It’s been reported that Barack Obama is going focus on income inequality in his SOTU speech:
President Obama will try to pump some vitality into a lackluster second term on Tuesday when he delivers his State of the Union address.
The address will include a “healthy dose” of the income inequality message the White House has focused on in recent weeks, according to one senior administration official familiar with the text.
Naturally, Obama’s proposals will place the burden smack on the shoulders of small business:
The president, who has yet to add to the big legislative accomplishments of his first term, will call for raising the minimum wage to $10 per hour and extending federal unemployment benefits that expired last month.
Gratefully, a majority of Americans have awakened to the fact that Obama is incompetent:
A Quinnipiac poll released Wednesday found that a majority of Americans — 53 percent — did not believe the Obama administration was competent at running the government.
Income inequality has gotten worse under Barack Obama:
In other words, income inequality has become more pronounced since the Bush administration, not less.
“Rich people have pulled away, largely because the top 1 percent has been doing quite well — and disproportionately doing quite well under President Obama,” Brooks said. “Remember that the stock market has doubled in value since President Obama took office, and at least 80 percent of those gains have gone to the top 10 percent of the income distribution.”
James Carville has observed that Obama has been a great President for Wall St. For the working guy, not so much.
So let’s have a look at those who are going to hammer us about income inequality.
Barack and Michelle Obama: Net worth $12 million. 160 rounds of golf. Spent $100,000 of taxpayer money for Marie Antoinette’s his wife’s Hawaiian adventure. The taxpayers of Hawaii have to cough up $350,000 for the extra security:
KAILUA, Hawaii — During her recent visit to Maui and the home of close family friend Oprah Winfrey, First Lady Michelle Obama was escorted by Maui police.
The tab for that protection? $54,233.70, said a spokesman for the Maui Police Department.
That’s a drop in the bucket, though:
Honolulu police protected the first family while they spent some 15 days during the holidays in Kailua, Oahu.
Michelle Yu, spokeswoman for the Honolulu Police Department, said Thursday the department spent $293,731.99 for overtime only, an expense that excludes normal salary pay.
Neither county police department will seek federal reimbursement for those expenses, putting the burden on local taxpayers.
In 2008, when the Obamas first visited Oahu during the holidays, the City and County of Honolulu sought reimbursement, but were never repaid. Now the county budgets for the president’s annual holiday visit.
The Obama Hawaiian vacation costs more than $4 million total for travel, staffing, security, housing, car rentals and transportation of vehicles and a helicopter.
Michelle Obama’s extended vacation on the island of Maui, which the president said was an early birthday present for her, also entailed the cost for Secret Servicetravel, rental cars and accommodations, as well as transportation.
White House Spokesman Jay Carney acknowledged in a news conference just after the First Lady flew to Maui that taxpayers are picking up some of the cost of her trip and travel back to Washington D.C., but would not disclose the details.
But they deserve it.
And that still wasn’t enough. A big bash at the White House with all the 1%ers was also a necessity.
The event was closed to the press, and the White House did not release a guest list or any other details. But two guests spoke to the Tribune on condition of anonymity, describing a bash at which a deejay kept people on the dance floor in the East Room until after 3 a.m. Washington time.
VIP guests, according to sources, included political luminaries Bill and Hillary Clinton, Vice President Joe Biden, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, White House senior adviser Valerie Jarrett, national security adviser Susan Rice, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker and Democratic National Committee official Donna Brazile.
Other high-profile guests included Sir Paul McCartney, Magic Johnson, Chicago-born actress/singer Jennifer Hudson, singer Janelle Monae, actor Kal Penn, TV personality Al Roker, actress Ashley Judd, tennis great Billie Jean King, retired Olympic figure-skater Michelle Kwan and Facebook Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg, the sources said.
Jonathan Karl asked Jay Carney who paid for the party:
White House chief spokesman Jay Carney deflected a reporter’s question asking who paid for the first lady’s 50th birthday bash at Wednesday’s press briefing.
“The first lady had her 50th birthday party and I believe you said that the president picks up the cost for that party?” asked ABC’s chief White House correspondent Jonathan Karl.
“I think we put out information on that,” Carney said. “I don’t have it here. I refer you to the East Wing.” The White House’s East Wing includes the office space for the first lady and her staff.
“I was just wondering if you have an estimate on what the cost was?” Karl prodded. “I don’t, but I would refer you to the East Wing,” Carney said, putting an end to this line of questioning.
Acting on Carney’s statement, “I think we put out information on that,” White House “Statements & Releases” going back two weeks make no mention of who’s footing the bill for the first lady’s celebration.
You know who paid for this extravagance. We did.
Marie Antoinette Obama’s costly indulgences are nothing new:
President Obama spent President’s Day weekend, Feb. 15-18, golfing in West Palm Beach, Fla., while the first lady and the girls enjoyed a ski trip to Aspen, Colorado, as did Biden.
Taxpayers picked up a tab which totaled $295,437.04 for the personal vacations, according to U.S. Secret Service records from the Department of Homeland Security obtained by Judicial Watch.A Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch June 21, 2013, against the U.S. Secret Service found this in the billing records:
* Transportation and lodging costs for the president’s trip totaled $98,135.79. This includes $32,406.50 for the flights, $16,466.25 for rental cars, and $48,490 for hotel rooms.
* The vacation costs for first lady Michelle Obama totaled $81,523.64, including $13,221.30 in flights, $3,925 in rental cars, and $64,377.34 in lodging.
