A glimpse of tonight’s speech by Obama:
President Barack Obama will call tomorrow for a combination of reductions in entitlement spending and tax increases on higher-income Americans to address long-term fiscal debt while drawing a sharp contrast with the Republican alternative proposed by Representative Paul Ryan, according to a person familiar with the plan.
This speech is just more evidence of the Marxist nature of our President. He will bandy about words such as “shared sacrifice” and “fairness” but in Obama’s world shared sacrifice means you turn over more and more of YOUR labor and wealth to the government so it can decide who is more worthy of YOUR labor and wealth…other then you, of course. If someone is miserable it’s only “fair” that everyone is miserable you see.
Robert Samuelson wrote a wonderful, and scary, article on the state of this Republic and ends it with:
If deficits were temporary — they were certainly justified to temper the recession — or small, they would be less worrisome. That was true for many years. No more. An aging population and uncontrolled health costs now create an ongoing and massive mismatch between spending and revenue, even at “full employment.” The great threat is a future debt crisis, with investors balking at buying all the Treasury bonds the government requires to operate. So President Obama and Congress face a dilemma: The more they seek to defuse the economic problem of too much debt, the greater the political risks they assume by cutting spending or raising taxes.
The package to prevent a shutdown barely touches the prevailing stalemate. House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s proposed 2012 budget forthrightly addresses health spending but doesn’t make any cuts in Social Security. Ryan’s plan would ultimately gut defense and some valuable domestic programs; it wouldn’t reach balance until about 2040. Compared with Democrats, however, Ryan is a model of intellectual rigor and political courage. Obama would run huge deficits from now to eternity; the Congressional Budget Office has projected about $12 trillion of added debt from 2010 to 2021 under his policies. Obama urges an “adult” conversation and acts like a child, denying the unappealing choices.
Government is suicidal because it breeds expectations that cannot be met. All the partisan skirmishing over who gets credit for averting a shutdown misses the larger issue: whether we can restore government as an instrument of progress or whether it remains — as it is now — a threat.
“Instrument of progress”
Key words.
This government will never be an instrument of progress if we continue to raise taxes on those who fuel this government with jobs and innovation.
The top 50% of wage earners in this country already pay more than 97% of ALL taxes in this country for god’s sake.
According to the IRS, the “income split point” for somebody to be included in the top 1% of all taxpayers (by income) was $380,354 in 2008 (the last year where data is available).
So, if you reported Positive Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) of $380,354 or over, then you were in the top 1% of all taxpayers in the United States in 2008.
According to the IRS, this group of taxpayers (1,399,606 total) paid 38.02% of all federal individual income tax collected in 2008.
The top 5% of all taxpayers (income split on this group was at $159,619 in 2008) paid 58.72% of all federal individual income taxes in 2008.
Let’s continue to break this down:
Top 10% (Income Split Point $113,799) Paid 69.94% of Federal Individual Income Taxes
Top 25% (Income Split Point $67,280) Paid 86.34% of Federal Individual Income Taxes
Top 50% (Income Split Point $33,048) Paid 97.30% of Federal Individual Income Taxes
Bottom 50% (Anyone Making Less Than $33,048) Paid 2.7% of Federal Individual Income Taxes
So let’s tax them some more?
Amazing.
What would happen if we took ALL the money from those evil rich?
This year, Congress will spend $3.7 trillion dollars. That turns out to be about $10 billion per day. Can we prey upon the rich to cough up the money? According to IRS statistics, roughly 2 percent of U.S. households have an income of $250,000 and above. By the way, $250,000 per year hardly qualifies one as being rich. It’s not even yacht and Learjet money. All told, households earning $250,000 and above account for 25 percent, or $1.97 trillion, of the nearly $8 trillion of total household income. If Congress imposed a 100 percent tax, taking all earnings above $250,000 per year, it would yield the princely sum of $1.4 trillion. That would keep the government running for 141 days, but there’s a problem because there are 224 more days left in the year.
