trigger

Responding to widespread criticism of his AWOL status on the budget fight, President Obama today unveiled a fiscal plan. It already is being criticized for its class warfare approach to tax policy, but the most disturbing feature may be a provision that punishes the American people with higher taxes if politicians overspend.

Called a “debt failsafe trigger,” Obama’s scheme would automatically raise taxes if politicians spend too much. According to the talking points distributed by the White House, the automatic tax increase would take effect “if, by 2014, the projected ratio of debt-to-GDP is not stabilized and declining toward the end of the decade.”

Let’s ponder what this means…

16 Comments!

  1. Posted April 13, 2011 at 7:46 pm |

    I believe it means we are entering the Louisville Slugger phase of negotiations.

  2. Posted April 13, 2011 at 7:48 pm |

    So let me see if I understand this correctly. If the government spends too much money, they just get to take more from you.

    And now I will translate for ‘lympians. Your landlord purchases a several BMWs even though he needed only on small pick-up truck. He then has the right to make your rent whatever he wants the next month.

  3. Posted April 13, 2011 at 7:53 pm |

    It means democrats will never again have to take the blame for rasing taxes

  4. Paul
    Posted April 13, 2011 at 7:55 pm |

    I guess what Obama is saying is,”Tax ‘em. Tax ‘em all and let Allah (ops..) sort them out”.

    You are going to see some interesting political upheavals in the near and far future. And I don’t think liberals will come out so well.

  5. SondraK, naughty naughty bad wingnut
    Posted April 13, 2011 at 8:03 pm |

    These people aren’t human. No fucking way.

  6. dick not quite dead white guy
    Posted April 13, 2011 at 8:28 pm |

    would automatically raise taxes deliver a beating on the first occurrence if politicians spend too much, followed by a strong electric shock on the second occurrence .
    Third occurrence trips the trapdoor on the gallows.

  7. Colonel Jerry USMC
    Posted April 13, 2011 at 8:33 pm |

    This will never pass. The Circle D or Stoopidican who votes for this might as well accept an invitation from Zippy to play golf in a minefield. If either one steps on a “Bouncing Betty”, it will be declared by the NYT as *bipartisan*… [death...]

    Mark this as a *second symptom* by a Commie Socialistically Dreaming Mfcs of the former Liberal, now New Progressive mindset whose “other people`s money” account is empty! The *first symptom* was the other day when Gov MoonBeam Brown, late of Cali-no-habuski, (…probably experiencing constant, inexplicable night sweats…) telegraphed Proggie desperation by—-wait for it—- asking CA residents to: “Volunteer to Make Tax Donations(!)” in excess of their computed tax burden!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Bottom Line: These Utopian students of Woodrow Wilson, et al, are INCAPABLE of comprehending that their philosophy has run the world`s greatest nation in the history of all mankind out of the ability to fund (…by hook and crook…) their blind addictions!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    { In spite of a mere cursory reading of History, recording that it has ever been thus…?!?!}

  8. mech
    Posted April 13, 2011 at 8:47 pm |

    Pay no attention to the spending behind the curtain.

  9. Claire: dirty, dirty wingnut
    Posted April 13, 2011 at 9:10 pm |

    bwaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!
    *points at X-Precedent*

  10. Posted April 14, 2011 at 6:43 am |

    It means that we’d better change those projections!

  11. joe
    Posted April 14, 2011 at 7:19 am |

    I can’t believe a grown man actually propsed this.

    How incredibly stupid is he?

  12. Posted April 14, 2011 at 8:39 am |

    It would have meant that when Bush was running up all that debt, taxes would have been raised to pay for his expanding government and 2 wars….Instead, Bush lowered taxes on the rich costing us about $2 trillion dollars…Then there is close to a trillion in Iraq.

    Republican fiscal policy: Lower taxes on people who don’t need it while spending more and running up the debt and deficit and leave it for a Democrat to fix.

    So really, instead of Tax and spend Democrats, the Republicans should be called the Cut-Tax and Spend party…Which one is more fiscally responsible?

  13. geezerette
    Posted April 14, 2011 at 9:40 am |

    Where does all this lowered the taxes on only the rich come from? Who are the so called rich he lowered the taxes on? When did he declare the rich( even tho they don’t need their money) will not pay their share of the taxes but the poor will(even tho they do need their money) ? Is that what Bush did? So now this president will tax the rich because they don’t need it and not the poor and that money will be given to the poor because they need it –is that what you’re trying to say–?

  14. Posted April 14, 2011 at 10:05 am |

    The following comes to mind… Once again..

  15. Posted April 14, 2011 at 10:06 am |

    t’s try this instaed..

    From each according to his ability, to each according to his need (or needs) is a slogan popularized by Karl Marx in his 1875 Critique of the Gotha Program.[1] The phrase summarizes the principles that, in a communist society, every person should contribute to society to the best of his or her ability and consume from society in proportion to his or her needs. In the Marxist view, such an arrangement will be made possible by the abundance of goods and services that a developed communist society will produce; the idea is that there will be enough to satisfy everyone’s needs

  16. DougM
    Posted April 14, 2011 at 8:24 pm |

    That there’s what we control-systems engineers call positive-feedback coupling which will prob’ly result in an unstable system (that is, you fly off the cliff and die in a crushing, fiery death at the bottom of the canyon).

    Y’know, I hate to be critical of the President every time he says or does something I disagree with, which seems to be everything. Yeah, perhaps I’ve been a bit mean-spirited and quick-to-criticize at times; and realistically, I kind’a regret that it’s been necessary. However, that being said, this has gotta be one of the most bone-headed, stupid, imbecilic, or treasonable blitherings I have ever encountered … and that includes my Pentagon staff time.