* The expenses for Vice President Biden’s weekend in Aspen totaled $115,777.61, including $5,315 in flights, $92,596 in accommodations, and $17,866.61 in rental cars.
Remember that African safari in 2011?
The United States Air Force documents show that during the six-day trip the first lady and her entourage spent $668.702.01, including hotel and lodging costs of $430,614.18. The trip included a private family safari at a South African game reserve, according to Judicial Watch.
An additional $424,142 was billed to taxpayers for the cost of the flight and crew, according to earlier documents obtained by Judicial Watch, bringing the total cost to more than $1 million.
The Obama daughters were listed as “senior staff” so their expenses could be heaped on the US taxpayer.
And that Spain trip?
But while most of the country is pinching pennies and downsizing summer sojourns – or forgoing them altogether – the Obamas don’t seem to be heeding their own advice. While many of us are struggling, the First Lady is spending the next few days in a five-star hotel on the chic Costa del Sol in southern Spain with 40 of her “closest friends.” According to CNN, the group is expected to occupy 60 to 70 rooms, more than a third of the lodgings at the 160-room resort. Not exactly what one would call cutting back in troubled times.
Reports are calling the lodgings of Obama’s Spanish fiesta, the Hotel Villa Padierna in Marbella, “luxurious,” “posh” and “a millionaires’ playground.” Estimated room rate per night? Up to a staggering $2,500. Method of transportation? Air Force Two.
To be clear, what the Obamas do with their money is one thing; what they do with ours is another. Transporting and housing the estimated 70 Secret Service agents who will flank the material girl will cost the taxpayers a pretty penny.
Perhaps it could be that the Obamas, who seem to fancy themselves more along the lines of international celebrities than actual leaders, espouse a different view of sacrifice. When Michelle Obama accompanied her husband to Copenhagen along with best buddy Oprah Winfrey, she billed the trip – an ultimately unsuccessful bid to bring the Olympics to Chicago – as follows: “As much of a sacrifice as people say this is for me or Oprah or the President to come for these few days, so many of you in this room have been working for years to bring this bid home.”
A quick jaunt to Denmark is a sacrifice? What portraits in courage!
The Obama’s are just like us:
Incredibly, the Obamas have long portrayed themselves as precisely such commoners. Just this month, Obama told ABC the First Couple is “not that far removed from what most Americans are going through.” And that “it was just a few years ago that we had high credit card balances, we had two kids, thinking about college. We had our own retirement accounts, wondering if we were going to be able to get enough assets in there.”
But you know better:
Instead, Michelle Obama seems more like a modern-day Marie Antoinette – the French queen who spent extravagantly on clothes and jewels without a thought for her subjects’ plight – than an average mother of two. While she’s spent her time in the White House telling parents they should relieve their chubby kids’ dependency on sugar and stressing the importance of an organic veggie garden, hopping a jet to Europe to meet with Spanish royalty isn’t the visual the White House probably wants to project. Perhaps they’ve forgotten the damning image of John Kerry, on the eve of the 2004 election, windsurfing off the coast of Nantucket?
Maybe this is what Michelle meant when she said that the America was “downright mean.”
Nothing says you care about income inequality than partying with Beyoncé and Jay Z at $40,000 a plate, complete with a champagne tower worth $280,000. This really helps reduce the gap between the Obama wealthy and the rest of us. At the time Obama had this to say:
“We’re on the brink of an election, but more importantly, we’re on the brink of moving America in a direction where we’re going to be more just, more fair,” he said at the 40/40 Club in Manhattan, where Jay-Z is an owner. “The economy’s going to grow in a way that includes everybody, an America that’s respected around the world because we’re putting forward our best values and out best ideals.”
Jay Z is worth $500 million. What’s fair about that? The half-billionaire has this to say about income inequality:
“The real problem is there’s no middle class, right? So the gap between the have and have-nots is getting wider and wider… It’s gonna be a problem that no amount of police can solve, because once you have that sort of oppression and that gap is widening, it’s inevitable that something is going to happen.”
What’s he doing about it? Nothing. Is Jay Z spreading his fortune around? Of course not, silly. Then he says don’t demonize the 1%ers:
Jay-Z told the Times that said he told business magnate Russell Simmons, a supporter of the Zuccotti Park demonstrators, that he wouldn’t go “to a park and picnic — I have no idea what to do.” Simmons had asked him to support the protestors.
“I don’t know what the fight is about. What do we want? Do you know?” Jay-Z asked Simmons, according to the Times.
Jay-Z, who was born in a rough Brooklyn neighborhood and went on to build a music and business empire, took issue with the Occupy movement’s demonization of business.
“I think all those things need to really declare themselves a bit more clearly because when you just say that ‘the 1 percent is that,’ that’s not true,” he told the Times.
Nancy Pelosi: Her net worth jumped 62% in 2010 in the face of a recession. She is worth an average of $87 million.
Harry Reid: Net worth about $10 million now but only $1 million when he entered office.
Try this thought experiment. Imagine that someone grows up in poverty, works his way through law school by holding the night shift as a Capitol Hill policeman, and spends all but two years of his career as a public servant. Now imagine that this person’s current salary — and he’s at the top of his game — is $193,400. You probably wouldn’t expect him to have millions in stocks, bonds, and real estate.
