Constructive and civil debate — like the one Obama initiated just four weeks ago on deficit reduction? The speech in which he accused the Republicans of abandoning families of kids with autism and Down syndrome? The debate in which Obama’s secretary of health and human services said that the Republican plan would make old folks “die sooner”?

In this same spirit of comity and mutual respect, Obama’s most recent invitation to civil discourse — on immigration — came just eleven minutes after he accused opponents of moving the goal posts on border enforcement. “Maybe they’ll need a moat,” he said sarcastically. “Maybe they want alligators in the moat.”

Nice touch. Looks like the Tucson truce — no demonization, no cross-hairs metaphors — is officially over. After all, the Republicans want to kill off the elderly, throw the disabled in the snow, and watch alligators lunch on illegal immigrants.

The El Paso speech is notable not for breaking any new ground on immigration, but for perfectly illustrating Obama’s political style: the professorial, almost therapeutic, invitation to civil discourse, wrapped around the basest of rhetorical devices — charges of malice compounded with accusations of bad faith. “They’ll never be satisfied,” said Obama about border control. “And I understand that. That’s politics.”

How understanding. The other side plays “politics,” Obama acts in the public interest. Their eyes are on poll numbers, political power, the next election; Obama’s rest fixedly on the little children.

This impugning of motives is an Obama constant. “They” play politics with deficit reduction, with government shutdowns, with health care. And now immigration. It is ironic that such a charge should be made in a speech that is nothing but politics. There is zero chance of any immigration legislation passing Congress in the next two years. El Paso was simply an attempt to gin up the Hispanic vote as part of an openly political two-city, three-event campaign swing in preparation for 2012.

We’re not going to pull up the ladder behind us. I’m not going to reduce our deficit by sacrificing the things that always made up great as a people. (Applause.) I’m not going to sacrifice investments in education. I’m not going to make scholarships harder to get and more expensive for young people. I’m not going to sacrifice the safety of our highways or our airports. I’m not going to sacrifice clean air and clean water. (Applause.) I’m not going to sacrifice clean energy at a time when we need to free ourselves from dependence on foreign oil, and folks are getting killed at the pump. I’m not going to sacrifice America’s future. (Applause.)

There’s more than one way to mortgage America’s future. We mortgage that future if we don’t get a handle on our deficit and debt, but we also mortgage it if we’re not investing in those things that will assure the promise of the American Dream for the next generation.

And so part of this budget debate has to be about ending tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans in this country. (Applause.) I say that -- (applause) -- look, I say that not because I want to punish success. It’s because if we’re going to ask all Americans to sacrifice a little bit, we can’t just say to millionaires and billionaires, you guys go ahead, don't worry about it. (Laughter.) Just keep on counting your money. (Laughter.)

I’m talking about myself. Look, I don't want a $200,000 tax cut that's paid for by asking 33 seniors each to pay $6,000 more in Medicare costs. I don't want that. (Applause.) I don't want a tax cut that's paid for by slashing Head Start slots for young people here in New York City -- (applause) -- or eliminating health insurance for millions of people currently on Medicaid, seniors in nursing homes and poor kids and families with children with autism or other disabilities.

That's not a tradeoff I’m willing to make. (Applause.) That's not a tradeoff most Americans are willing to make. That's not who we are. We are better than that. That's what this debate is about. (Applause.) We’re better than that. (Applause.)

What makes America great isn’t just our skyscrapers. It’s not our military might. It’s not the size of our GDP. All those things are things that we are rightly proud of. But at our core, what makes us great is our character. We are individualists. We believe in free markets. We are entrepreneurs. We believe that each of us is endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights and liberties. We don’t like folks telling us what to do. (Laughter.) That’s part of what makes us American.

But what also makes us American is the idea that we’re all in this together, that I am my brother’s keeper, I am my sister’s keeper, and that when I look out for somebody else I’m not doing it out of charity. If I’m driving through Harlem and I see a well-constructed school and young people that I know are being taught what they need to learn, my life is better. (Applause.) I know I’ll be safer, and I know that as a country we’ll be aligned. We’ll be moving together forward hand-in-hand, and this country will be less divided. My life will be better.

If I’m driving by Central Park and I see an elderly couple strolling, holding hand-in-hand, and I think to myself someday Michelle and me, we’re going to be strolling hand-in-hand. (Applause.) And I’ll be able to take a walk in Central Park again, and nobody will recognize me. (Laughter and applause.) But it makes me to feel good to know that that couple, they’ve got Social Security, they’ve got Medicare, that they’ve got a sense of dignity and security in their golden years. (Applause.)
It’s not charity -- it makes my life better. No man is an island. We’re not here by ourselves. That’s our vision of America. It’s not a vision of a small America. It’s a vision of a big America that is compassionate and generous and bold and optimistic.

