ngry4merican,

Why should PAYROLL tax cuts (reductions in employee contributions to SOCIAL SECURITY) be subsidized by an additional INCOME surtax? The three percent reduction means less money in the retiree’s account at retirement. Will the surtax funds be deposited in a Social Security retirement account or be spent on day to day operations of the government? If you want to add a three percent tax to those making more than a million dollars, why not let the other taxpayers receive a three percent decrease in their taxes? Is it because almost fifty percent of Americans do not pay any income tax?

doublea – Social Security does not consist of individual “accounts” that will have more or less funds because of the payroll tax cut. The payroll tax cut will have no effect whatsoever on retiree payouts. Payouts are made from the Social Secutiry Trust Fund, which is where the funds from the 3% surtax will be deposited to make up the shortfall. And to answer your question about why cut the PAYROLL tax, it’s because the payroll tax places a far, far greater burden on the working class than it does on the rich, who only pay payroll taxes on the first $110k of their income and not at all on their capital gains income, so cutting the payroll tax is the most effective way of putting more money in the hands of working class consumers.

No Welfare state huh? Aren’t we at or almost at the point of the largest percentage of American’s on food stamps in history? I know GW’s fault. Yes I watched the speech.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/record-number-of-americans-on-food-stamps-2011-08-03

Record number of Americans on food stampsStories

By William Spain CHICAGO (MarketWatch) — A record number of Americans are now receiving food stamps, according to data released by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. In May, there were 45.75 million recipients of the aid, up 2.5% from the previous month and 12% from May of 2010. The state of Alabama showed the biggest increase, almost 120%, with New Jersey, Nevada and North Carolina all seeing jumps in the 20% range. Every state posted a percentage increase, save North Dakota, which was essentially flat.

I love the sentiment, if you don’t want to pay the taxes and higher fees to do business in America, get out. That has worked great for us so far. Where are those manufacturing jobs again? What is the unemployment rate again? Democrats aren’t finished yet, there are still successful people left in America who aren’t in government. We must root them all out and make them pay.

UnPartisan – The loss of manufacturing jobs has nothing to do with taxes and fees and everything to do with the fact that companies can hire labor in India and China for 50 cents a day. It doesn’t matter how much we lower taxes and fees, we’re never going to be able to compete with that, nor should we try.