Image from: http://www.politifake.org/shared-sacrifice-republican-gop-political-poster-6156.html
President Obama has been using the term “shared sacrifice” in an effort to get Republicans to compromise with him over the budget. Obama is asking for more revenue in tax increases and closure of some tax loopholes for corporations and the upper 1%, and the Republicans, in general, want cut to social programs like Medicare and Social Security.
So, Obama said that he will meet the Republicans part way and discuss cuts if Republicans are willing to raise revenues, i.e. raise some taxes. The President calls for “shared sacrifice.” Although giving more in taxes when you can afford it seems less of a sacrifice than losing your health care or job or being unable to pay your heating costs in winter, the “GOP say they’ve sacrificed enough already on debt negotiations.”
What has the GOP really sacrificed? To sacrifice, you have to have something to give up. The Republicans are so bound to a failed ideology called “trickle down economics” that they think it is a sacrifice to reconsider these policies. Just voting for an increase in the debt ceiling is considered a “shared sacrifice” by what Republicans call their “leadership.”
Yes, voting to keep the United States from defaulting on debt payments and avoiding thousands of layoffs is a sacrifice for many Republicans. It’s a lot to give up, having to help unworthy public and private sector workers.
Yes, helping avoid a down grade in the U.S. credit rating and raising the cost of the current debt is a “sacrifice”. And of course, helping the United States retain it’s place as a nation to invest in, as one of the world’s leading economies is a big sacrifice. It’s too hard for Republicans to sacrifice so much to make sure the economy is stable.
How about getting those that so far have sacrificed nothing during the recession to sacrifice their share? The banks, investment houses, most of Wall Street, CEOs, the Koch brothers, oil companies, most of Congress, and so on should now “sacrifice” for a while so that the unemployed, homeless, jobless, uninsured, and destitute don’t have to sacrifice more.
Obama’s logic is faulty. To say we need “shared sacrifice” it to argue that all parties have the same to lose. To say we need “shared sacrifice” is to ignore how much we and so many of our fellow citizens have sacrificed in lost pensions, homes and savings so a few money managers could make millions on credit default swaps and betting against our economy by buying stocks in these swaps on margin.
Who suffers more, a CEO who fails to get a bonus because of a poor economy but still gets his/her million plus dollar salary, or the millions of workers who have lost their jobs since 2008?
Who suffers more, Exxon/Mobil or the people who can’t afford their pain medication due to cuts in Medicare and Medicaid?
Who suffers more, GE (and other corporations) who may no longer be able to avoid all taxes in the future, or the ever growing number of people who live in poverty?
President Obama needs to stop compromising with those that only have the interests of billionaires in mind when discussing the debt ceiling and start shaming them for their arrogance and their failed ideology. And please President Obama, stop using the misleading and disingenuous phrase, “shared sacrifice”.
Peace,
Tex Shelters
The term “Shared Sacrifice” means cuts to previously untouchable programs that the GOP has been trying to privatize for profit – Medicare and SocSec. The idea that the wealthy should actually have to pay ANYTHING is anathema to them – after all, they are the privileged, the chosen few, the Master Race.
Obama is a closet Republican. He has done NONE of the things he promised during his campaign. But thanks to the wonderful two-party system we have foisted upon us, there is no real choice. What are you going to do, vote for the villains or the two-faced guy with a half-black, half-white hat?
Again, it’s a question of how do you want to get fucked, with lube or without?
And here we go, with the typical firebagger lies based in emotion.
“Obama is a closet Republican,” BWAHAHAAHAHAHAHA! If Obama really is a “closet Republican,” then why are his fellow Republicans doing their best to make him a one term President?
Obama is a hell of a lot smarter than you firebaggers give him credit for. He got the ACA, American Recovery Act, Lilly Ledbetter, two liberal judges for SCOTUS, drawing down Iraq/Afghanistan, prevented a government shutdown, and is respected around the world. But hey, we’d be better off with President Mitt Romney because Obama “hasn’t been liberal enough” for you firebagging loons.
He hasn’t been liberal at all.
Why are the wars continuing? What is the point? Give me one valid reason.
Obama is a moderate and a conservative democrat and he promised more than he could do.
We would have been better off voting for McCain and creating a strong liberal Democratic party instead of weak need collaborators we have now.
Here’s more on that:
My post Written in November
http://texshelters.wordpress.com/2010/11/23/i-should-have-voted-for-mccain/
Just posted on truth dig:
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/if_mccain_had_won_20110715/
Peace,
Tex Shelters
McCain.. as in, McCain who just co-drafted one of the most treasonous and unconstitutional pieces of legislation in recent history? Yea, we would have been a lot better off.
Shannon:
What legislation are you talking about?
Campaign finance reform? That’s not treasonous.
If you are going to mention this “legislation”, you should name it, don’t you think?
My point was not that McCain would be better, but that a McCain Presidency would have galvanized the left into taking action instead of acquiescing to a corporodem of the 1%, Obama. I wasn’t arguing that McCain would have been a better president. Read it again. I make my point above.
Peace,
Tex Shelters
I’ll take the lube, SAD. He did promise to appoint people to his cabinet and he chose the best insiders money can buy.
Thanks.
Peace,
Tex Shelters
I’d have to disagree. Where do you think laws get made? It starts with A “C”. The term shared sacrifice means tax the rich. Obama is cheerleading this phrase as he should. You act as if Obama could stiff arm the legislative branch, and write the laws himself. I dont see how you think the President could not “Compromise” when the GOP is threatening to let the U.S. default, and they run the House of Representatives..
Adam,
Obama is using the phrase “shared sacrifice” in the same meeting he talks about cuts to Medicare and Social Security. Who needs to “share” the sacrifice. Perhaps it’s semantics, but to ask to “share” indicates that all parties have something they should be willing to give up. I don’t think the porr and middle class should be giving up more in jobs, pensions, lives to wars, lost wages, and health care (among other things) when the top 1% has given up nothing and in fact, have benefitted by the downturn in the economy.
Thanks.
Peace,
Tex Shelters
Fair deal…Square Deal!!!
Uh oh, we’ve got ourselves a Wobbly.
Peace,
Tex Shelters