But, surprise, he does, if he’s our Senate majority leader, whose net worth is between 3 and 10 million dollars, according to OpenSecrets.org. When Harry Reid entered the Nevada legislature in 1982, his net worth was listed as between $1 million and $1.5 million “or more,” according to the Las Vegas Review-Journal. So, since inquiring minds inquire, let’s try to figure out how Reid’s career in public service ended up being so lucrative. He hasn’t released his tax returns, which makes this an imperfect science, but looking at a few of his investments helps to show how he amassed his wealth.
Seven of the ten wealthiest members of Congress are democrats. They are:
Darrell Issa (R-Calif) $330,380,031 $464,115,018 $597,850,005
Mark Warner (D-Va) $96,221,316 $257,481,658 $418,742,000
Jared Polis (D-Colo) $69,791,412 $197,945,705 $326,099,998
John K. Delaney (D-Md) $65,151,162 $154,601,580 $244,051,998
Michael McCaul (R-Texas) $102,547,780 $143,153,910 $183,760,040
Scott Peters (D-Calif) $27,518,090 $112,467,040 $197,415,991
Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn) $86,307,329 $103,803,192 $121,299,056
Jay Rockefeller (D-WVa) $63,269,025 $101,290,514 $139,312,004
Vernon Buchanan (R-Fla) $-58,149,853 $88,802,066 $235,753,986
Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) $1,046,071 $87,997,030 $174,947,989
The redoubtable Allen West:
I’m waiting for Obama to apply “income equality” to Jay Z and Beyoncé
Alas, this week we’ve found the theme upon which President Obama and the progressive socialist Left will now stake their claim: equality.
These astute individuals truly believe it is their destiny to make us all equal — as they define it. Listen to the constant rants from the president and the leftist acolytes about “income inequality.” With the full power of the government, either by force or coercion (or both), they shall rectify this inequality and make us all equal. How exactly is that done, and the larger question is, to whom?
Shall we turn to Lebron James and tell him he doesn’t deserve any more in income or compensation, than the 12th listed person on the Heat roster?
Shall President Obama and his pay czar decide what the base level compensation must be across the NBA?
Will the Obama administration turn to Roger Goodell, Commissioner of the NFL, and instruct him on team salary caps?
Or shall President Obama, known for his baseball pitching prowess, tell the New York Yankees they must rescind the seven year $155 million contract to Japanese pitcher Masahiro Tanaka — after all the comptroller of NYC believes in “shared prosperity for all over individual success.”
I’m waiting for President Obama to say during his State of the Union address that income inequality is so vital and important as issue that he will issue an executive order that caps the compensation for Hollywood actors and actresses. After all, why do they need all that income?
As well, entertainers such as his dear friends Jay Z and Beyonce must see a cut in their income and their concerts must be made more affordable to all Americans.
Great ideas all. Beyoncé tickets cost around $100 for a good seat. How does the average person afford that?
Let’s see Obama issue an Executive Order stipulating that all actors be paid the same in Hollywood and that all basketball players receive the same salaries. Let celebrities and Obama supporters demonstrate their sincerity in their belief that income inequality be lessened.
Without a doubt the proposals offered by Obama and the left will be to add burdens to the middle class- increases in minimum wage and more regulations. They will offer up class envy on a plate and make the middle class pick up the tab. And it won’t work because it doesn’t address the real problem.
If Obama wants to help address income inequality, he can start here:
A new study from Harvard University on the ability of low-income children to achieve social mobility found that the largest hindrance to moving up the income ladder is being raised by a single parent.
“The strongest and most robust predictor [of social mobility] is the fraction of children with single parents,” the study said.
Class envy is much easier.
In the old USSR the apparatchiks spewed the party line but lived far above those they ruled. It is the same for democrats and liberals.
Enfin je me rappelai le pis-aller d’une grande princesse à qui l’on disait que les paysans n’avaient pas de pain, et qui répondit : Qu’ils mangent de la brioche.
DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education.
DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed.
Except for liberals being foolish.
But the Obama’s are aware enough of the hypocrisy of their own lifestyle vs that of their constituents.
That’s why the secrecy around Michelle’s party.
The hyper-controlled WH photographer-only instead of allowing a pool of photographers.
The secrecy on the golf courses.
Allowing the dirty masses to actually see the Obama’s in all their splendor would lose them what little support they still enjoy.
Really? You have to go after Michelle’s birthday party? Are you that….shallow?
And you don’t believe this is a problem, how:?
The 85 Richest People In The World Have As Much Wealth As The 3.5 Billion Poorest
http://www.forbes.com/sites/laurashin/2014/01/23/the-85-richest-people-in-the-world-have-as-much-wealth-as-the-3-5-billion-poorest/
NO MATTER WHAT OBAMA DOES.
THE INEQUALITY OR UNEQUALITY OF A COUNTRY will never stop,
it”s there since the creation of MAN AND WOMAN, no one is equal,
all fall into a group, and some get out from it,some stay and accept it,
AS WELL AS THE MIND OF EACH HUMAN IS DIFFERENT AND STRIVE FOR DIFFERENT GOAL,
see the ARTIST STRIVING TO DESIGN HIS GIFTED MIND PROJECT, all made up in his mind,
see the creator of an industry grand scale striving to build his plan only his mind posess,
we are all big in our mind, and the one who get wealthy is changing into another person,
most of the time he stay good and generous< no need for obama to beg for his money,
the rich known to give a lot to who they chose and it’s just because it’S their money,
and we are in a free country,to do what you want with what you earn,
people have survived before OBAMA, he didn’t create anything since he was lended the task to serve the GREATEST
AMERICANS, on this WORLD,
he must diserve that PEOPLE, NOT DEMONIZE THEM, with
is penaltys, not with his book of restriction, not with hate and divide never seen before,
he has been allowed the greatest opportunity to serve the great achievers of the world,
This one, IF you have ONE RED CENT you have more ”wealth” than 25% of America’s people.
