Poetic Justice: Shocked Obama Supporters Discover Their Taxes Went Up

By Susan Duclos

One difference between those that voted for Obama and those that did not, is that those that did not vote for Obama are not surprised in the least that in the fiscal cliff deal, taxes went up, not only for the so-called rich, but for 77 percent of all American workers.

Via Bloomberg:

The budget deal passed by the U.S. Senate today would raise taxes on 77.1 percent of U.S. households, mostly because of the expiration of a payroll tax cut, according to preliminary estimates from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center in Washington.

More than 80 percent of households with incomes between $50,000 and $200,000 would pay higher taxes. Among the households facing higher taxes, the average increase would be $1,635, the policy center said. A 2 percent payroll tax cut, enacted during the economic slowdown, is being allowed to expire as of yesterday. 

One percent of households, or those with incomes over $506,210, would pay an average of $73,633 more in taxes.

80 percent of households making between $50,000 and $200,000 will pay an additional average of $1,635 in taxes withheld from their paychecks.

Also, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center in Washington, the tax burden will increase more for someone making $30,000 a year (1.7 percent) than it does for someone earning $500,000 annually (1.3 percent).

Conservatives making  $50,000 and $200,000, that are now seeing smaller paychecks, are suffering as much as liberals making equal amounts, but the conservatives are definitely not surprised. On the other hand, Obama supporters, are expressing anger, shock and outrage over Washington's fingers snatching more money from their paychecks.

Obama supporters believed the statement below, conservatives did not.

“I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.”---- ” Barack Obama, September 2008. “

 Joseph Curl over at Washington Times visited one of the most liberal websites on the Internet and reports on some of the shocked outrage by Obama supporters.

“What happened that my Social Security withholding’s in my paycheck just went up?” a poster wrote on the liberal site DemocraticUnderground.com. “My paycheck just went down by an amount that I don’t feel comfortable with. I guarantee this decrease is gonna’ hurt me more than the increase in income taxes will hurt those making over 400 grand. What happened?”

[...]

“My boyfriend has had a lot of expenses and is feeling squeezed right now, and having his paycheck shrink really didn’t help,” wrote “DemocratToTheEnd.”

Now of course, some obamabots can't bring themselves to blame Obama because they reelected him despite the fact that Mitt Romney and Republicans warned them Obama was going to raise their taxes, and they cannot cast the blame on Republicans because the GOP has been extremely vocal in the battle to extend all tax cuts, but they lost.

So those Obama supporters found someone else to blame:

“BlueIndyBlue” added: “Many of my friends didn’t realize it, either. Our payroll department didn’t do a good job of explaining the coming changes.”

It is the payroll departments fault.

More:

Some in the thread argued that the new tax — or the end of the “holiday,” which makes it a new tax — wouldn’t really amount to much. One calculated it would cost about $86 a month for most people. “Honeycombe8,” though, said that amount is nothing to sneeze at.

“$86 a month is a lot. That would pay for … Groceries for a week, as someone said. More than what I pay for parking every month, after my employer’s contribution to that. A new computer after a year. A new quality pair of shoes … every month. Months of my copay for my hormones. A new thick coat (on sale or at discount place). It would pay for what I spend on my dogs every month … food, vitamins, treats.”

Now, even before Obama is inaugurated for his second term, to which these very people are completely responsible for, they are already expressing buyer's remorse:

“Really, how am I ever supposed to pay off my student loans if my already small paycheck keeps getting smaller? Help a sister out, Obama,” wrote “Meet Virginia.” “Nancy Thongkham” was much more furious. “F***ing Obama! F*** you! This taking out more taxes s*** better f***ing help me out!! Very upset to see my paycheck less today!”

“_Alex™” sounded bummed. “Obama I did not vote for you so you can take away alot of money from my checks.” Christian Dixon seemed crestfallen. “I’m starting to regret voting for Obama.” But “Dave” got his dander up over the tax hike: “Obama is the biggest f***ing liar in the world. Why the f*** did I vote for him”?

A quick note to Obama supporters, those that ran to the election polls and pulled that lever for Barack Obama.

Sit down and STFU, you voted for this, you got what you voted for and have absolutely no right whatsoever to complain about it now.

Deal with it... the rest of us have to because of your uninformed decisions.

Video- Buyer's Remorse? Explain Why At Break Up With Obama Website

By Susan Duclos

The RNC present, "The Breakup."


 Via CBS News:

The Republican National Committee on Thursday released an ad featuring a woman explaining to a cardboard cutout of President Obama - over dinner - why she is breaking up with him.