How about corporate profits to fill the gap? Fortune 500 companies earn nearly $400 billion in profits. Since leftists think profits are little less than theft and greed, Congress might confiscate these ill-gotten gains so that they can be returned to their rightful owners. Taking corporate profits would keep the government running for another 40 days, but that along with confiscating all income above $250,000 would only get us to the end of June. Congress must search elsewhere.
According to Forbes 400, America has 400 billionaires with a combined net worth of $1.3 trillion. Congress could confiscate their stocks and bonds, and force them to sell their businesses, yachts, airplanes, mansions and jewelry. The problem is that after fleecing the rich of their income and net worth, and the Fortune 500 corporations of their profits, it would only get us to mid-August. The fact of the matter is there are not enough rich people to come anywhere close to satisfying Congress’ voracious spending appetite. They’re going to have to go after the non-rich.
But this isn’t about solving anything. This isn’t about reducing our debt. This is about Obama and getting re-elected. This speech is the start of Obama’s campaign.
How much can they get us to resent the rich?
Problem is they can’t stop at the rich…since it won’t solve the problem. They will have to come after your paycheck too.
See author page
Now a message from one of the Founding Fathers as a counter point…an Old White Dude whose likeness adorns the Two Dollar Bill and whose wisdom is eternal…
The man is simply a typical Democrat. I have seen the MSM putting out comments that the left is getting angry with Obama’s ‘moving to the center’. Huh? Say what? moving to the center.
Democrats cannot change their spots. It would do the electorate well to remember that.
I simply cannot watch the man any more, every time he opens his mouth comes something that would be more natural flowing out of the south end of a horse traveling north……
Not so sure that doing this 2 days before TAX day is good timming. But I sure in the hell hope the american people wake up. STOP letting washington turn us against each other. They cannot live within a budget , they havent a clue how to NOT SPEND. so they keep taking MORE of our money. WE have to STOP them from doing so.
JUST SO NO TO TAXES.
Esd.: The Socialists feigning disgust with Obama moving to the center is a carefully crafted ruse to capture the Independents who see this as a capitulation toward the center and a reconciliation. He is starting to lose the uncommitted independents voter because of his Marxist policies; the false move to center and the far left’s indignation is programed to recapture this centrist segment.
We can never trust those with the Marxist philosophy: the Marxist justifies any means by the result. Integrity and honesty are seen as outdated concepts of chivalry that is extinct. The Marxist concept of Utopia is the goal of Obama and his Useful Idiots and complicit Elites, anything else is no more than flotsam and jetsam of history.
What moral principle justifies the idea that every American must share in the sacrifices necessary to get spending and debt under control except for those who would be able to bear them with the least financial and personal distress?
How can anyone justify cutting half-a-billion dollars from a nutritional program for disadvantaged pregnant women, infants, and children, while simultaneously advocating even deeper tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires who are already subject to some of the lowest tax rates in modern history?
You don’t have to be a Marxist to size this sort of thinking up and conclude that it’s bullshit.
@Skookum:
Absolutely! And have you ever noticed the the old communists simply changed from the ‘red’ party to the ‘green’?
@Greg:
Go back and READ the article……. particularly that income/tax breakdown…capische?
@Esdraelon, #7:
I did read the article. Perhaps I process facts differently.
The bottom 60% of the population own less than 2 tenths of 1 percent of the nation’s wealth. It surprises anyone that the people with the most income would be paying the most taxes?
So, what is the moral justification for expecting sacrifices from everyone but those who are most able to make them?
I’d expect at least some token sacrifice. Certainly not deeper tax cuts that extend to the most advantaged an even greater degree of preferential treatment.
1/2 of Americans pay NO taxes to the federal government.
Many of these people get a check FROM taxpayers (and borrowed money) instead.
So, yes, Obama is appealing to his constituents.
They are non-tax-payers.
They are people on the dole.
They are also people in government who dole out the dole.
It doesn’t matter to Obama that his ”plan” only ”cuts” $4 trillion in 12 years while we borrow $1/2 trillion for each of those 12 years IF everything goes perfectly!
Yes, we’d still be $2 trillion further in debt IF everything went perfectly for 12 years.
Who wants to take that bet?
I noticed Obama wants to protect government RESEARCH!