Who knows how that translates into the world’s stats.
Probably more than 25% though.
As of last July there were 7,095,217,980 people on earth.
So, why are you surprised if a wealthy person has a tremendous amount more than the poorest people?
Look at the guests of Michelle’s 50th b-day party.
See any of them spreading their wealth around equally to the poor?
The Obama’s are worth over $10million.
JayZ over $50 million.
That’s a lot more than they NEED to eat and drink and clothe themselves and be sheltered everyday for the rest of their lives!
Do any of them set the example you think ought to be set?
No.
@ilovebeeswarzone: You make a great point, ilovebeeswarzone.
In a recent study of poor-to-rich by quarters (quintiles) it turns out the poorest Americans average less than 1/2 of a working person per household!
BUT the top quintile (the richest) average 2 working people per household!
Now think about it.
IF Obama STUPIDLY made every hourly wage equal the poorest would STILL have less than 1/4 of what the rich have!
Of course highly skilled people would lose all incentive to bother, so there would be incredible shortages.
Wealth inequality is a winnning hand for Democrats, assuming they play it right.
Nanny G
yes, that talk by itself,
I think OBAMA IS A GREEDY PERSON,
he want what they have, and it’will never be enough,
I have encountered some people like it, and the scale is not the same ,
but the profile is the same,
they always pick an goal, OR AN ORGANISATION TO COVER THEIR GREED, which is false, SO to get some of the money, they get rich out of it, and they non stop go on , PREYING ON THEIR NEIGHBOR OR FAMILY OR STRANGER,
THEY ARE THE BORN BEGGARS, NEVER SATISFIED BECAUSE THEY SPEND YOUR MONEY FOR YOU,
Ronald J. WARD
DON”T YOU THINK THEY SHOULD STRIVE FOR THE BEST OF THE THE PEOPLE ALL THE PEOPLE,
ON EVERY STEP OF THE LADDER, and get of their back, PROMOTE JOBS, NOT WHAT THEY THINK, BUT WHAT IS NEEDED FOR THE NATION, NOT THEIR ACTIVIST GREEN NOSE, WHICH NOT GOOD FOR THE COUNTRY,
@Ronald J. Ward: worked for Marx
the left attack HUCKABEE because they know he might want to run for the presidency,
nothing else, and the woman should know that,
they target anyone who talk of the wrong laws of OBAMA,
THE USUAL SAME ATTACKS ON CONSERVATIVES THEY FEAR,
You have to treat what the democrats do the same as the names they give bills they introduce into congress. Almost every bill the democrats introduce into congress are named the opposite of what they actually are. The Affordable Care bill is a perfect example. They new it would raise the cost of healthcare. Pay attention from now on, and compare the names they give bills to what the bills actually do.
Many years ago I read that a study found out that most wealthy people are wealthy because they SAME their money. They don’t buy a big house, or a new car, or all of the cable channels, or spend any more than they have to. Since the USA was established, how have so many foreigners who couldn’t speak English, and didn’t have hardly any money, eventually become billionaires?
ANSWER
(1) They learned how to speak English.
(2) They knew how to work. A lot of them came from countries where they worked seven days a week, and from sunup to sundown.
(3) They knew how to save. They came from a country where the average worker didn’t have much. They saved until they could either buy a business, or live off of the interest of their investments.
My favorite concealed consumption by the Obamas:
After taking some heat for serving $400 per bottle wine with dinner for several of their rich and famous friends (including George Clooney), the White House corrected the problem by not reporting the cost of wine served to guests any more. Problem solved. You see the problem was reality and the solution is ignorance.
The Republicans should jump all over this and run national campaigns showing the Democrats to be plundering our tax dollars to live like royalty. Name every billionaire you know of and look who they support– Gates, Buffet, Zuckerburg, Turner, Oprah, Soros, etc…– and ask Americans why they have subsidized the lifestyle and partying of the mega-wealthy through the Democrats.
I didn’t know the Obamas listed their daughters as senior advisers to avoid paying for their travel expenses. That should be a commercial unto itself. Of course the media would decry “bringing their children into politics”, but citizens would see how their tax dollars are being abused and how Democrats game the system. Another commercial should be about Joe Biden charging the Secret Service rent for using his guest house as a base for protecting him and his family. Yes after receiving a generous salary, free housing, free food, and free travel, Biden actually charges the Secret Service to protect his family.
I honestly feel the Republicans can turn this push by the Democrats to change the subject from Obamacare into political gold by exposing Democrat self gratification with our tax dollars.
@Ronald J. Ward: Ah, play the game for political power. That’s the ticket. As Reid said, as he handed out taxpayer funded bribes to get some Democrats to vote for Abysmalcare, “it’s how the game is played”. I certainly hope the Republicans shamelessly play this “game” to its final second.
I still wonder this and, though with only rudimentary research have found no answers, how many Hawaiian vacations did the Obama’s take before we started picking up the tab?