"Listen, this just isn't working," says the woman. She is not identified in the spot, but the RNC confirms that she is Bettina Inclan, its director of Hispanic outreach. "It's been four years," she says. "You've changed."

Inclan goes on to complain that the man she is speaking to - who has not yet been revealed - is "always on the golf course," is spending too much money and always hanging out with celebrities.

"You're just not the person I thought you were," she says as the Obama cutout is revealed. "It's not me, it's you."

If you were a 2008 Obama supporter and/or voter and are suffering a case of Buyer's Remorse, the GOP has set up a website where you can explain why "You're Breaking Up With Barack Obama."

Democratic Pollsters Want Obama To 'Abandon His Candidacy For Reelection'

By Susan Duclos

In 2010 Douglas E. Schoen, a Bill Clinton pollster and Patrick H. Caddell, a pollster for Jimmy Carter, published a piece in the Wall street Journal which expressed disappointment in Barack Obama's deliberately divisive and cynical approach to governance.

WSJ July 2010:

Rather than being a unifier, Mr. Obama has divided America on the basis of race, class and partisanship. Moreover, his cynical approach to governance has encouraged his allies to pursue a similar strategy of racially divisive politics on his behalf.

We have been watching the division of class Obama created, stoked, encouraged, and embraced, play itself out in the headlines over the last two months with the Occupy Wall Street antics.

In November of 2010 in the Washington Post op-ed pages, Caddell and Schoen begin making the argument that Obama should not run for reelection in 2012 saying they did not come to that conclusion lightly but that it was clear to them that Obama had "largely lost the consent of the governed," going on to state that the 2010 midterm elections was a "referendum on the Obama presidency," a vote of "no confidence in Obama and his party," and that Obama "has almost no credibility left with Republicans and little with independents."


Today, the same two men write that Obama should abandon his candidacy for re-election, citing examples of Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson who, according to Caddell and Schoen, "accepted the reality that they could not effectively govern the nation if they sought re-election to the White House," further stating that Truman and Johnson took the "moral high ground" in their decision against running for a new term as President.

Certainly, Mr. Obama could still win re-election in 2012. Even with his all-time low job approval ratings (and even worse ratings on handling the economy) the president could eke out a victory in November. But the kind of campaign required for the president's political survival would make it almost impossible for him to govern—not only during the campaign, but throughout a second term.

Put simply, it seems that the White House has concluded that if the president cannot run on his record, he will need to wage the most negative campaign in history to stand any chance. With his job approval ratings below 45% overall and below 40% on the economy, the president cannot affirmatively make the case that voters are better off now than they were four years ago. He—like everyone else—knows that they are worse off.

President Obama is now neck and neck with a generic Republican challenger in the latest Real Clear Politics 2012 General Election Average (43.8%-43.%). Meanwhile, voters disapprove of the president's performance 49%-41% in the most recent Gallup survey, and 63% of voters disapprove of his handling of the economy, according to the most recent CNN/ORC poll.

They also believe that Hillary Clinton would be the natural choice to play savior to the Democratic party.

I have my doubts as to why Clinton would want to save a party with leaders that turned against her in 2008 when they stripped Michigan of their delegate's votes which favored Clinton.

We have seen multiple examples of buyer's remorse from individuals and groups that voted for Barack Obama in 2008, and the feel of the Caddell/Schoen pieces encouraging Obama to abandon his 2012 candidacy for reelection, seems to have that same type of regret attached to it.

It is doubtful if Obama's ego would allow him to withdraw and more doubtful still that Hillary Clinton would want the presidency at this time, but to see what Andrew Malcolm at Investors Business Daily describes as "friendly fire" continuing to come from Caddell and Schoen is indicative of party supporters who are desperate for "anyone but Obama."

.

Another Obama Supporting Democrat Suffering Buyer's Remorse

By Susan Duclos

We have seen and reported on a series of large and small business owners, some Obama supporters and donors, going public with what they think of Barack Obama and how bad he has been for job growth, business expansion and unemployment.

Recap

First a small business owner explained, in detail, how the Obama administration tax increase proposals would cause suffering and perhaps financial ruin for small business owners.

Then we showed when self-described Democratic Steve Wynn, the CEO of casino company Wynn Resorts, explain how the Obama administration "is the greatest wet blanket to business, and progress and job creation" he has seen in his lifetime. He goes on to detail why businesses are "frightened" and sitting on their thumbs until Obama is gone.

Bernie Marcus co-founded Home Depot gave an interview saying that Home Depot, which created hundreds of thousands of jobs, if started today, "would never have succeeded," because of regulations and the biggest impediment to job growth today is "The U.S. Government."

