Hey, I know: after four years of economic stagnation, let’s vote the guy back in. Cuz Bush sucks. And Romney’s rich. Or something.
This just in: Romney’s STILL rich. And you’ll never be. Anywho:
Sometimes, watching a Democrat learn something is wonderful, like seeing the family dog finally sit and stay at your command.
“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?”
Shocker. Democrats who supported the president’s re-election just had NO idea that his steadfast pledge to raise taxes meant that he was really going to raise taxes. They thought he planned to just hit those filthy “1 percenters,” you know, the ones who earned fortunes through their inventiveness and hard work. They thought the free ride would continue forever.
So this week, as taxes went up for millions of Americans — which Republicans predicted throughout the campaign would happen — it was fun to watch the agoggery of the left.
The beauty of it:
But in fact, it was Mr. Obama who enacted the “holiday,” and, to be clear, the tax cut that he pushed throughout the campaign — remember? 98 percent of Americans will get a cut under his plan? — was really the extension of the Bush tax suts. Thus, it was Mr. Obama who raised taxes on millions of Americans, not Mr. Bush.
How many Americans? The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center in Washington put the total at 77.1 percent of all wage earners. In fact, “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,” according to a Bloomberg News article. Hilariously, the tax burden will rise more for someone making $30,000 a year (1.7 percent) than it does for someone earning $500,000 annually (1.3 percent).
But, but, but…hey, gotta run, American Idol is on.
Obama chief of staff: ObamaCare not a tax, even though our own attorney argued that it was and SCOTUS ruled that it was.
Chris Wallace leads along the poor schmuck nicely, forcing the guy to basically say “Our own solicitor general argued that ObamaCare’s individual mandate is a tax, and SCOTUS agreed…but hey, lawyers say all kinds of crazy things that aren’t true, so don’t read anything into it!” Um…yeah.
Interesting analyses, from many different sources. Excerpts here, and you really should check them out.
Essentially, conservative pundits are wondering that while the ObamaCare ruling was a short-term win for Chairman Zero, maybe Roberts’ rejection of the Commerce Clause being used to regulate economic inactivity (which lower courts ruled was valid) will prevent future Congresses from trying to use that clause to expand the power of the federal government and thus advance the cause of limited government. Perhaps that cause, plus the outrage from the ruling which will galvanize the conservative base to rally around Romney (which they may not have otherwise done), will put Romney and Republicans in charge…or so the thinking goes. And if Romney and Republicans take control, they will definitely repeal ObamaCare…which means that ObamaCare got repealed PLUS the Court will have prevented similar abuse of the Commerce Clause in future sessions.
Anywho, that’s the school of thought…or spin, depending on how you look at it. What do YOU think?
Yes, this is the actual AP headline:
Is GOP trying to sabotage economy to hurt Obama?
Read the intro:
By CHARLES BABINGTON | Associated Press – Sat, May 19, 2012
WASHINGTON (AP) — Are Republican lawmakers deliberately stalling the economic recovery to hurt President Barack Obama’s re-election chances? Some top Democrats say yes, pointing to GOP stances on the debt limit and other issues that they claim are causing unnecessary economic anxiety and retarding growth.
ObaMao’s big government borrow-and-spend policies have been crap, with no positive results and a plethora of negative results. So Americans elect the GOP to control the House, as their way of expressing displeasure with (among other things) B.O.’s and the Dems’ way of dealing with the economy. So when the Republican House - again, elected by the people to stop Obamanomics - decides to stop the runaway borrow-and-spend Greece-like policies…they’re trying to sabotage the economy?
Um, yeah. They’re trying to sabotage something that hasn’t friggin’ worked in nearly four years, and the AP treats it as though it’s a given that Obamanomics works and those mean ol’ Republicans are trying to “sabotage the economy” just to hurt Obama. Because Obama’s economic policies couldn’t possibly harm Obama…nope, it’s those economy-sabotaging Republicans!
Nope…no liberal media bias!
President Obama paid a total federal tax rate of 20.5 percent on a gross adjusted income $789,674, a rate that may come in below that of his secretary.
Obama has spent the past week touting the Buffett Rule, which calls on those who make $1 million – just a little more than Obama made – to pay at federal tax rate of at least 30 percent. The rule was inspired by Buffett’s comment that he paid a lower tax rate than his secretary.
The most recent information about salary regarding Obama’s secretary is for his former secretary, Katie Johnson, who is listed by the White House as having made $90,000 in 2010.
According to Wikipedia, Johnson is 31 years old and now attends Harvard Law School. I don’t know about her personal life or what her deductions would be, so I can’t assume any children or deductions.
On a $90,000 salary, she would pay $16,578 in federal taxes, $3,780 to Social Security, and $1,305 in Medicare taxes.
That adds up to a total federal tax burden of $21,663 on $90,000 in adjusted gross income, or a tax rate of 24 percent, well above Obama’s rate of 20.5 percent, even though Obama’s 2011 salary was nearly nine times the 2010 salary of his secretary.
That blasted 1%-er! LOL!
You think maybe billionaire Warren Buffett, the guy whose team of accountants are hired to minimize his tax liability while he complains about not paying enough taxes, might want to pay his own friggin’ taxes before he opens his cakehole about everyone else paying their “far share”?
NetJets in November sued the U.S., saying the federal government had wrongly imposed taxes, interest and penalties totaling more than $642.7 million.