@This one: It’s “shallow” to point out that those who accuse everyone else with personal income as being heartless misers while they themselves live like royalty on money that, if they cared so much, could go to feeding the homeless or medicating the poor? What is shallow, this one, is to overlook the greed, corruption and abuse perpetrated by this administration as it hypocritically accuses everyone else of those sins.
OBAMA LEFT THE BORDER OPEN, WHEN WE TOLD HIM HOW MANY TIMES TO CLOSE IT,
HE EVEN ORDER THE OFFICERS TO BRING THEM IN,
HE DISREGARD THE ADVICES OF THE GOVERNORS,
HOW DOES IT WORK FOR DAVID BIRD? A GOOD REPORTER, taking his everyday walk, and many other who disappear from sight, is that a safe AMERICA? what is OBAMA FOR IN THE WHITE HOUSE,he is suppose to protect the
AMERICANS FIRST TASK for A PRESIDENT,
NO WANDER THAT HELICOPTER WENT DOWN IN AFGHANISTAN, killing 30 WARRIORS, AND,
WITH ALL THE MUSLIMS IN GOVERNMENT POSITIONS,
6 OF THEM WE NOW KNOW, AND MAYBE MORE, IN THE GOVERNMENT high SECURITY JOBS, THEY HAD ALL THE CHANCES TO LEAK THAT OPERATION, which was leaked,
by the WHITE HOUSE, CONFIRMED BY THE SEALS,
and they where NOT ELECTED, BUT LET IN BY OBAMA,
NO ALLEGIANCE CHECKED, WE KNOW WHERE THEIR ALLEGIANCE IS PRIMARY FOR THEIR RELIGION NOT FOR AMERICA, WHILE THE WAR IS RAGING IN KILLING AMERICAN BRAVES,
is that protecting the BRAVES MILITARY FOLLOWING THE ROE OF OBAMA, don’t kill them,
LET THEM KILL YOU FIRST,
What a lifestyle! The Bamster can play Robin Hood from the golf course.
@blowhard: #12
Unfortunately, I’m guessing that there isn’t much difference between the lavish spending of either party.
I don’t care much for negative adds, but the republicans should let the people know what the democrats voted for, and what they are still trying to do, but the republicans should also tell how they plan to solve the problems we have. If they only run negative adds, then all they are saying is the usual, “Vote for me, because I’m not as bad as the other candidate.”
@Smorgasbord:
The point is we are not as bad as them. If negative ads work and the are honest they are not negative. Truth is not negative. Truth is truth, and should not be assigned any connotation. To remain silent, allowing the opposition to lie and distort the truth to gain or retain power is negative.
ONE THING WE SEE,
is they all get filthy rich as they get elected and MORE as time go on,
so there should be a turn around to give a chance to civilians to enter the government,
and get elected as the right one not as envious and not as greedy to seek to become rich as fast as he can,
we are not fools we know many of them are seeking the seat not to serve but for other intent,
which getting rich and powerfull is sadly corrupting many of them, as soon as they feel secure and solid on their seat, we the people are far away in their mind, BUT THEY DON’T KNOW THAT WE READ THEM,
AND WE CAN TELL WHO IS LEGITIME, AND WHO IS NOT, THEY CANNOT HIDE FROM US,
@This one:
Is it just me, or is $100 million a little high to spend for a birthday party? Only if she were paying for it, but as longs as it’s the people on welfare kicking in part of their checks for it, it’s ok. Let the low life’s pay for the American royalty.
@Ronald J. Ward:
What are you doing writing on your day off. You don’t respect OFA’s day off rules?
@blowhard: #17
All I am saying is the republican candidates should also have something positive to say in their adds about how they are going to solve problems, otherwise they are still just saying to vote for them because they aren’t as bad as the other candidate. I would like to know what a candidate intends to do if they are elected, keeping in mind that it doesn’t guarantee they will do what they say.
@blowhard: The problem with your pounding sand about the media’s tolerance of Obama’s $400 bottle of wine is that a life of royalty or perhaps nothing but the finest for the 1st family of the most prominent country in the world is simply one of the perks. There’s a long history of White House entertaining celebrities with all the extravagant trimmings. Nancy Reagan jogs my memory as one with expensive taste and not bashful of taxpayers picking up the tab. Jacqueline Kennedy was none too shy. Expensive and frequent vacations are nothing new for a sitting president or his family.
Now, folks like you can spew your festered jealousy but what you ultimately expose is consistent with the heart of most of your arguments. You simply can’t stand it because you hate the Obamas and for obvious reasons, you just don’t believe that they, unlike their predecessors, are not eligible or perhaps undeserving of a seat in the White House.
Your howl-at-the-moon snake oil is just hard to sell as a constructive argument to people of reasonable intellect without selling what you’re truly selling, which is something you deny trying to sell.
@Ronald J. Ward:
Not when you say
This, Ron, is what makes them full of sh*t.