KISS star, Gene Simmons, wants his vote back (he voted for Obama in 2008) and states that Obama "Has No F***ing Idea What The World Is Like".

Just last week, Obama donor, Ted Leonsis, who is a business owner, expressed how disillusioned he is with the class warfare rhetoric that Barack Obama has been spouting across the country and says it blows his mind how he is asked for money at the same time as "getting blasted as being a bad guy!"

The examples business owners and/or Obama buyer's remorse folks, go on and on and on and today we see another former Obama supporting Democrat, Mort Zuckerman, current editor-in-chief of U.S. News & World Report and publisher and owner of the New York Daily News, explaining the problems for American businesses as long as Obama is president.

Via Financial Times:

Facing these challenges, businesses are trying to enhance productivity, not create jobs. Polls show that business leaders are growing increasingly pessimistic. In the past six months a third of companies have delayed or cancelled plans for capital spending.

Of course, none of this was helped by a government that lost credibility by predicting that its recovery programmes would bring the jobless rate down and growth up. This was the beginning of the yawning credibility gap between the Obama's administration and business. The gap is being aggravated by Mr Obama's recent sharp turn to the left.

This resort to divisive populism - laying the blame on "fat cats" and pillorying the president's favourite villains - "millionaires and billionaires" - is exactly the wrong approach. It seeds the suspicion that the administration is more interested in campaigning and undermines the confidence that business needs if it is to invest in the face of new regulations, healthcare costs and an increased bureaucracy. Businesses sense that the administration no longer understands how this perceived hostility saps the animal spirits required for taking risks on expansions and start-ups.

Barack Obama and liberals (yes, I know, redundant) are demonizing, punishing, and over regulating the very people America's economy needs to expand their businesses, employ those who are unemployed now, and kick start a stalling economy.

If that isn't a clear case of biting the hand that feeds you... what is?

.

Maureen Dowd Taps Into Buyer's Remorse Of The Obama Purchase

Maureen Dowd captures the buyer's remorse being felt by Democrats and many Independents that bought into Barack Obama's hope and change mantra from 2008.

She explains how Obama supporters have become disillusioned with the man who had no resume nor executive experience before becoming elected as President of the United States of America and now has a record of an ineffectual failed leader.

Faced with a country keening for reassurance and reinvention, Obama seems at a loss. Regarding his political skills, he turns out to be the odd case of a pragmatist who can’t learn from his mistakes and adapt.

Many of his Democratic supporters here, who once waited hours in line just to catch a glimpse of The One, are disillusioned.

Dowd says Obama has been "spectacularly unable to fill the leadership void in Washington."

She then provides a list of examples:

Obama’s response on Monday to Friday’s Standard & Poor’s downgrade and to the 22 Navy Seal commandos and 8 other soldiers killed by a Taliban rocket-propelled grenade in Afghanistan was once more too little, too late. It was just like his belated, ineffectual response on the BP oil spill and his reaction to the would-be Christmas Day bomber; it took him three days on vacation in Hawaii to speak about the terrorist incident when the country was scared about national security, and then he spent the next week callously shuttling from the podium to the golf course.

More:

His inability to grab a microphone and spontaneously assuage Americans’ fears is strange. If the American servicemen had died on a Monday, he wouldn’t have waited until Wednesday to talk about it. He doesn’t like the bully pulpit, just the professor’s lectern.

After failing to interrupt his Camp David weekend to buck up the country on one of its worst days in history, he tacked on his condolences for the soldiers’ families to his economic pep talk, in what had to be the most inept oratorical segue of his presidency.

He long ago should have gone out into the country to talk to Americans in person and come up with a concrete plan that people could print out from the White House Web site and study. Hasn’t he learned how dangerous it is to delegate to Congress? His withholding and reactive nature has made him seem strangely irrelevant in Washington, trapped by his own temperament. He doesn’t lead, and he doesn’t understand why we don’t feel led.

Speaking from the State Dining Room of the White House, he advised America it was still “a triple-A country” like some cerebral soccer coach urging the kids to win one for the London Interbank Offered Rate.

With traders hearing nothing new, just boilerplate about “common sense and compromise” on deficit reduction, the Dow Jones industrial average, which had already fallen 410 points, fell 20 more points while the president was talking around 2 o’clock. By the 4 p.m. close, the Dow was 634 points lower.

Buyer's remorse in it's full glory.

[Update] Dowd is not the only one feeling it.