Claiming the federal Internal Revenue Service wrongfully assessed a so-called ticket tax — an excise tax on payments made in exchange for air transportation — to private aircraft owners maintaining their own planes, the Columbus, Ohio-based company demanded refunds and abatements.
The federal government, in a revised answer and countersuit filed yesterday in federal court in Columbus, rejected NetJets’claims and alleged that four of the company’s units owe unpaid taxes and penalties.
When the left gets these fool-brained ideas, the results are always predictable. From Eurotrashland:
The Treasury received £10.35 billion in income tax payments from those paying by self-assessment last month, a drop of £509 million compared with January 2011. Most other taxes produced higher revenues over the same period.
Senior sources said that the first official figures indicated that there had been “manoeuvring” by well-off Britons to avoid the new higher rate. The figures will add to pressure on the Coalition to drop the levy amid fears it is forcing entrepreneurs to relocate abroad.
The self-assessment returns from January, when most income tax is paid by the better-off, have been eagerly awaited by the Treasury and government ministers as they provide the first evidence of the success, or failure, of the 50p rate. It is the first year following the introduction of the 50p rate which had been expected to boost tax revenues from self-assessment by more than £1billion.
And naturally, since B.O. likes to emulate the Euros, he wants to copy their model of economic ignorance and implement it here. Because hey, we just know it will be different here, right?
So the Brits raise the tax rate on the “better-off” to 50%, and wouldn’t you know it, they take their money to more tax-friendly climes? Not only did the UK government NOT get the amount of extra revenue they thought they would…they got less than last year! That’s not even mentioning the fact that the money that was “manoeuvred” is now parked or working elsewhere instead of working in the UK economy.
Atlas shrugging just a little?
Geez, what is it with the Obaminions skipping out on their taxes? Did they all use Turbo Tax? Details:
A new report just out from the Internal Revenue Service reveals that 36 of President Obama’s executive office staff owe the country $833,970 in back taxes. These people working for Mr. Fair Share apparently haven’t paid any share, let alone their fair share.
Previous reports have shown how well-paid Obama’s White House staff is, with 457 aides pulling down more than $37 million last year. That’s up seven workers and nearly $4 million from the Bush administration’s last year.
Nearly one-third of Obama’s aides make more than $100,000 with 21 being paid the top White House salary of $172,200, each.
The IRS’ 2010 delinquent tax revelations come as part of a required annual agency report on federal employees’ tax compliance. Turns out, an awful lot of folks being paid by taxpayers are not paying their own income taxes.
Why, it’s as if the left has a “good enough for thee, but not for me” mentality or something!
That poor woman! She has to pay a higher tax rate than her billionaire boss! Yeah, about that…
Warren Buffet’s secretary, Debbie Bosanek, served as a stage prop for President Obama’s State of the Union speech. She was the President’s chief display of the alleged unfairness of our tax system – a little person paying a higher tax rate than her billionaire boss.
Bosanek’s prominent role in Obama’s “fairness” campaign piqued my curiosity, and I imagine the curiosity of others. How much does her boss pay this downtrodden woman? So far, no one has volunteered this information.
Insofar as Buffet (like Mitt Romney) earns income primarily from capital gains, which are taxed at 15 percent (and according to Obama need to be raised for reasons of fairness), we need to determine how much income a taxpayer like Bosanek must earn in order to pay an average tax rate above fifteen percent. This is easy to do.
The IRS publishes detailed tax tables by income level. The latest results are for 2009. They show that taxpayers earning an adjusted gross income between $100,000 and $200,000 pay an average rate of twelve percent. This is below Buffet’s rate; so she must earn more than that. Taxpayers earning adjusted gross incomes of $200,000 to $500,000, pay an average tax rate of nineteen percent. Therefore Buffet must pay Debbie Bosanke a salary above two hundred thousand.
We must wait for further details to learn how much more than $200,000 she earns. The tax tables tell us about average ranges. For all we know she earns closer to a half million each year, but that is pure speculation.
Look, that meme has been tackled a billion times. Buffett paid taxes on income, then used that after-tax income to invest…then had to pay taxes again, this time on money generated from his after-tax investments. When your primary source of revenue is from profits resulting from investments made with after-tax income, your tax rate isn’t going to be the same.
Capital gains tax rates are lower, and when they were cut during the 1990′s (reluctantly by Bubba), the stock market ROARED to life as investors flocked to it. As a result of the new influx of investors and investor activity, revenues to the government increased after the capital gains tax rate cut. Wait…you mean cutting taxes increased revenue to the federal government? Yeah, go figure. Turns out that decreasing certain tax rates promotes economic activity and increasing certain tax rates discourages economic activity. Who knew, right?
So, Warren Buffett pays his secretary between $200-$500k a year in salary. Good work if you can get it, I suppose. So I’m thinking that maybe this “my billionaire boss pays a lower tax rate than I do” schtick is just a tad old…and disingenuous. Besides, Warren Buffett is more than welcome to send more money to D.C., but he hires accountants and tax planners to avoid doing just that…all while complaining that he doesn’t pay enough. My turbocharged Hypocrisy Tolerance fuel tank is on fumes, I’m afraid.
One of the things I’ve detested about the left and the MSM (pardon the redundancy) since BHO decided to run for president was their insistence that their boy was a “centrist” or “center-left” guy. He was raised by an anti-American Muslim father (for a while) and an anti-American socialist mother, indoctrinated with anti-American propaganda at his madrassas and in college by Marxist professors, associated with the New Party (communist, Google it), bombarded with anti-American socialist vitriol in Jeremiah Wright’s church for over two decades, palling around with anti-American left-wing terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, and best buds with his most frequent White House visitor Andy Stern (former SEIU chief).