Ronald J. Ward
there you go again, in this economy broken down, the family
stay together and pinch their pennies, watching the president party
as if there is no end to the people’s money, they would not do it if they had to dig in their own pocket,
and the people are horrified of what they see of the president, rightfully,
he is so obvious, it’s impossible to pass, why he is doing it,
he is arrogant and HIS WAY TO show the middle finger to the AMERICANS,
YOU CAN’T DO IT, BUT I WON AND I CAN DO EVERYTHING
I WANT HERE,
DAVIS ATTACK IS YES HEARTLESS, SHE HAS SHOWN HER INNERSELF AND
IT’S NOT PRETTY, BEWARE OF A HEARTLESS PERSON SEEKING POWER,
BETTER BEFORE THAN TOO LATE,
I BET SHE HAS A PEN AND A PHONE ALSO,
@drjohn: If everyone had some skin in the game,we wouldn’t have 30 to 40 of the Fortune 500 companies paying negative taxes, actually being a welfare recipient of the tax payers.
If employers such as Walmart, the banking industry, prominent motel chains, et al had more skin in the game and paid their full time employees a living wage, workers like me wouldn’t be subsidizing those workers for them.
Demanding an overall accountability instead of demanding the working class pick up the tab hardly constitutes a poverty lifestyle for the 1st family.
A copy/paste quote makes your argument conclusive?
Full of shit?
@Ronald J. Ward:
Lib strategy, justify bad behavior by pointing to bad behavior by someone else. “hey, it’s okay if I steal from you, everybody else does”
If Obama’s policies hadn’t put so many into the poor house, they wouldn’t mind him spending their money for golfing, parties and vacations. I mean, Obama has done such a great job, he’s entitled to be a glutton, right?
@Ronald J. Ward: Gee, Ron.
Sounds like you are for a re-working of our national tax codes.
I’d love to see then simplified.
Obama has been here for 5 years and done the opposite; made them more complex.
The income tax code and its associated regulations contain almost 5.6 million words.
That’s seven times as many words as the Bible.
By way of comparison, War and Peace is only 1,444 pages.
Taxpayers now spend about 5.4 billion hours a year trying to comply with 2,500 pages of tax laws.
If you go to the US Government Printing Office ( http://www.gpo.gov ), you can order a complete set of Title 26 of the US Code of Federal Regulations (that’s the part written by the IRS), all twenty volumes of it, at the bargain price of $974, shipping included.
Corporations use tax experts, as do a lot of individuals.
Use of experts leads to savings in areas taxpayers might have missed.
Audits can correct any mistakes made.
So, if ” 30 to 40 of the Fortune 500 companies paying negative taxes,” as you claim, I am sure the IRS looked over their forms and figures to make sure it was all up-&-up.
How so? Can you site a specific executive order or signed legislation to validate that?
Nanny G
it will be nice to have the next president scrap it all,
I can see the joy in the faces of those who have been harass by this damnation book,
they where punish and had to pay on the minute the thug ask them,
and most where poor struggling to live free of welfare dependancy,
OBAMACARE.
O’Care is a tax and is enforced through the IRS.
6,700, more new agents according to the IRS’ own figures — and more money — about $1 billion more than the current budget.
This after 1,200 agents were already dedicated to the implementation of O’Care.http://www.treasury.gov/about/budget-performance/CJ14/10.%20IRS%20CJ%20FINAL%20v2.pdf
There are 18 new taxes in Obamacare.http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/special-obamacare-taxes-AUG.jpg
There are 47 new provisions Obamacare charges the IRS with implementing, according to the Government Accountability Office.http://www.gao.gov/assets/330/320403.pdf
@Ronald J. Ward: Of course, Ronald, no other President had run a campaign on changing the way Washington operated, being open, honest and transparent, imploring the rest of us to make sacrifices and just suck it up as he muddles through hoping against hope that the economy is just going to heal itself (because he damn sure doesn’t have a clue as to what to do). Meanwhile, he takes extravagant vacations, outings, weekends and throws lavish parties for his homies.
Now, if Obama is throwing a state dinner for a head of state, then I EXPECT him to put forth the best and most the United States of America has to offer. However, when he is throwing a soiree’ for his fellow “hate the rich” rich liberals, he can do that on his own nickel because I take great offense at footing the bill for a single one of those anti-American hypocrites.
As I questioned earlier, how often did Obama take his family to Hawaii for Christmas for two weeks before I started paying the bills? As far as I can find, that would be none. But, one he got the pin number to the big ATM called the Treasury, the sky is now the limit. The same goes for a weekend with wifey, regardless of cost or inconvenience to the area folks. In other words, while he asks others to sacrifice and make do with less (mostly of his own making) he lives it up like he has never before in his life; not because he is doing it for national prestige, but because he can.
As Michelle would say of the commoners, as she takes up the cell phones of those elitist snobs lining up for her latest party (so none of the realities of what goes on leaks out), “let them eat celery” (because she doesn’t approve of cake, though her big butt implies otherwise).
Bill BURRIS
GEEZ YOU’RE GOOD,
Just remember, the disparity between the rich and poor has grown under Obama. Plus, there are much more people entering the poor class as the middle class is squeezed and the poverty index rises.
Tired American
I heard at FOX NEWS, today,
some big company are letting go thousands each of employees<
they must know something we don't,
BYE
@drjohn: #23
You reminded me of one time when the economy was down, and energy costs were going up. Johnny Carson said that the wealthy people’s idea of saving energy is to turn the temperature down on their heated swimming pool.
@Ronald J. Ward: #26
Keep in mind that congress passed the laws that lets these companies not pay any taxes, and in some cases, even get a tax refund after paying NO taxes. Write your members of congress to change the law so they are fair for all. I would be for dropping ALL taxes from businesses, since the customers are the ones who pay the company’s taxes in the higher prices they produce. Personal taxes would have to go up, but it would average out, since the prices of ALL products would be lower.