Obama also wants to protect government education.
Yuch!
He used his favorite fallacy, the STRAW MAN, quite a bit with today’s speech.
(Telling us, for example, the alternative to his plan is to cut waste, fraud and abuse …. when no one….NO ONE!…. stands by that as his way to fix the deficit.)
I always like the speeches he reads when he adds a third teleprompter near the camera. Today it was one on the left and the other on the right …only. Ping Pong head. Where’s that invisible table tennis match?
@ Greg
The problem is with the approach. You want the government to do it all. You want them to take other people’s money, by force, and give it to someone else. Obama said in his speech that we have always helped one another out, and he’s correct. But the goverment was not the facilitator of that help. People gave to charities and churches. I give to charity every year and I want the choice of who I give my money to. I don’t want you making it for me. If you believe it’s ok to give some jack-a$$ money to put a crucifix in a jar of urine and calls it art, do so. Don’t take it from me by force and give it to him. What part of that doesn’t make sense to you?
@Nan G:
Nan, I hit the dislike button by mistake, sorry.
Nice response!
Nan: Acknowledging the fact that there is fraud, abuse, and waste, but that it is okay to tolerate the corruption during a time of impending economic disaster is a strange attitude, as if this is a sanctum that should never be disturbed. At the risk of what? Shutting off the funds to his cronies and his voters.
@Esdraelon:
LOL!
Thanks, Esdraelon.
So, what is the moral justification for expecting sacrifices from everyone but those who are most able to make them?
Republicans had better come up with an answer. I’ve got a feeling that they’re going to be hearing the question with increasing frequency.
@Greg:
By asking that question, you have judged those who have more, negatively in your eyes, and unworthy of the income they earned. Indeed, you judged that they did not earn what they received, and your judgment is that they “give” more, to the government.
You call it sacrifice, but what you really mean is ‘forced charity’. You want morality legislated, but it isn’t anything but your own warped sense of morality. This ‘charity’ that you want the “rich” to “give”, by force, is nothing more than common thievery. And when the “rich” have “given” more, and your kind spends more, you will again come back to them, lecturing the “rich” on why they must give more.
By what right did you, or anyone other than those “rich” receive entitlement to what they earned? Because you have less? Because your need is greater than theirs, as judged by you? What labors did you engage in? What idea, sprung by your thoughts, did you contribute to their production?
The only idea you, and your kind, have ever had, was that of taking from others by force, what you have deemed, in your judgment, is yours to take. There is no ‘fairness’ in your thought processes, so spare us that train of corrupt thought.
Your ‘morality’ can go to hell, for surely, that’s where it grew from in the first place. You have no right to the earnings of the “rich”. You certainly wouldn’t deem to have a right to the earnings of the non- “rich”, would you? The ‘sacrifice’ you speak of, is that which based on the ability for someone to give, as judged by you, and when that ‘sacrifice’ isn’t enough, you suggest more is needed, and on and on it goes.
Quit speaking of ‘sacrifice’ and ‘need’, but instead, use terms that actually apply, like theft and desire. Quit presenting an argument for ‘charity’, and instead present the argument in truth, that of legislating ‘morality’ to others.
@Greg:
Yes, we DO process facts differently: I don’t spin them.
I’m curious what percentage you believe those top 50% should pay in order to garner a ‘sacrifice’? 70%, 80%? More?
What is ‘preferential treatment’? Tax cuts are across the board. They are what they are. You want to mark a certain portion of the population for specific tax increases where the ‘progressive’ tax code already eats into 60% of their income. I’m not up there with them, and have had to live as well as I can on $30,000 for the last three years due to the economy and I am in engineering/architectural/construction management. FACT of the matter is, confiscating everything those upper echelon people make would run the government for a couple of days if even that.
And let me explain something else: it is NOT “the nations wealth”…the ‘wealth’ belongs to those people who made it….whether you like it or not..
@Esdraelon:
I have explained that many times to Greg, yet he fails to understand that. That kind of thinking is pure socialism, and as such, has no place in the United States of America.