Yet the left would have us believe that despite incubating in such an anti-American leftist cesspool, BHO was immune to all of the effects one would expect from someone with such a background. If you lie with dogs, you get fleas…unless you’re Obama, in which case you’re immune from fleas.
Last week, Stern wrote a column telling Americans that our capitalist model was a failure and needed to be shaped to match the Chicom model. Stern was one of many union bosses who have openly espoused communist…er, “pro-worker”…sentiments. When you listen to their rhetoric, it sounds exactly like something you would have heard from Lenin, Chavez, Castro, et al. It’s official: unions are nothing more than commie front groups. Period. The science is settled.
Oh, but I forgot: Just because ObaMao is best buds with Stern, Hoffa, et al, does NOT mean he shares their communist sensibilities. To think otherwise is crazy. I mean, aside from a rare moment of honesty with Joe the Plumber, when has BHO ever advocated anything other than a capitalist model?
“It’s a simple theory — one that speaks to our rugged individualism and healthy skepticism of too much government. It fits well on a bumper sticker. Here’s the problem: It doesn’t work,” Obama said of supply-side economics, drawing extended applause. “It’s never worked.”
Oh, sure, some would argue that he wasn’t talking about capitalism per se, but of supply-side economics. Folks, that is a distinction without a difference. As Ace rightly notes:
He says “trickle-down economics” rather than capitalism, but “trickle-down economics” is merely an argument in favor of capitalism. There is no such thing as “trickle-down economics.” There is capitalism, and the argued advantage of it, which is the trickling down of created wealth.
…But Europe is probably going to plunge into something in between a recession or a depression, and may erupt in violence and political disorder.
And Europe is Obama’s lodestar. That’s where he wants to take us. To the extent we haven’t gotten there yet, it’s because Americans are soft, lazy bitter clingers who hate other sorts of people (and their politico-economic systems).
So Europe’s 60 or 70 year history with socialism is about to end in violent upheavals and misery… and here’s this ignoramus saying that it’s capitalism which is the proven failure.
As an intemperate interjection, might I note that if, by “never worked”, the organizer-in-chief means “increased government revenues every time”, then yeah, “never worked.” If, by “never worked”, he means the creation of 16 million new jobs, then he’s right…”never worked”.
But that’s not what he means. Those aren’t benefits…not to the people he seeks to please. No, by “never worked”, he means “it has never taken more money from the producers and funded the non-producers’ chosen lifestyles of lethargy and dependence in perpetuity.” That’s what he means. See, when 16 million new jobs were created, you had to be handicapped or lazy to not get a job, because they were everywhere. Every time supply side economics has been tried, the economy has picked back up, jobs have been created, and revenues to the government have increased as a result of more people working and paying income taxes (and not on public dependence). But to ObaMao, public dependence is a feature, NOT a bug!
The son of a motherless goat is a commie. He’s had it pounded into his head since he was a fetus (that, luckily for him, escaped medical procedures that he endorses, to the point of infanticide). No amount of results will shake his belief that it is communism, and not capitalism, that has failed every time. He just knows it will be different this time…it’s got to be! (Sidebar: I know that communism and socialism aren’t exactly the same thing. But the differences are not great, so as far as I’m concerned, for the sake of B.O.’s leftist leanings, they’re the same thing.)
For the sake of the republic, this #sshat must be removed from office in next year’s election. This country cannot survive eight years of Obamunism.
Obama: Congress shouldn’t leave until they pass the payroll tax cut; now if you’ll excuse me, I’m off to Hawaii for 17 days!
B.O. thinks some people ought to do their jobs…just not him. From The Hill:
Congress needs to pass an extension to the payroll tax cut and shouldn’t adjourn until they do, President Obama said in his weekly address.
“Both parties came together to cut payroll taxes for the typical middle-class family by about $1,000, but that tax cut is set to expire at the end of this month,” Obama said. “We can’t let that happen.”
“We’re going to keep pushing Congress to make this happen,” Obama said. “They shouldn’t go home for the holidays until they get this done.”
While most Americans are lucky to get a few weeks of holiday every year, it seems the country’s leader gets a little more freedom in the matter.
President Barack Obama has announced his Christmas vacation to Hawaii – for a staggering 17-day trip.
Obama, who visited the island just two weeks ago for an economic summit, will head to Honolulu on Saturday December 17 until Monday January 2.
Presidentin’: Nice work if you can get it.
From the Historian In Chief:
So this competition for new jobs and businesses and middle-class security, that’s the race I know we can win. But you don’t win it by saying every American is on their own. We’re not going to win it if we just hand out more tax cuts to people who don’t need them, let companies play by their own rules without any restriction, and we just hope somehow that the success of the wealthiest few translates in the prosperity for everybody else.
We have tried that, by the way. We tried it for 10 years. It’s part of what got into the mess that we’re in. It doesn’t work. It didn’t work for Herbert Hoover, when it was called trickle-down economics during the Depression. It didn’t work between 2000 and 2008, and it won’t work today.
There’s just one problem with that…it’s not even remotely true.
Obama is dead wrong. Data from the White House’s own website shows that Hoover increased, rather than cut, spending in the Great Depression, and ran up deficits that were huge by historical standards.