Both parties have had the white house and the congress, and each one only made the corporate taxes worse. Did you complain to your politicians about the tax structure when they were in office? No.
FAIR TAX
@Nanny G: #31
Let’s not forget about the 111 new bureaucracies obamacare will create that we will have to pay for.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/02/house-republicans-new-bureaucracies-health-care/
@Smorgasbord:
Ummm, so that explains why after well over a decade of the Bush tax cuts and business making record taxes and paying record low taxes (most of those other460 who aren’t enjoying the negative taxes are paying in the range of .2% to 1.5%), wages have gone way up while consumer prices have gone way down?
Once again, wage inequality and that Plutocratic mindset is indeed a winning hand for Democrats if they don’t blow it. Hell, the cards are already on the table and all Dems have to do is drag in the pot-ifthey can just do that without screwing it p.
What’s wrong with that thinking is that it contradicts many of the right’s very arguments about supply and demand. If corporations could already get higher prices, they’d indeed be getting them. The concept that corporations would concede profits or lower prices simply because they’re doing well in another area is naive.
Another area where your argument fails is that it removes corporate economy driven incentives. If a business has an adjusted gross income of $1 million with a tax liability of 35%, they are very likely to invest in new equipment, buy warehouses, new vehicles, hire employees, give raises, and enhance their own business while stimulating the economy. If they have no tax liability, they simply keep the money.
Also, your Social Darwinism and Plutocratic genuflecting demonstrates that slavery mindset that seems to be so prevalent with today’s conservatives, or to tone that rhetoric down a bit, perhaps the thinking of taking from the worker and simply giving to the rich. You’re for “dropping all taxes from businesses”. The problem is that if you have a paper or bourbon or auto maker etc build a plant and hire around 1000 people, that’s going to incur expenses that you want to pass on to workers. Assuming that plant grows and makes huge profits, it may require a wider road, stop lights, and/or additional police patrol. State codes may require an additional fire truck.
What you’re advocating is for those expenses to be picked up by middle class workers while the business takes in huge profits just to keep. Cost associated with that profitable business are forced upon farmer Jones and mechanic Bob and Joe the plumber (both real and fake plumbers).
Your concept has been tried and failed.
I might also add that while that “fair tax” has a nice catchy name implying that it might be, well, “fair”, I’ve yet to see one that is. Looking at those proposed by Newt, Perry, Cain, etc, they’ve all promoted what you’re promoting which is pretty much a free pass for the wealthy. If you look into any of those 3, they all leave profitable corporations paying around .2%.
@Ronald J. Ward: Companies have to compete and to compete, they have to have competitive prices. Reducing the taxes would reduce the costs of doing business and, inevitably, they would drop prices.
Bush’s tax cuts resulting in cuts to capital gains taxes (which encourages investments, as opposed to raising capital gains taxes which impedes investment) resulted in an economic expansion. Lesson NOT learned by this administration, which wants ITS money first and expects the producers to just redouble their efforts in order to keep up with federal demands for funds. It just won’t work that way.
@Ronald J. Ward:
So you admit democrats are marxists. Thanks.
Good state example of how wealth redistribution trumps ”the children,” or any other openly stated goal of gov’t funds:
WHY?
The Working Families Party.
The Working Families Party is basically run by the most leftist leaders in the labor movement — the Transport Workers Union, the Communication Workers of America and United Federation of Teachers, among others.
Union leaders, including UFT chief Michael Mulgrew, are part of the coalition.
De Blasio wants to raise the income tax on the rich to use it to pay for labor contracts and raises.
From the Wall Street Journal:
Duh!
And look to Obama to want the exact same thing, legally or not: giving raises to federal employees.
Did he know this?
As of 2011, the average private sector employee made $59,804 in salary, and $28,000 in benefits,
while the average federal workers made $74,436 in salary and $40,000 in benefits?
So, according to Obama, federal employees need a raise?
@Pete:
Because I oppose Social Darwinism and Plutocracy?
I’m wondering if you might slow down, wipe the froth, and maybe try to give a coherent response that’s not akin to an admission the dog ate your homework.
Listening to liberals complain that the wealthy aren’t paying enough in taxes shows their slavish devotion to marxism, when the top 10% of earners in this country are paying over three quarters of the income taxes taken each year, while 47% of Americans pay zero taxes.
Obama’s policies have resulted in a widening of this wealth gap leftists hyperventilate over, yet somehow conservatives are to blame?
There are more Americans on food stamps than the entire population of Spain since Obama took office, yet conservatives are somehow responsible?
Unemployment is tbe worst since the Great Depression under Obama’s policies, and the number of Americans in the workforce is the lowest in over 35 years, and evil corporations are to blame?
Please explain how arbitrarily setting a politically defined “living wage” can possibly help the economy and get people out of poverty. Sure, people who are lucky enough to have a job will initially see an increase in cashflow. But in order to stay open after having the government impose higher wages, with the requisite increase in the employer-paid payroll and unemployment taxes, the business owner would have to raise his prices and cut the number of employees to keep from going bankrupt. So 3ven if the employee with the “living wage” has a few more bucks each month left over after increased taxes are taken out by uncle sugar, the increased prices he will have to pay for everything he needs to feed, clothe and house his family will eat up any money from a government hack imposed “living wage”.
