Today, according to Fox News, the President will make a speech that includes a proposal to raise taxes on those making more than $250,000 per year. Fox says Obama will make the pitch on the grounds of “tax fairness.”
While the effect of this tax warfare strategy for the President during the rest of his re-election campaign is unknown, it does put him in a bit of a tight spot with Congress. As the Wall Street Journal noted this morning, a number of Senate Democrats have gone on the record either opposing the President’s position or being very hesitant to fully back such a proposal. Without their support, such a proposal will not pass the Senate. In fact, I would go so far as to say their opposition could very well embolden Republicans in Congress to call the President’s bluff and offer their own formal counterproposal.
Additionally, the math is not on the side of the President. Using numbers from the liberal Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, which says extending policies for those making over $250,000 would cost the government $829 billion over ten years, the President’s proposal would negate about 1.88% of spending over the next decade. And that assumes we spend what the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) baseline estimate says we will – $44 trillion. If we don’t enact the significant spending cuts CBO includes in its baseline budgeting, I suspect spending would be much higher, somewhere in the $47 trillion to $50 trillion range. Which makes the President’s proposal related to fairness when it comes to deficit reduction even more laughable.
Finally, to quote a John Hawkins tweet,
The people who aren’t paying any income tax at all right now are using gov’t services. Is 0 in income tax their “fair share” of the taxes?
While almost all Americans do pay some sort of federal taxes – from taxes on cigarettes to payroll taxes – John’s point is an excellent one: the 50% or so of taxpayers who don’t pay non-payroll income taxes benefit from federally-funded roads, education services, immigration control, the military and other federal services.
Many Dems, as is pointed out here, say the cut-off point should be $1 million per household income, not $250,000.
Obama is doing his empty rhetoric of class warfare.
He probably hopes he is loses in Congress so he can blame Republicans for thwarting his ”progress.”
If you look in the Bible at the ”works of the flesh,” or the “7 deadly sins,” both include ENVY.
Both include COVETOUSNESS.
Yet these are Obama’s strengths.
He incites Americans to ENVY.
He incites them to COVETOUSNESS.
He appeals to people’s lowest, most contemptible emotions.
@Nan G:
Funny how you bring the 7 deadly sins into the discussion, when just yesterday a commenter made the same analogy.
W74 said…
To the Anon who posted about Supermarkets:
“Blacks are the embodiment of the Seven Deadly Sins. Whether or not you’re religious this is strikingly evident and trying to avoid these sins can actually improve your life.
Blacks and their embodyment of Sin:
1. Pride. There’s nothing wrong with pride in one’s community (out language just doesn’t have a separate word for this) but having pride such as that you consider yourself to be a supreme being akin to God is where the sin lies. Pride in your family, community, children, neighborhood, country, those things are not “pride” in the individualistic sense and like I said our language simply has no distinct word for this. Blacks worship themselves and so are prideful whereas we WNs tend to be “prideful” only in our communities and the society we’ve built.
2. Gluttony. The prevalence of FF and Chicken shops wherever blacks live is testament to this. They are obese and the only ones who take care of their bodies are the ones who desire more lust. It’s not just about food either. Their attitude always pushes them to cry “MORE MORE MORE, We want MORE” instead of relizing that some of the best things in life are simple and come in small doses.
3. Lust. The prevalence of AIDS in Africa, Haiti and anywhere in the Western world where the black happens to dwell is testament to this. They are sexually ravanous beings and rape statistics will prove this as well. Most blacks in Africa proper do not consider rape to be a violation of a woman’s personal rights. This brings us to our next point: Greed.
4. Greed, like rape for the “fun” of it as blacks do is another common problem for them. This can be shown by their wearing of ridiculously showy (and ugly) bling, driving overpriced vehicles any sensible person would balk at, putting rims on those vehicles, and the fact that the average black woman spends upwards of $5,000/year at salons and nail parlors in a lackluster attempt to appear attractive (and also look more like beautiful White women).
5. Sloth, blacks are lazy. It is why they are disproportionately represented in handout programs and why you can see them sitting on their porch stoops and apartment balconies during working hours. Most play Xbox or Playstation all day whenever they’re not sleeping, F-ing, or stealing. Alcohol, Cigarettes, and Drug use are the order of the day. In my apartment complex most will not walk to the dumpster to dispose of their trash, rather leaving it for the maintanance staff to “take care of” and they would rather park in the fire lane (EVERY SINGLE TIME) at the grocery store (for which the country has FINALLY started writing $120 tickets) instead of walking the 50 feet from the center of the parking lot. Most will park in a handicap space and put up a fake tag just to save themselves 10 feet of walking. Obesity, like Gluttony is a testament to their sloth.
6. Wrath. Oft discussed in our circle. Blacks (in their self Pride) will take offense to almost anything, perceived or real, important or benign, and will react to these slights in disproportional, sometimes catastrophic ways. The riots we discuss here are group manifestations of their Wrath, as are Flashmobs. Individual manifestations of this behavior are more commonly referred to as Chimpouts.
7. Envy. And they envy us for what they know to be true, that we, our families, and our communities are better. They all think that we “have money” but even the poorest White is more dignified than the wealthiest black afweete, or rapper thug, or any other regular thug on the street. We cannot stress this point enough, they envy us and would rather starve as long as it meant the chance to bring us down to their level.”