As Ed points out, “Hoover’s spending policies look a lot like Obama’s.” Hoovermania: Catch the fee-vuh!
President Barack Obama, in a populist step designed to appeal to voters, will propose a “Buffett Tax” on people making more than $1 million a year as part of his deficit recommendations to Congress on Monday.
Such a proposal, among suggestions to a congressional supercommittee expected to seek up to $3 trillion in deficit savings over 10 years, would appeal to his Democratic base ahead of the 2012 election but likely not raise much in revenues.
White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer said in a tweet on Saturday the tax would act as “a kind of AMT” (Alternative Minimum Tax) aimed at ensuring millionaires pay at least as much tax as middle-class families.
The “Buffett Tax” refers to billionaire U.S. investor Warren Buffett, who wrote earlier this year that rich people like him often pay less in tax than those who work for them due to loopholes in the tax code, and can afford to pay more.
As Ed points out, the AMT is so effective at keeping the rich from avoiding paying “their fair share” that…it needs to be patched and tweaked every year to keep from crushing the middle class. So yeah, let’s implement another AMT, on account of how wildly successful the current AMT has been.
But if I read anything else alleging that Buffett pays less in taxes than his secretary, I’m going to barf. Projectile, of the Linda Blair variety.
First of all, he does not. He pays far more in taxes than his secretary does, about 201x as much. It’s not even close.
Secondly, this is a man who has hired accountants to determine how to minimize the amount of taxes that he needs to pay…only to turn around and complain that these accountants have minimized the amount of taxes that he is paying? Friggin’ hypocrite.
Thirdly, if Buffett feels like he is undertaxed (i.e. his accountants did too good of a job in minimizing his tax liability), he is more than free to cut a check to Uncle Sam in the amount he feels he was undertaxed.
Finally, I’d be content if Buffett would just pay the d#mn taxes he already owes the feds before complaining that he should be paying more.
I find it funny that liberals point to rates/percentages when it suits their needs, but then point to dollars when that number is more to their liking. Remember when the Bush tax cuts went into effect? “Tax breaks for the rich!” was the lie of the day. The rate reduction of the upper income tax bracket was a much smaller rate reduction than that of the lower brackets, so the lower brackets got a bigger rate reduction. In other words, the poor and middle class got to keep a bigger percentage (i.e. rate) of their money than the evil rich did.
So how did the left react? Predictably (and emotionally), of course! “Why, this rich guy was paying $1 million in taxes, and now he’s paying $970,000! That’s a $30,000 tax cut! The poor factory worker didn’t get a $30k tax cut, now did he?” No, but the factory worker got a bigger percentage (i.e. rate) of his taxes cut, and probably feels it much bigger than the rich guy. Yet the left howled like Barney Frank at a Chippendales show that the rich guy got a bigger dollars-based tax cut than the poor.
In other words, when it comes to tax cuts, it’s the dollars that are important and not the rate that is important.
But now, useful idiot Warren Buffett comes along and says he doesn’t pay enough in taxes (not that he actually intends to do so, as demonstrated above). He pays far more in tax dollars than nearly everyone, but he and his leftist enablers complain that the rates are unfair. In other words, now the feels that dollars are not important and the rates are important. Geez, you emotional twits, pick a story and stick to it, will you?
As has been shown before, you could tax 100% of the income of every “rich” person in America, and assuming that they would be stupid enough to keep working for free, you still wouldn’t come close to paying down the deficit and debt that ObaMao has run up. The best way…nay, the only way…is to grow the economy in such a way that more people are working, which means that more people are paying taxes. But when you have an economic illiterate ideologue who is more interested in class warfare and socialist redistribution (“spread the wealth around”) than in reviving the economy, what we are seeing today is more than predictable.
UPDATE (09/20/2011 – 07:00 AM EST): The Wall Street Journal illustrates Buffett’s lie:
There’s one small problem: The entire Buffett Rule premise is false, as the nearby table shows. In 2008, the last year for which such data are available, the IRS reports that those who made more than $1 million in adjusted gross income paid an average income tax rate of 23.3%.
That’s slightly lower than the 24.1% rate paid by those making between $500,000 and $1 million, probably because the richest are like Mr. Buffett and earn more from capital gains and dividends. The rate for a relative handful of the rich—400 people—fell to 18%, the modern equivalent of Barr’s Gang of 21. But nearly all millionaires still paid a rate that is more than twice the 8.9% average rate paid by those earning between $50,000 and $100,000, and more than three times the 7.2% average rate paid by those earning less than $50,000. The larger point is that the claim that CEOs are routinely paying lower tax rates than their secretaries is Omaha hokum.
If Mr. Obama really wants all of these people to pay even more in taxes, there are only two ways to do so. One is to raise tax rates on capital gains, dividends and other investment income that is taxed at 15% and represents a great deal of income for the wealthy. This is probably Mr. Buffett’s tax secret, though to our knowledge he hasn’t released his returns to the public.
UPDATE (09/20/2011 – 09:40 AM EST): Even the AP gets off their duff to fact-check Obullsh#t’s and Buffett’s claims. Conclusion: FAIL. The great Vincent Gambini had something to say about that:
Yesterday, it was announced that an astounding 1 in 6 Americans are living in poverty. President Obama’s response? To demand a tax on donations to soup kitchens and other charities that help people desperately in need. The President’s proposal will impact approximately 40% of all the tax deductible contributions, and essentially penalize soup kitchens, hospitals, and churches that provide essential services to those who need them most. It’s no wonder this tax hike has been rejected on both sides of the aisle.
