Obama: a $172,000 income is “modest” [Reader Post]

Loading

Nearly all democrats insist that anyone making $250,000 a year is wealthy. They have incited anger and even violence over the issue. Venture capitalist Garrett Gruener says “I’m rich, tax me more.” Warren Buffett, one of the wealthiest men on the planet, say the rich should pay more in taxes. Never mind that the top 1% of earners pays 41% of federal taxes. Never mind that about 50% of the country pays no federal taxes at all. (For a nice breakdown on this, visit here)

Jack Spillane puts it this way:

Wealthy people like Gates, Buffet and Gruener will be the first to tell you they’ve benefited greatly from the capitalist system and that they feel an obligation to pay back.

If they feel that obligation, why don’t they pay more? Why don’t write a much bigger check?

Because anyone who says this is full of shi crap.

But never mind that either for now.

A poll revealed that Democrats think that an income of $250,000 per year is wealthy while Republicans do not.

When asked “Do you think a household income of $250,000 a year makes you wealthy or not,” Americans have a modest “Yes” bias, with 55% saying “Yes,” and 45% saying “No.”

But when broken down by party, the results are startling. Among Democrats, 67% said $250,000 counted as wealthy. But among Republicans only 33% said $250,000 counted as wealthy. (Among independents, 54% said yes and 44% said no.)

While a family of 5 which has an income of $250,000 is rich by most Democrats’ reckoning, Barack Obama has let us know that a family of three earning $172,000 is “modest.”

In an interview with The New York Times on Wednesday, President Obama remarked of his outgoing press secretary Robert Gibbs, “He’s had a six-year stretch now where basically he’s been going 24/7 with relatively modest pay. I think it’s natural for someone like Robert to want to step back for a second to reflect, retool, and that, as a consequence, brings about both challenges and opportunities for the White House.”

Poor Robert Gibbs and his modest salary. Someone who earns more than 90% of the country makes only a “modest” living.

Fortunately, Poor Robert is leaving the White House. Now he can join the ranks of others, such as Peter Orszag. Orszag left the White House to work at Citi for a cool $2 million plus per.

$172,000 per year is “modest” but $250,00 per year is wealthy? Compared to the salaries of former Obama advisors and staff, $250,000 really is modest too.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
12 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

O is being mighty disingenuous. For Gibbs and people like him, the real money is not from the nominal salary. It comes from connections, from being a Washington DC insider and all-around Mister Fix-it (TM). He will sit on the boards of corporations, charge dearly for “consulting services” (i.e. access), give paid lectures, and write opinion pieces that will be purchased by the media regardless of their content. He’s going to get paid for being Robert Gibbs. He’s set for life. If he’s not a multi-millionaire yet, he will be soon.

It’s worth noting that the threat of losing all that sort of thing is how a political party keeps its Representatives, Senators, and assorted hangers-on in line. Even if the pols lose their elections, even if top staff members lose their jobs, they still have the prospect of access to the money-making power structure afterwards — unless the leadership takes it away to punish them for going off the reservation.

The rich don’t pay anywhere near their fair share in taxes in this country. The low taxes they pay and all the special deductions they get go against everything America stands for. This is supposed to be the peoples’ government, and it needs to stop waging class warfare against everyone who isn’t rich.

libhomo: This is supposed to be the peoples’ government, and it needs to stop waging class warfare against everyone who isn’t rich.

Meaning it’s much better to wage class warfare against the rich instead?

sigh….

The chief propangandist has worked himself into exhaustion and he only gets paid that measly moderate salary! Joseph Goebbels Gibbs needs a break after woking so hard and barely making minimum wage. God bless your Mr. Gibbs, go write a book.

“libhomo?” Seriously? That’s the best online ID you could create? Of course your comment is blithering idiocy; what else would one expect.

Even if the pols lose their elections, even if top staff members lose their jobs, they still have the prospect of access to the money-making power structure afterwards.

Wm T., you’re so right, it really is all about access to the power structure. That’s what draws people like William Daley to Washington.

Wanna reduce class warfare- flat tax, with no deductions. Very egalitarian. Even the tax cheats in Washington would pay without having to be discredited.

@DrJohn: The rich got their money by stealing from the middle class and the poor.

What you are supporting was Ayn Rands vision for Russia. It is an attack on our country and our freedom.

Y’all need to learn to read. There’s a difference between “modest” and “relatively modest.” Once you read all the words, you then can move onto asking yourself relative to what? Or just ask anyone who has been in business.

Our politicians and their staff members are cozied up to, schmoozed, wined and dined, daily, by news media stars, business people, Hollywood types, and professional sports figures, not to mention barristers and solicitors; all of whom make MILLIONS of dollars a year. Indeed, many of these highly successful individuals make more in a day than the $172,000 yearly salary mentioned above.

Don’t you believe it is natural that some of the most powerful people in Washington, nay, the World, have a bit of pocketbook envy, when all these really rich folks come begging for favors?

I think this financial dichotomy is part of the problem with our political system. There is a huge incentive for already wealthy people to seek office and the attendant staff positions.

I also believe, after having lived and worked in the DC area for 10 years, at the quite modest salary of $125,000/yr, that the average person (ME) would have a damn difficult time making ends meet, if I happened to be elected to Congress. How can a “normal” person afford $5000/month in rent, another $50-$100 a day for parking privileges (or $30,000-$50,000 to purchase a parking space), and the absurdly high tax rates in Washington City? Note: Rand Paul and his father, Ron Paul SHARE a condo. Neither man is wealthy in his own right, though both are doctors, IIRC.

Why do Congressional Staffers spend so much of their time writing Bills favorable to a particular industry, or industries? Perhaps it is because that, after a time, they can leave their “low paying” Staff job and take a much better paying job in the industry of their choice? Why don’t you investigate the Staffers who wrote the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (the one that gave Disney ownership of Mickey Mouse, in perpetuity), and find out where they are working now?

Obama is right on this one, in DC, $172,000 a year is a pittance compared to what those “successful” people you spend the entire day with, bring home. It is easy to make hay with Obama and his, “people making $250,000/yr are rich”, while $172,000 is “a relatively modest income” statements, but D.C., Northern Virginia and adjacent Maryland, is truly the land of financial dichotomy.

No one is preventing Gates, Buffett, S. Sperlerg, Babs Streisand, Ben Affleck, Sean Penn, M. Moore, and all the Hollywood bubbleheads from writing additional checks to the IRS for gobs of money.

I am not wealthy. I probably make less annually than 95% of the people working in the White House, and I’ve been furloughed this year. I just learned that I’ll be furloughed next year.

I tithe nearly 10% of my after tax income. I do not believe that the federal government should take any more of my money as forced donations.

All of these wealthy people can simply give more either as an additional check to the IRS or to their favorite charity.

@Helene:

As “nice” as your solution sounds, there is a problem. On the one hand, there isn’t enough “wealthy” people to make a difference, even if we took all their stuff. On the other hand, it isn’t ours to take. On the gripping hand, the solution is to shrink the Federal Government to the point where there is enough to pay for its Utopian endeavors.

If the citizens of your State didn’t have to send so much of their income to Washington, your State could afford to take over much of what the Federals do today. This would be much more efficient, less wasteful and you’d have a better chance of effecting change at the State House than you’ll ever have changing the Federal Government.

Transparency and Subsidiarity are the keys to a successful and robust Republic.