@Greg:
Democrats are adept at playing class warfare, but the FACT is that the current spending has already passed the tipping point. Even ‘saving’ two trillion but over say, five years, is not saying much….at $14 trillion and borrowing 200 billion a day from China, we are basically living in a fool’s paradise.
Wish I could do ‘budgeting’ that way…LOL!
@johngalt:
I cannot believe he does not ‘understand’ it.
He, like the rest of the left, knows exactly what he wants.
@Esdraelon:
I have to beg to differ on that. I don’t believe that he understands the nature of ‘property rights’, and that included within that, is wealth, and further included within that, is the intellectual property that resulted in one gaining said wealth. Greg believes that everyone else has rights to what you make, through your labor, your intelligence, your fortitude put forth in trying till you succeed. He believes we live in a nation where the ‘collective’ has rights to whatever anyone else in the ‘collective’ has earned, hence why he calls it “the nation’s wealth”.
I would be ok with a 10% income tax across the board, on everyone. That’s truly fair! It would cause jobs to come back to america, far as government programs: the military, police and firemen are the only ones that have really kept Americans safe. IRS, homeland security not so much.
@johngalt:
‘Understanding’ may be simply the wrong word, but I believe socialists understand exactly what they are doing. I do not think it would make any difference if they ‘understood’ property rights as you and I do, they would simply disagree with the concept.
@Zac:
Only problem there is that the Democrats would lose 90% of their re-election arguments and they cannot let that happen…….
@Esdraelon:
That may be so. In that case, relating their view to that of a ‘viral disease’ may be more accurate. A virus doesn’t care about good, or bad, it just is, and destroys the host organism.
@johngalt:
On THAT, we agree. Thanks!
Esd, John Galt, the liberal argument against the fair tax is that people would have to pay a 30% tax that don’t make much money and people who make more money would pay the same. Dumb argument. I am not rich at the moment and I pay way more than that, somehow I do ok.
The sales tax is a bit more constitutional and seems a good way to do things. I don’t know of an argument against that one except that the rich would still in a sense pay the same tax rate.
I don’t know? John Galt your the expert on such matters. What do you think? In this case we need some real “hope” and “change”.
@Esdraelon, #23:
The democratic party’s argument will probably come down to a simple observation that proposed republican policies would disadvantage the 80% of the population that has already taken a beating, while greatly benefitting the 10% who are already at a tremendous advantage. Why republicans don’t seem to realize what they’re setting themselves up for in 2012 is a total mystery.
Greg is like a broken record: tax the rich (pop) tax the rich(pop)tax the rich (pop) tax the rich(pop)
You need counseling to get over your irational hatred, greg.
@Zac:
I don’t consider myself an “expert”, just a man of principle. It would seem to me, though, that for those advocating “from each, according to his ability, to each, according to his need”, that a true consumption tax would be the ideal. For, if that were the case, those buying yachts and million dollar homes would pay a much greater portion of their personal wealth and income for their purchases than one who simply buys an old, used, truck and makes do with a simple ranch-style home on a modest piece of property.
But it isn’t about “from each, according to his ability, to each, according to his need”, is it? Because, as one makes more and more, the looters and moochers ask for more and more, and consider their needs greater and greater. They desire ‘equality’ of outcome, something not guaranteed by our Constitution. Instead, they have bastardized the meaning of the Declaration into, turning the meaning of “pursuit of happiness” into “equal results for all”.
I’d be happy with a consumption tax and abolishment of income tax, as that would be a truly fair and equitable way of “We, the people”, paying for what we use. A ‘fair tax’ is slightly less equitable, but still a better alternative. The current tax system, of progressive rates, is purely meant to place those who produce more, in greater servitude, than those who don’t.
Like I said John Galt I pay more than 30% in tax (and I’m not rich), I think that makes the anti-fair tax argument null and void.
Consumption tax will be really profitable if business come back to America.
The death tax is the biggest joke I’ve ever heard of.
@Zac:
Agree on all counts. I’m just trying to keep the business afloat and things will come back with the right policies. I’ve been in business 26 years and have never, ever seen it this bad.
Esd, my prayers go out to you.