Yet another chapter in the growing book of “How Liberals Are Economic Retards”. At this rate, the book will never get finished, because these libtards never learn. Details, with accompanying graph:
In a trend that continues to worsen, more Illinoisans found themselves unemployed in the month of July.
Illinois lost more jobs during the month of July than any other state in the nation, according to the most recent Bureau of Labor Statistics report. After losing 7,200 jobs in June, Illinois lost an additional 24,900 non-farm payroll jobs in July. The report also said Illinois’s unemployment rate climbed to 9.5 percent. This marks the third consecutive month of increases in the unemployment rate.
Illinois started to create jobs as the national economy began to recover. But just when Illinois’s economy seemed to be turning around, lawmakers passed record tax increases in January of this year. Since then, Illinois’s employment numbers have done nothing but decline.
I’m sure it’s just a big ol’ coinkidink that passage of a 67% income tax hike marked the beginning of the huge layoffs, right?
And by “new plan”, I mean a new speech that says the exact same thing he’s always said: raise taxes. From Jen Rubin:
Obama had all weekend and the best he could come up with was a reiteration of his plea for a “balanced” approach to deficit control. That’s right. We have a tumbling stock market, over 9 percent unemployment and a flight to gold (some investment advisers say it will be at $2,500 per ounce by year’s end). All he can do is promise to raise taxes.
Now that’s not exactly right. He did trot out proposals for a one-year extension of the payroll tax cut and extension of unemployment benefits. And he promised to make his own proposal to the debt committee. That’s it. It is what he has been saying for what seems like forever. He has nothing new.
Note he still offers no formal plan. He has put nothing in writing. He hasn’t even given an informal plan, really. Just “we need a balanced approach with modest reductions in Medicare spending”, or something to that effect.
Basically, here’s a general timeline of how this has transpired:
Paul Ryan: I’ve got a plan.
B.O. and the Dems: No. We’re going to go tell the American people that your plan sucks and that we need a balanced approach. But we’re not going to release a plan of our own.
House Republicans: We’ve got a plan. Cut, Cap, and Balance.
B.O. and the Dems: No. We’re going to go tell the American people something else.
House Republicans: Oh yeah? What might that be?
B.O. and the Dems: That your plan sucks and that we need a balanced approach. But we’re not going to release a plan of our own.
John Boehner: I’ve got a plan.
B.O. and the Dems: No. We’re going to go tell the American people something else.
John Boehner: Oh yeah? What might that be?
B.O. and the Dems: That your plan sucks and that we need a balanced approach. But we’re not going to release a plan of our own.
House and Senate: We’ve got a bill. Sign it, Mr. President.
B.O.: OK. After signing it, I need to address the American people.
House and Senate: OK. Out of curiosity, what are you going to tell them?
B.O.: That this bill sucks and that we need a balanced approach. But I’m not going to release a plan of my own.
S&P: We’re downgrading America’s bond rating.
B.O.: THAT does it! You’ve left me no choice! There’s only one thing left to do!
The world: What might that be?
B.O.: I’m going to tell the American people what needs to be done to rein in this debt mess.
The world: Finally! What is your plan?
B.O.: This debt problem sucks and we need a balanced approach. But I’m not going to release a plan of my own.
If you tell yourself a lie often enough, or if you live in a fantasy long enough, you convince yourself of a reality that doesn’t exist. That’s where ObaMao is right now. He keeps talking about raising taxes (which he playfully calls “a balanced approach”), knowing full well it isn’t going to happen. But he keeps talking about it, as if it were going to happen and that it’s just around the corner.
If only we didn’t have “divided government”, more would get done? Geez, dude, you had a supermajority for two stinking years, yet you still didn’t pass a budget or kick the debt ceiling up another notch when you had the numbers! But NOW, it’s the other side’s fault?
Look, pal, there are two things that appear to be non-negotiable: tax increases for the GOP, and entitlement reform for you and your socialist pals in the Senate. So, how’s about being a grown-up and work within the parameters of those two non-negotiable positions?
Obama today: Raising taxes on businesses and “the rich” are needed to fight the deficit I created.
Obama in 2009? Not quite the same thing:
In August 2009, on a visit to Elkhart, Indiana to tout his stimulus plan, Obama sat down for an interview with NBC’s Chuck Todd, and was conveyed a simple request from Elkhart resident Scott Ferguson: “Explain how raising taxes on anyone during a deep recession is going to help with the economy.”
Obama agreed with Ferguson’s premise – raising taxes in a recession is a bad idea. “First of all, he’s right. Normally, you don’t raise taxes in a recession, which is why we haven’t and why we’ve instead cut taxes. So I guess what I’d say to Scott is – his economics are right. You don’t raise taxes in a recession. We haven’t raised taxes in a recession.”
Obama responded by reiterating his opposition to tax hikes during a recession and making an argument about timing. “We have not proposed a tax hike for the wealthy that would take effect in the middle of a recession. Even the proposals that have come out of Congress – which by the way were different from the proposals I put forward – still wouldn’t kick in until after the recession was over. So he’s absolutely right, the last thing you want to do is raise taxes in the middle of a recession because that would just suck up – take more demand out of the economy and put business further in a hole.”