July 8, 2012 7:02 AM
This like when Obama was told that his idea to rais capital gains taxes has always resulted in lower tax revenues. Obama said that it didn’t matter, raising taxes on the rich is fair even though there is actually a loss by the whole country. He keeps pushing this “fairness at any cost issue”. Maybe they didn’t teach mathmatics in his madrasa school!
@Keyser Söze:
KS, I specifically wrote about Obama’s appeal to class envy and in his redistributive ploys to covetousness.
I did NOT say that ”all blacks are X, Y or Z.”
You claim some poster here did just that yesterday.
Don’t lump me in with that.
It is the fallacy of the hasty generalization.
@Randy:
Correct, Randy.
Roberton Williams Of The Tax Policy Center Estimated That Taxing All Millionaires At 50 Percent, “A Tax Rate That’s So High It Probably Would Never Happen”, Would Only Solve 10 Percent Of The Deficit Problem.
http://www.npr.org/2011/09/19/140599307/does-buffett-rule-add-up-for-obama-deficit-plan
I am often brought back to the same question: Whose side is Obama on?
Those families earning (earning, not collecting dividends and interest) $250,000/year are mostly small business people.
These are Obama’s targets as of today.
Why does no one talk about Obama’s marriage tax penalty? If you are single, and make under $200K, you won’t see your taxes increase (right!) but if you make a combined income of $250K (so one makes $200K and the spouse makes $50K), you will see your taxes increase. That means that that a married couple, who don’t have enough deductions to itemize, who makes roughly $270 combined, will be hit with a new tax compliments of Obama.
It almost seems like Obama doesn’t like married couples.
@Nan G:
I made no claims of where it came from, nor did I lump you in with anybody else, just pointed out what is being discussed around the country.
@Keyser Söze:
Link to that comment, please.
“Obama is doing his empty rhetoric of class warfare.”
There’s nothing “empty” about it. In the category of differences between republican and democratic philosophies, and in the category of things that make a difference in the lives of the American middle class, few things get more real.
@Nan G:
http://stuffblackpeopledontlike.blogspot.com/2012/07/armed-response-what-to-have-in-riot.html
@Nan G:
The first link was to the original story, this will take you to the comment you requested.
http://stuffblackpeopledontlike.blogspot.com/2012/07/armed-response-what-to-have-in-riot.html
@Jason: Well Jason, the Lefties seem to keep thinking that if they keep doing the same things over and over again they will get different results. That is the definitation of insanity. The conseratives believe that we shoule first learn from the mistakes of others and then learn from our mistakes. I guess that is quite a difference in philosophy!
He’s already raised taxes on the middle class via Obamawhatever.
Sadly 0-bama has NO clue how to stimulate our economy or create jobs. All he knows how to do is to divide our country with his class warfare and racist rhetoric!! This is NOT what America needs.
@Randy: “Well Jason, the Lefties seem to keep thinking that if they keep doing the same things over and over again they will get different results.”
Based on what I’ve been hearing from Mitt Romney, that seems to be the republican plan. The difference this time is that the new tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires will require the sacrifice of whatever is left of the middle class, along with the nation’s social programs. Just running up a few more trillions in public debt won’t cut it.
As usual, the details the republicans are revealing don’t add up to what they promise. Unless you’re rich.
And, pray tell, material did you read that details the tax cut plans Jason? Did a lawn gnome write it all down about how it’s a Republic ploy to help only the rich? Really? Sources will help sell your case a bit more than just saying, “Based on what I’ve…”
From reading the current House Bill, it paints a different picture than what you dream of for those even under the 40k a year income level if tax cuts are not extended.
And what’s even more odd about the, “Damn dirty rich” argument and needing to increase their taxes is that they are the proverbial golden goose of the Tax revenue in the current market right now, so I don’t get this whole notion that increasing their taxation rate even further will help anything when they’re currently the major contributing tax base to start with. All it will do is encourage those damn, “dirty” rich to remove their taxable assets and businesses outside of the Nation or sell it off to foriegn Nations (Hawker Beechcraft’s latest deal with Soverign Aerospace of China.) I can’t believe the Liberals of today want to re-live Jimmy Carter’s era of high taxations and collapsing economy… And they have the balls to blame Regan for all of that.
@Keyser Söze:
That’s an insult – to even spend a few minutes there made me feel icky.
I used to moderate a blog a few years back.
One poster put up (with commentary) some editorial by a racist of the white supremacy variety.
Oh, the hate that followed!
And, as a moderator, I had a chance to trace back some of the new posters on that thread.
More hate.
The use of the “Seven Deadly Sins” in NO WAY puts me in the company of that site.
Actually, I was probably in the wrong to use that common more modern phrase for some of the worst sins listed in Scripture.
It is not canon.
It emerged only after the Catholic Church and Dante made them famous.
It is simply more well known than the ones I should have stuck with which are known as the ”works of the flesh.”
The real group I had in mind come straight from the Bible book of Galatians at 5:19-21.
The two lists are NOT the same!
Serves me right trying to make my comments relate to people with little or no understanding of Scripture.