@Hard Right, #28:
Here’s something I’m sure you’ll appreciate: 10 Reasons Not to Tax the Rich. And Why They’re All Bad.
Yes Greg inequality kills people! We should take there money so we don’t die! That’s a good reason.. Please Greg, that’s the worst argument I’ve ever heard.
@Zac, #34:
I’m not finding that one anywhere on the list of 10 Reasons.
Oh, wait… Number 10. We can throw that one out if it you want.
#10
@Zac:
Thank you so much Zac, I will wait it out somehow. Have not had a project yet this year, but that hopefully is going to change in the next couple of days.
@Greg:
It’s not reading the 10 items, its simply reading whom is publishing it…….however, they are NOT reasons NOT to tax the rich, they ARE taxed, ya’ll just want an additional pound of flesh…
@Esdraelon, #39:
What I want is a roll-back of the high-end tax rates to the pre-GWB levels, rather than an additional cut down to 25%. Some republicans seem to believe that any tax cut automatically becomes the new baseline, which is always still too high by definition. Letting such people have their way will ruin the country. Having let them have their way for this long is one of the reasons we’re currently looking at a $14 trillion national debt.
Greg just proved me right with his link. Lots of straw, major distortions, and justification for what amounts to theft. The envy and disdain towards those with wealth is quite obvious.
Greg, have you sought professional help? Seriously. Your hatred isn’t rational and reeks of envy and self righteousness.
“Having let them have their way for this long is one of the reasons we’re currently looking at a $14 trillion national debt. ”
Dead wrong and proven wrong repeatedly on this very site. I see greg subscribes to repeating lies often enough…
@ Greg
Part of me hopes you get your way Greg. Part of me would love to see the tax rates go up, plus the elimination of itemized deductions. A soon as it happens, businesses will start laying people off, people that have money are going to move it to places the feds can’t reach, thereby taking it out of our economy. People that produce and earn high wages, will back down to ensure they meet a certain income levels to keep from being super-taxed. Because you and the rest of the greedy freeloaders don’t want to give people a chance to help voluntarily, you want to force us.
If I had the money that I have paid into SS, and I could put it into a 401K, I could retire right now. I’m not even 50 yet, and I could retire even with the market crashes. Do you know where the money I have put into SS is? GONE, that’s where it is. Do you know why? Corrupt and Incompetent government, that’s why.
Part of me really hopes you get your way, but I don’t think you’re gonna like the outcome.
No you don’t. Y’see, drone, even if those tax rates were increased to Clinton-era levels (and even if it actually resulted in more money, which it would only in the shortest term), it wouldn’t make the slightest dent in these insane deficits. Congress and the President are spending money at a nightmarish rate… are you under the impression they would stop? Or even slow down?
This is about class warfare with you. It’s always about class warfare. Eat the rich, even at the expense of the future. But then, judging from your #8 comment, you’re as economically illiterate as the rest of your socialist ilk. You don’t even understand the difference between wealth and income.
@Greg:
So the Republicans are to blame for the deficit? You apparently have a short memory or are not old enough to have been around that far back.
@ Greg, OK
* How many People do You employ?
*How many Private Sector Jobs have You created?
*Do You produce a marketable product that is sold for a profit?
We have been there before and You never answered those questions. I submit them again but don’t expect an answer. Just more Marxist/Lib/Prog talking points but no answers.
@Aqua, #41:
If the republican right finally succeeds in dismantling 60+ years of progressive social programs, my guess is that a majority of current republican voters–and probably a majority of people currently cheering them on–aren’t much going to like the outcome either.
@Evil Otto, #42:
If it’s about class warfare, it’s only because republican politicians are making it so on every imaginable front. It’s not my fault if the average republican voter can’t figure out who’s actually looking out for their interests and who’s about to give them the shaft. Possibly they’ll figure it out in retrospect, but I have my doubts. They haven’t been able to figure much out correctly so far.