Obama made a similar argument in December, when he signed the bipartisan tax relief agreement – a deal that maintained Bush tax rates (even for the wealthy) and included additional tax breaks for businesses. “Millions of entrepreneurs who have been waiting to invest in their businesses will receive new tax incentives to help them expand, buy new equipment or make upgrades – freeing up other money to hire new workers.”
Stephen Hayes asks what I am wondering:
If Obama was right and the tax breaks in that deal freed up money for job creators to hire new workers, isn’t the reverse true? Isn’t it the case that new taxes on entrepreneurs and other job creators will leave them with less money to hire new workers? And wouldn’t raising taxes on the “wealthiest” just “put business further in a hole,” as Obama believed just two years ago?
His economics were right. So why the change?
I always got a kick out of that line of thinking. “Tax increases harm the economy. Since the economy sucks right now, we don’t need to harm it further. But once the economy recovers, THEN it’s a good time to harm the economy!”
When it comes to economics, ObaMao rides the short bus.
Right, because he hasn’t signed off on nearly enough in tax increases, has he? From WSJ:
Keep in mind that Mr. Obama has already signed the largest tax increase since 1993. While everyone focuses on the Bush tax rates that expire after 2012, other tax increases are already set to hit the economy thanks to the 2010 Affordable Care Act. As a refresher, here’s a non-exhaustive list of ObamaCare’s tax increases:
• Starting in 2013, the bill adds an additional 0.9% to the 2.9% Medicare tax for singles who earn more than $200,000 and couples making more than $250,000.
• For first time, the bill also applies Medicare’s 2.9% payroll tax rate to investment income, including dividends, interest income and capital gains. Added to the 0.9% payroll surcharge, that means a 3.8-percentage point tax hike on “the rich.” Oh, and these new taxes aren’t indexed for inflation, so many middle-class families will soon be considered rich and pay the surcharge as their incomes rise past $250,000 due to tax-bracket creep. Remember how the Alternative Minimum Tax was supposed to apply only to a handful of millionaires?
Taxpayer cost over 10 years: $210 billion.
• Also starting in 2013 is a 2.3% excise tax on medical device manufacturers and importers. That’s estimated to raise $20 billion.
• Already underway this year is the new annual fee on “branded” drug makers and importers, which will raise $27 billion.
• Another $15.2 billion will come from raising the floor on allowable medical deductions to 10% of adjusted gross income from 7.5%.
• Starting in 2018, the bill imposes a whopping 40% “excise tax” on high-cost health insurance plans. Though it only applies to two years in the 2010-2019 window of ObamaCare’s original budget score, this tax would still raise $32 billion—and much more in future years.
• And don’t forget a new annual fee on health insurance providers starting in 2014 and estimated to raise $60 billion. This tax, like many others on this list, will be passed along to consumers in higher health-care costs.
Since businesses do not pay taxes (they merely collect them), any cost increase will be passed on to consumers, employees (in the form of benefits and pay cuts, no raises, etc.), and dividend recipients and shareholders (mainly retirees). Continuing:
We think this was the President’s spend-and-tax plan from the very first. Run up spending and debt in the name of stimulus and health-care reform, then count on Wall Street bond holders and the political establishment to browbeat Republicans into paying for it all. He apparently didn’t figure on the rise of the tea party, or 1.9% GDP growth and 9.2% unemployment two years after the recession ended.
Last November Republicans won the House and landslide gains in many states in large part because of the deep unpopularity of the stimulus and ObamaCare. Mr. Boehner has a mandate for spending cuts and repealing the Affordable Care Act. If Republicans instead agree to raise taxes in return for future spending cuts that may or may not happen, they will simply be the tax collectors for Mr. Obama’s much expanded entitlement society.
The man-child’s economic illiteracy will kill this country yet.
If only those evil rich people would pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes, the government would get a TON more money, right? Yeah, right:
The feds assume a relationship between the economy and tax revenue that is divorced from reality. Six decades of history have established one far-reaching fact that needs to be built into fiscal calculations: Increases in federal tax rates, particularly if targeted at the higher brackets, produce no additional revenue. For politicians this is truly an inconvenient truth.
Click over to the link to see the chart and read the info for yourself.
We could tax the “rich” at 100% of their income, and it wouldn’t even be enough to cover this year’s deficit, much less the budget’s expenditures. Guess what? The rich didn’t get rich by being stupid, so they will have an incentive to shield as much of their income from confiscatory taxes as they legally can.
Man, this scumbag is shameless! Details:
“According to the Republican budget that was passed, for example, we would have to eliminate transportation funding by a third,” he said. “You remember when that bridge in Minnesota collapsed with all those people on it and there was a big human cry, how could this happen in America?”
Mr. Obama noted that the United States has been given a “D” grade for its infrastructure and said U.S. roads and bridges are “deteriorating.” He added: “We cut transportation by another third and what’s going to happen to America? We’re just going to have potholes everywhere? We’re just gonna have bridges collapsing everywhere?”
There’s just one small problem with that…it’s not even remotely true:
While experts say America’s aging infrastructure is a significant problem, the bridge collapse in Minnesota, which killed 13 people, was found to have been caused primarily by a design flaw.
The bridge collapse was due to a design flaw, NOT due to underfunding. Either he knows that and is lying through his Marxist teeth, or he doesn’t know that and showed himself to be an ignorant political hack no different than any little-watched pundit on MSDNC. So which is it?