Government doesn’t produce anything that increases wealth. The government only has money that it takes from individuals who worked to produce resources for profit. The more the government takes through taxes and imposed costs of usually stupid regulations, the less money the for profit companies have to invest in growing the business…meaning fewer employees, less infrastructural purchases, and less dividend income to those who invest in the company via individual retirement accounts. Only a leftist believes that there is a magical way to impose increased costs on businesses that won’t cause people to lose jobs and prices to go up.
There have been trial balloons sent out a few times from the more extreme leftists in congress over the last couple of years hinting at the government taking over 401k accounts as a means of keeping SS afloat. Imagine what would happen to the stock market should politicians begin moving forward on such an insane, totally marxist idea. You would see a total collapse of the US stock market as people yanked out their money and sent it to overseas investments. Consider for a moment just how despicable it is that the government limits how much money you can save and invest in your retirement.
It is long past time to repeal the Marx-devised “progressive” income tax and go back to a straight sales tax. That way everyone pays their “fair share” based on what they purchase, rather than 47% of the population living as parasites off those who work hard to make a living.
Leftism is based on lies, greed, envy and selfishness.
Ronald J. Ward
you can skip your advice to CONSERVATIVES, such kind of advices
are offensive and would fit the liberal s like a glove,
but it doesn’t work here,
so get down from your horse and express yourself like a true AMERICAN
speak to a tolerant CONSERVATIVE, SMARTER THAN YOU,
the libs who come here have to learn their manners,
this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG, well kept, and FOR OPINION EXCHANGE,
NOT FOR BASHING IF YOU DON’T WANT TO BE BASH,
THE DEMOCRATES should balance their priority, in a fair way, which is not done now, we know the UNIONS ARE RUNNING
THE WHITE HOUSE, SINCE OBAMA IS VOTED IN, and there is an abuse here, to the citizens OUTSIDE THE GOVERNMENT,
if they give food stamps, BENEFIT,AND raise, to those paid by the citizens,
they must take it off from the public employees in the government, TOO MANY OF THEM IN THERE,PAID DOUBLE COMPARE TO THE PEOPLE,
they keep hiring on the pockets of the working people making half of what the public employees are making, as oppose to public employees in the government,which the citizens pay,
this is a viscious unequal , unjust,way and punishing to the working citizens who are sick and tired of that kind of governing
by unequalisation of the citizens, NOT THE POOR,
THAT’S WHERE THE UNEQUALISATION IS, they have no right to force business to raise their salary,
how about them getting down on salary FAIRNESS FOR THE PEOPLE, to pay for all their employees why take it on the business,
take it on your own side first, otherwise you at the government leadership ,
are stealing from the citizens of this AMERICA WHICH YOU SWORE TO PROTECT,
and it make you AND THE WHOLE PARTY OF DEMOCRATS unfit to lead this TOLERANT NATION, by accepting to give
such unfair demands,to the people outside your GOVERNMENT,
YOU ABUSE THE POWER GIVEN TO YOU, BY SPENDING AWAY THE PEOPLE’S MONEY.
@Ronald J. Ward: #40
The free enterprise system always bring down excessively high prices. If some companies won’t lower their prices, entrepreneurs will start up businesses and sell for less. This is how most businesses get started.
The way the laws are now is that if a business buys some equipment, they can’t take the full amount of the price paid off of their taxes in one year. They have to take the deduction over several years. There is also the problem like a truck driver had who owned his own truck. His accountant told him he had to spend $2,000 more for the year or he would pay more in income taxes. Businesses also have to figure their next year’s taxes ahead of time to see how the figures for the present year will affect their next year’s taxes. Sometimes they know that if they make more than a certain amount, they will pay more in taxes, and wind up with less. They would be better off to only make that certain amount and no more for the year.
If a business can “keep the money”, then that means they have money left over to expand. This means they won’t have to borrow as much to do the same expanding, and they won’t have to pay back as much. Lower operating costs mean lower prices. The business owners know that if they keep the prices too high, people will quit buying from them and go elsewhere. That is the best thing about the free enterprise system.
This is also why I got such great deals on my ATV and my pickup. Both dealers knew I could go to several different places to get the same products they were selling.
If businesses are taxed, they should all be taxed the same percentage, except under certain situations.
Are you saying that only middle class people buy in stores? The expenses are spread out to ALL customers of ALL businesses, even yacht manufacturers, fur coat makers, and other businesses that cater to the wealthy. I think you mentioned a 35% average tax rate on businesses. Using that, it means that businesses can sell their products for about 35% less and still make the same amount of profit.
It is estimated that executive business meetings average about 25% of their time trying to figure out how to pay the least amount in taxes. That time can be use more productively.
You don’t think the Flat Tax where everybody pays the same percentage is fair? The only reason it isn’t fair is that it does’t tax the ones who work for cash, or can find a way to hide income. You keep saying that the wealthy should pay more of their fair share, but you don’t seem to realize that even though they pay the same percentage, they are taxed a lot more. If a flat tax would be set at 10% for example, a person earning $50,000 per year would pay $5,000 in taxes. A wealthy person making $50,000,000 per year would pay $5,000,000 in taxes. They are earning more, but they are paying more. Isn’t that fair?
@Pete: #45
The states that have done that are doing better than the states that didn’t.
@Pete: Perhaps Obama WANTS the wealthy to become more wealthy since they are the ones that contribute the lion’s share of the tax revenues. To hell with the middle class.