(Correction made- headline fixed)

And The Time Has Finally Come When They Turn Against Barack Obama, Their Chosen One

The Huffington Post has a piece penned by Clarence B. Jones, Scholar in Residence, Martin Luther King, Jr. Research and Education Institute at Stanford University, where he proposes "Time to Think the Unthinkable: A Democratic Primary Challenge To Obama's Reelection."

Throughout his piece one can almost feel his regret that he is saying what he is saying. His profound sadness that the time has come to consider bringing up a serious Democratic challenger against Barack Obama, their chosen golden child, in the 2012 Democratic primaries for who the party as a whole wants to run as President of the United States of America.

It is time for Progressives to stop "whining" and arguing among themselves about whether President Obama will or will not do this or that. Obama is no different than any other President, nominated by his national party. He was elected with the hard work and 24/7 commitment of persons who believed and enlisted in his campaign for "Hope" and "Change."

You don't have to be a rocket scientist nor have a PhD in political science and sociology to see clearly that Obama has abandoned much of the base that elected him. He has done this because he no longer respects, fears or believes those persons who elected him have any alternative, but to accept what he does, whether they like it or not.

It is time for those persons who constituted the "Movement" that enabled Senator Barack Obama to be elected to "break their silence"; to indicate that they no longer will sit on their hands, and only let off verbal steam and ineffective sound and fury, and "hope" for the best.

The answer is blowin' in the wind

The pursuit of the war in Afghanistan in support of a certifiably corrupt Afghan government and the apparent willingness to retreat from his campaign commitment of no further tax cuts for the rich, his equivocal and foot dragging leadership to end DADT, his TARP for Wall Street, but, equivocal insufficient attention to the unemployment and housing foreclosures of Main Street, suggest that the template of the 1968 challenge to the reelection of President Lyndon Johnson now must be thoughtfully considered for Obama in 2012.

Recent polling has shown that Democratic supporters are split on whether Barack Obama sould be handed the Democratic nomination for presidency in 2012, with an AP-KN poll showing that among all 2008 voters "51 percent say he deserves to be defeated in November 2012 while 47 percent support his re-election."

Among Democrats the numbers are "47 percent say Obama should be challenged for the 2012 nomination and 51 percent say he should not be opposed."

Marist polling also shows an uphill battle for Obama with 48% of registered voters nationwide saying they will vote against Barack Obama and only 36 percent saying they will vote for him.

Large portions of the liberal base are upset with Obama for not pushing far enough to the left. Independents have run from him in droves because of how far left he has pushed America and conservatives were never going to vote for him anyway.

The problem lies with the diehard Obama supporters that will never admit they were wrong about him and will vote for him in 2012 come hell or high water, no matter what he does or how he has disappointed them.

Any challenger will have to understand that if they win the Democratic nomination from Obama, they may never get those voters to the polls to vote in 2012 if their "One" has been defeated within their own party.

We have seen this talk before from Obama supporters every time he does something unpopular with them, or to rephrase, any time he hasn't done what they want him to, but rarely do we see a person with the seriousness of Clarence B. Jones take to the pages of a site like Huffington to push the idea.

Recently though this talk of a primary challenger to Obama has become a chorus, with bloggers and media as well as pollster issuing it as a very real possibility as the cumulative effect of Obama's policies start becoming obvious.

Obama’s presidency might be a lost cause, but for the good of the country, the soul of the Democratic Party must be saved. And the only way to do that is to challenge him for the Democratic nomination in 2012.

It is easier for Independent thinkers that voted for Obama in 2008 to look back and suffer buyer's remorse and admit publicly they have made a mistake. One recent example is Kiss Rock Star Gene Simmons stating "If you take a look at (Obama's) resume, you couldn’t find somebody, in retrospect, more unqualified".



These are the type of things people are supposed to learn before voting but I give credit to Simmons who has incredible courage to publicly acknowledge he was wrong and regrets his decision. Hopefully in 2012 he will use his vote more wisely.

If Democrats do unite in the the goal of issuing a primary challenge to Obama in 2012, who would it be, especially after Hillary Clinton already shot down the possibility of it being her?

Here is another question.. after losing the support of Independents and portions of the liberal left, the elderly, women and white males... would Barack Obama have any chance to win the 2012 Presidential election?

Mark Halperin from TIME seems to think it would take a lotttttttaaaaaaaa luck.

.

Gallup Polls Shows Likely Voters And Independents Giving GOP Double Digits Lead

The pattern is established and continuing now that Gallup is using a likely voter model, which has proven more predictive than simply using all registered voters, and that pattern shows the GOP, among likely voters and Independents, with a double digit lead over Democrats in the generic ballot for congress.