The normally restrained WSJ blasts President Kick#ss with both barrels for his horrific, dishonest, and shamefully divisive speech yesterday. Excerpts:
Did someone move the 2012 election to June 1? We ask because President Obama’s extraordinary response to Paul Ryan’s budget yesterday—with its blistering partisanship and multiple distortions—was the kind Presidents usually outsource to some junior lieutenant. Mr. Obama’s fundamentally political document would have been unusual even for a Vice President in the fervor of a campaign.
I’m a little surprised that the Journal is surprised. All the dude has ever done since he stepped foot in DC is campaign. That hasn’t changed.
The immediate political goal was to inoculate the White House from criticism that it is not serious about the fiscal crisis, after ignoring its own deficit commission last year and tossing off a $3.73 trillion budget in February that increased spending amid a record deficit of $1.65 trillion. Mr. Obama was chased to George Washington University yesterday because Mr. Ryan and the Republicans outflanked him on fiscal discipline and are now setting the national political agenda.
How courageous of Obummer: retreat to the comfy confines of leftwing extremism, a college campus in DC. Anywho, at least Big O put forth his own plan…or not:
Mr. Obama did not deign to propose an alternative to rival Mr. Ryan’s plan, even as he categorically rejected all its reform ideas, repeatedly vilifying them as essentially un-American.
Well, at least he didn’t demagogue or personally attack the motives of…hmmm? What’s that? Oh…
“Their vision is less about reducing the deficit than it is about changing the basic social compact in America,” he said, supposedly pitting “children with autism or Down’s syndrome” against “every millionaire and billionaire in our society.” The President was not attempting to join the debate Mr. Ryan has started, but to close it off just as it begins and banish House GOP ideas to political Siberia. (I didn’t realize that my autistic child was going head-to-head with Bill Gates. Thanks to Chairman Zero for clearing that up for me. – CL)
Mr. Obama then packaged his poison in the rhetoric of bipartisanship—which “starts,” he said, “by being honest about what’s causing our deficit.” The speech he chose to deliver was dishonest even by modern political standards.
Crap! ObaMao is finally onto us! Our goal of wiping out special needs kids and bluehaired drivers with their turn signals blinking for 200 miles has finally been unearthed, and I fear that my ”spotted-owl-arugula salad” subsidies are now in dire jeopardy!
The WSJ goes on to further expose the Obamunist’s economic ignorance and shameful attitude. The piece is well written, and aside from leg-tingling little-watched pundits, I don’t know of anyone else who thought this was a well-received and thoughtful speech.
Obama: Hey, I’ve got a fresh idea that no one has ever considered in tackling budget deficits…tax increases!
And he decides to sell America on increasing taxes right before…Tax Day? Great timing, champ.
So why is ObaMao doing this now? I’m thinking it’s because he got baited by Paul Ryan and his budget blueprint. See, B.O. created a budget deficit commission that, two months ago, released their recommendations (which included, among other things, tax increases). At that time, Chairman Zero dismissed the commission’s recommendations as merely a “conversation starter.” Now, right after Ryan releases his plan to tackle the debt crisis, Barry O is suddenly liking him some deficit commission recommendations.
Here’s hoping that the leadership vacuum in the Oval Office gets filled on January 20, 2013. We need this egomaniacal, narcissistic man-child out ASAP.
Of course the Obamunist will sign it, with a veto-proof majority like this backing it:
After a months-long battle, the Senate voted Tuesday, 87 to 12, to repeal the 1099 tax-reporting requirement in Democrats’ healthcare reform bill.
The measure now goes to the president, who is expected to sign it, making it the first part of his party’s signature reform bill to be scrapped.
The measure, initially included as a funding measure for the healthcare bill, does away with the requirement for companies to report to the IRS transactions valued at more than $600. While the provision has had few backers in either party, debate over its repeal had dragged on for months.
Remember when San Fran Nan said we had to pass the bill to find out what was in it? As we’ve seen numerous times since then, there’s a bunch of stuff in it: a change in House Speaker, a reduction in Senate Democrats, etc. This anti-business measure was so massively unpopular that only the most liberal of leftists supported it.
One part of ObamaCare repealed, so many more parts to go!
When he’s not busy working on stealing Republicans’ identity, Chuck the Schmuck likes to pass the time rehearsing his talking points with his fellow Senate Democrats…unaware that the phone call is not muted and reporters are picking up his marching orders. Details:
Moments before a conference call with reporters was scheduled to get underway on Tuesday morning, Charles E. Schumer of New York, the No. 3 Democrat in the Senate, apparently unaware that many of the reporters were already on the line, began to instruct his fellow senators on how to talk to reporters about the contentious budget process.
After thanking his colleagues — Barbara Boxer of California, Benjamin L. Cardin of Maryland, Thomas R. Carper of Delaware and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut — for doing the budget bidding for the Senate Democrats, who are facing off against the House Republicans over how to cut spending for the rest of the fiscal year, Mr. Schumer told them to portray John A. Boehner of Ohio, the speaker of the House, as painted into a box by the Tea Party, and to decry the spending cuts that he wants as extreme. “I always use the word extreme,” Mr. Schumer said. “That is what the caucus instructed me to use this week.”
A minute or two into the talking-points tutorial, though, someone apparently figured out that reporters were listening, and silence fell.
Heh. Schmucky robotically parrots the “caucus” talking points. Obviously, the Dems are laying the groundwork for a government shutdown, and these talking points are merely practice for their justification for a shutdown: “These extremely extreme extremists are responsible. Not just responsible, but extremely responsible!”