@Greg:
60+ years of mismanaged ‘progressive’ social programs can take the lions share of putting us where we are today. So you do go back that far? I’m going on 58, so I’ve been there. There is only ONE outcome, continue to spend ourselves into oblivion, or make changes that no one is going to like the outcome, but have to be made nonetheless. By the way, do you know the meaning of ‘progressive’? We have ‘progressive’ taxation, and we also have a ‘progressive’ deficit. I don’t anything positive under the sun regarding the left’s vision of ‘progressive’.
Oh, trust me, republican voters can figure out what you are trying to do, you are of the old Marxist clique
that believe the only ‘moral’ uprightness for the world is for those who create the wealth to be brought down to the level of those who don’t.
That’s and idiotic vision. A great many of those in that lower 60% look no further that this weeks paycheck, or handout from the Fed to run down to the corner pub an get drunk.
The genius in the White House is again complaining about having inherited a trillion dollar deficit as he has complained from the beginning. Blaming Bush is a whine that evidently works and settles on flaccid minds that are dumber than his own. Bush saw a serious drop in the deficit between ’04 and ’07, and then a resurgence to about $460 billion in ’08. In no time Obama’s brilliance almost tripled it. With his leadership for 2 more years, taxpayers will witness a trillion dollar deficit until the grandchildren turn grey.
Another piece of proof that he’s not the sharpest thinker in town, is his refrain on “Taxing The Rich.” A few dummies like Obama’s puppeteers Soros, the Pritzkers in Chicago, and Warren Buffett, have vocalized raising taxes for the rich, after they’ve protected their fortunes – Buffett through foundations, and Pritzkers have been renown for years for hiding cash from the IRS. DON’T BELIEVE THEM now when they pretend otherwise. If they really wanted to be “Taxed” there are ways that they can part with their cash which has nothing to do with raising tax levels on the supposedly rich. Translation = “don’t tax us, tax those peons well down the food chain.”
Telling the goof in charge to raise taxes “on the rich” is their attack on the “middle class.” The “bottom class” . . . well, they could care less about. The middle class, and upper middle class, are still partially standing, and aren’t quite completely screwed.
The end result of providing a temporary income to those who don’t contribute at the expense of those who produce and manufacture, total collapse. Do those who provide union labor or government labor or who live on the government dole know how to provide employment or manufacture a product? Hell No! If they did they would be doing it rather than living off handouts and preferential labor contracts.
The basic premise of the Marxist Ideology is to destroy the incentive of the Capitalist so that the state can direct and control manufacturing and production, Chrysler and General Motors are typical examples of Marxist conquest. Obama has spent us into an abyss with a suicidal stimulus bill that rewarded his benefactors and placed our grandchildren in debt for the rest of their lives. Taxing the producing members of our country when the country is drowning in a sea of debt is like throwing a drowning man an anchor. Basic Economics #101, perhaps our undocumented president didn’t really take that class and maybe he didn’t really take any classes, he sure doesn’t display any evidence of education and all we have is his word, the word of a serial liar. However, in that particular class they used to teach, that taking money out of an economy in the form of increased taxes serves to weaken an economy, for that is money that is lost to the dynamic force of an economy. Tax a huge percentage like the undocumented president is planning and the economy will die a quick and merciful death.
JR, there will be no productive classes left once Obama has completed his ligature around the necks of the Middle Class. They will be destroyed until we are all nothing more than serfs looking to guidance from the Elites and the chump change handouts Soros and Buffet decide we should have in their omnipotent wisdom and our gullibility. In the mean time they live and wallow in their gold and wealth while we try to figure out what went wrong to the great experiment in America. This man is the anathema to freedom and liberty and all the beautiful parts of this country. His goal is to destroy this country and bring us to our knees in front of the rest of the world so that they can urinate on the once proud United States.
@Esdraelon, #46:
The old capitalist clique tends to overlook the fact that it’s the people who do the work of the world who actually produce its wealth. Wealth is primarily a result of their labor and their creative efforts–of the goods they personally produce and the services they personally render.
If the primary function of the wealthy is to produce jobs, how exactly does their recent performance along those lines warrant another tax cut and a still bigger share of the nation’s wealth?
This seems rather like CEOs taking multi-million dollar bonuses after the taxpayers had to bail out their foundering companies.