Gallup:

Republicans maintain a substantial advantage over Democrats among likely voters in Gallup's generic ballot for Congress -- in both lower- and higher-turnout scenarios -- fueled in part by the GOP's strong showing among independents.

With the majority of Democrats (90%) and the majority of Republicans (90%) stating they will vote for their respective party candidates, Independents will be the deciding factor in the midterm elections.

The Republican advantage among all registered-voter independents is 10 percentage points, 46% vs. 36%, underscoring the Republican tilt among independents even if all registered voters were to turn out. But among the two groups of likely voters, the Republican margin among independents expands to 21 to 25 points.

With only three weeks to go before midterms, there is very little Democrats can do to not only stop this pattern but to turn it around, which perhaps is the reason for their latest Hail Mary attacks on the Chamber of Commerce.

In other polling news, almost half of Obama supporters have given up on him.

.

Barack Obama- They Don't Know Him, They Regret Believing In Him

Piece at Newser points out how disliked Barack Obama is becoming and asks "What Do We Do With Barack Obama? "

How did everybody get it so wrong is a question many people seem to be asking themselves—not least of all these people slinking out of the White House.

It is not just that he has turned out to be something different. In fact, reasonably, he isn’t that different. The more powerful sense of remorse or at least sheepishness may come from people now asking themselves how and why they came to think of him as different than he was. More confounding, they may not really now be able to remember just who exactly they thought he was.

So to refocus the story: Some mass misperception put Barack Obama in the White House and now nobody knows what to do with him.

Can there be a more awkward situation?

Well said.. buyer's remorse is setting in big and no one likes to admit they got something so wrong...especially when they warned beforehand and instead let themselves be bought in by pretty words and empty promises.

.

'The Entire American Spirit Is Being Broken'- Buyer's Remorse From Obama Supporters

Time:

.....The fear most often expressed is that Obama is taking the country somewhere they don't want to go. "We bought what he said. He offered a lot of hope," says Fred Ferlic, an Obama voter and orthopedic surgeon in South Bend who has since soured on his choice. Ferlic talks about the messy compromises in health care reform, his sense of an inhospitable business climate and the growth of government spending under Obama. "He's trying to Europeanize us, and the Europeans are going the other way," continues Ferlic, a former Democratic campaign donor who plans to vote Republican this year. "The entire American spirit is being broken."

Page #2 of Time article shows many Obama supporters in disagreement with Obama's policies:

It wasn't long before deep cracks in Obama's coalition began to appear. This past June, Peter Brodnitz of the Benenson Strategy Group, a firm that also polls for the White House, asked voters which they preferred: "new government investments" or "cutting taxes for business" as the better approach to jump-start job creation. Even among those who voted for Obama, nearly 38% preferred tax cuts. When Brodnitz offered a choice between tax cuts to reduce the deficit and investments in "research, innovation and new technologies," one-third of Obama voters chose the cuts. The evidence throughout the poll, commissioned by the think tank Third Way, was unmistakable: roughly 1 in 3 of the President's 2008 supporters had serious questions about government spending solutions for the economy. In Nevada, a state Obama won with 55% of the vote, only 29% of likely voters this year think the President's actions have helped the economy, according to a recent poll by Mason-Dixon Polling & Research. "A lot of this was really inevitable, or at least pretty predictable," says Indiana Senator and former governor Evan Bayh, a Democratic expert at getting elected in the Rust Belt. "We have a lot of government activism at a time when skepticism of government efficiency is at an all-time high."

Page #3:

Yet all of Obama's personal and financial appeals have been swamped by the depth of the recession and have had little visible effect. Donnelly, who flies home every weekend to work in his district, felt obliged to run against Obama to save his job. And his Republican opponent, Jackie Walorski, says she is often approached by Obama voters who want to vent. "This has burned people," she says. "Their words, not mine: 'Betrayed by the health care vote.' 'What are they thinking when it comes to spending?' 'Broken promises when it comes to jobs.'" At one recent Walorski house party, held at dusk beside a cornfield, two attendees, Matthew and Frances Napieralski, identified themselves as former supporters of the President. "He's not what I voted for," said Matthew, who runs a plastic-injection-molding shop in town. "It's a shame that they led us to believe one thing," said Frances, "and then everything changes."

Buyer's remorse.

Obama is here until 2012 when those same voters can vote to replace him, but in the short-term the only thing they can do is vote in November 2010, hand control of Congress to the GOP and allow them to stop Obama's agenda from destroying any more of this country than he is already has.

.