And right on cue, Babs Boxer seizes the opportunity to…well, to stick with the telegraphed message. Isn’t that like a pitcher telling the batter “I’m going to throw a fastball down the middle” and then actually doing it? She just pretended like no one had heard it!
Then the conference call began in earnest, with the Democrats right on message.
“We are urging Mr. Boehner to abandon the extreme right wing,” said Ms. Boxer, urging the House to compromise on the scale of spending cuts and to drop proposed amendments that would deny federal financing for Planned Parenthood and for government agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency.
Those extremists! Why, they don’t want to federally subsidize PP’s baby slaughtering or child sex trafficking! The nerve!
In the end, I don’t think this hurts Schmucky that much. After all, we’re talking reporters here…AKA Democrat constituents.
Twitter may get tax break in order to keep from moving, and tax break is being considered by…San Francisco?
Thanks to Donna for sending this big, juicy slab of irony my way. From San Fransicko:
San Francisco’s best shot to prevent Twitter from migrating south faces a key vote Wednesday on whether to give the microblogging service a six-year tax break.
The growing San Francisco-based company has explored a move to Brisbane, where its business costs would be lower. San Francisco has a 1.5 percent payroll tax whereas Brisbane does not have one.
Supervisor Jane Kim, whose district includes the mid-Market Street area where Twitter would move, has broken from predecessor Chris Daly’s stance and is advocating for the passage of legislation that would give Twitter a six-year payroll tax break if it decides to move into the building at Market and Ninth streets. The tax break would apply to all qualifying businesses that relocate to the portion of the Tenderloin and the mid-Market Street area that city officials hope to revitalize
“I’m philosophically against cutting taxes,” Kim said Monday. “I’ve had to think about this long and hard. This is targeted enough. It’s specific enough. It’s short enough.”
OK, just to make sure I’m understanding this properly…
You are “philosophically against cutting taxes”, presumably because you believe that (a) government can better use that revenue than the person or business who earned it; (b) taxing businesses is somehow good for the economy; (c) tax cuts do not help the economy in any way; (d) letting a business keep more of the money it earned is morally repugnant; (e) tax policy has no impact on business decisions (such as hiring, firing, relocating, etc.) whatsoever; or (f) some or all of the above.
If you are “philosophically against cutting taxes” for any (much less all) of the aforementioned reasons, then on what planet does it make sense to extend the tax break for Twitter? If it is truly believed that by Twitter getting this tax break they will stay in San Franfreakshow, which will in turn benefit the San Franistan economy, then doesn’t that completely shatter your “philosophy” of being against tax cuts of any kind? It would if there were any sense of logic, consistency, or (in this case) irony in your body.
Folks, let that sink in for a moment: “Tax cuts are bad, bad things…which is why I’m going to support a tax cut for Twitter.” Haven’t these economic illiterates been telling us since the JFK administration that “tax cuts for the wealthy and for businesses don’t work”?
Well, she has a tough sell, based on the reactions of her fellow Board members:
Supervisor John Avalos said the proposal doesn’t seem fair given the financial struggles of residents in his district.
“Who are the [Twitter] investors?” he said. “Probably some of the wealthiest people in this country. And we are giving them more wealth.”
There you go, pal. You stick to your guns, sir! And when Twitter moves out and takes their jobs, property taxes, etc., with them, you will have truly won the day!
- "hate crimes"
- 9/11 Commission
- affirmative action
- Air America
- al franken
- Al Sharpton
- ambulance chasers
- Andrew Sullivan
- animal rights wackos
- Ann Coulter
- Anthony Weiner
- Arizona shooting
- Arlen Specter
- Barney Frank
- big government
- Bill Clinton
- Bill Richardson
- Blog Talk Radio
- Bobby Jindal
- capital punishment
- Caroline Kennedy
- Charlie Crist
- Chris Christie
- Chuck Schumer
- Dan Rather
- Debbie Wasserman Schultz
- Duke lacrosse
- economic ignorance
- eminent domain
- Eric Cantor
- Fair Tax
- Fairness Doctrine
- Fort Dix Six
- Fox News
- freaky deaky
- Fred Thompson
- Ft. Hood
- global warming
- Godwin's Law
- gun rights
- health care
- Herman Cain
- Howard Dean
- Hugo Chavez
- illegal immigration
- Janet Napolitano
- Jesse Jackson
- John Boehner
- John Edwards
- Jose Padilla
- Larry Craig
- Lindsey Graham
- Marco Rubio
- Mark Sanford
- media bias
- Mel Martinez
- Michael Moore
- Michael Steele
- Michelle Bachmann
- minimum wage
- New Jersey
- New York
- news bytes
- Newt Gingrich
- Night and Day
- Ninth Circus Court
- North Korea
- Occupy Wall Street
- Operation Fast and Furious
- Osama bin Laden
- Paul Ryan
- political correctness
- property rights
- public education
- public service announcement
- quote of the day
- religion of peace
- Rick Perry
- Rick Santorum
- Rick Scott
- Robert Byrd
- Roman Polanski
- Ron Paul
- San Francisco
- separated at birth
- Social Security
- Supreme Court
- swine flu
- Tea Party
- The Memphis Posse
- Tim Geithner
- Tim Pawlenty
- United Nations
- vote fraud
- Wall Street
- Ward Churchill
- Warren Buffett