I don’t want a cramped idea of America. I don’t want an idea of America that says, “no, we can’t” -- and we can’t afford to look after folks who need help, and we can’t afford to make sure that the ladders of opportunity are available for the next generation, and our seniors have to fend for ourselves, and we can’t afford to rebuild our infrastructure, and we can’t afford to invest in science and basic research. That’s not the America I know.

I want a confident America where, yes, everybody makes sacrifices, but nobody bears all the burden, and we live up to the idea that no matter who we are, no matter what we look like, no matter whether our ancestors landed on Ellis Island or came here on a slave ship or crossed the Rio Grande, we are all connected to one another. We rise and fall together. (Applause.)

geojanes wrote:It's a good speech, and sure it's political, 'cause that's what he is.

But I will say this: until Republican's embrace the idea of tax reform so that the super rich actually pay their fair share of taxes (e.g. Warren Buffet's 17.7% rate), his point will resonate far and wide. Walking away in a huff when the topic is even broached is NOT a winning strategy.

. . . tax cut that's paid for by asking 33 seniors each to pay $6,000 more in Medicare costs. I don't want that. (Applause.) I don't want a tax cut that's paid for by slashing Head Start slots for young people here in New York City -- (applause) -- or eliminating health insurance for millions of people currently on Medicaid, seniors in nursing homes and poor kids and families with children with autism or other disabilities.

That's not a tradeoff I’m willing to make. (Applause.) That's not a tradeoff most Americans are willing to make. That's not who we are. We are better than that. That's what this debate is about. (Applause.) We’re better than that. (Applause.)

bbauska wrote:George, RJ, RickyP
How much is too much in taxes to be paid? What percentage for a "super-rich" is too much? What tax bracket (s)would have to pay that?

If President Obama's news conference accomplished anything on Wednesday afternoon, it underscored, in striking tones, his strategy for winning the debt ceiling fight with Republicans: Make it a clash of classes.

Rich versus Poor.
Us versus Them.
Those who support children, food safety, medical research and, presumably, puppies and apple pie versus the rich fat cats who don't.

In Obama's world, Democrats are for kids and Republicans are for corporate jets. That is a sharp distinction that could help put the GOP on defensive, but it may not be enough to persuade Republicans to change their posture on the debt-ceiling talks.

Republicans have cast Obama as a tax-raiser and a Big-Government spender. This was his jujitsu move to turn their arguments against them. With a hint of disdain, Obama even dredged up the death of Osama bin Laden to score a political point.

"I've been doing Afghanistan, bin Laden and the Greek crisis," Obama said, jabbing Congress for being out of session so much. "You stay here. Let's get it done."

In his first full-scale news conference since March, the president insisted that Democrats had compromised in private talks by agreeing to billions of dollars in budget cuts that would hurt their voters. But, he said, Republicans were refusing to bend by not agreeing to eliminate tax breaks to owners of corporate jets and profit-rich oil companies. If Republicans get their way, Obama said, the end result would be unbalanced deal that lifts the debt limit but forces the government to make deeper-than-necessary cuts.

"If we do not have revenues, that means there are a bunch of kids out there who do not have college scholarships," Obama said. "[It] might compromise the National Weather Services. It means we might not be funding critical medical research. 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?" ' ''

Just in case any viewer missed his class-clashing message, Obama referred to corporate-jet owners at least three more times before he took his second question.

President Obama has a new term for the people he wants to tax more: jet owners.

In his news conference today, the president said: “I think it’s only fair to ask an oil company or a corporate jet owner that’s doing so well to give up that tax break….I don’t think that’s real radical.”

Asking private-jet owners to give up tax breaks may not be that radical. And it probably would be supported by the vast majority of the nonjet-owning voters.

The problem is that most of the people that would be subject to the higher taxes the president wants aren’t likely to be private-jet owners. Someone earning $250,000 a year–among those scheduled for a tax increase in 2012–is unlikely to afford a jet–or even a few charter trips on a jet.

For those, like the president, who may not be well-versed in Jetonomics, here are some of the basics. The numbers come courtesy of Jay Duckson at Central Business jets:

COST OF BUYING A JET

New Citation CJ (entry level jet)–$5 million. Annual operating costs (fuel, hangar space, pilots) about $500,000.

Cheapest Used Jet–$100,000 to $500,000. Annual operating costs (hangar, pilots, mechanics, fuel) about $1 million a year.

Meanwhile, all the fat cats (those making $250K) are flitting about in their private jets:

bbauska wrote:Ray Jay,
Do you think it is acceptable to treat one portion of society differently than another?

Basically I consider President Obama's recommendations to be class warfare, divisive, and discriminatory.

bbauska wrote:Ray Jay,
Do you think it is acceptable to treat one portion of society differently than another?

As to the 3 points...
1. As long as all businesses and people have the deductions limited, I am fine with that.
2. Remove all tax breaks for businesses equally. That makes it fair.
3. Limit deductions for ALL people equally regardless of income.

Basically I consider President Obama's recommendations to be class warfare, divisive, and discriminatory.