Barack Obama’s soak-the-rich plan is taking shape quite nicely:
COLUMBUS, Ohio - Democrat Barack Obama would apply the Social Security payroll tax to all annual incomes above $250,000, which he says would affect the wealthiest 3 percent of Americans.
The presidential candidate told senior citizens in Ohio on Friday that it is unfair for middle-class earners to pay the Social Security tax “on every dime they make, while millionaires and billionaires are only paying it on a very small percentage of their income.”
That quote alone is an example of the audacity of mendacity represented by Obama’s campaign. He resorts to the time-honored leftist tactic of class warfare, preying on the wealth envy of his audience. And, in so doing, he magically transforms anyone making $250,000 a year into “millionaires” and “billionaires”. Exactly what kind of math did they teach in those expensive private schools, Senator?
More revealingly, Obama is proving he is not “post-partisan,” ”post-racial,” or post-much of anything. In fact, he is showing himself to be little more than a repackaged, trite liberal Democrat. (Well, maybe he is something more - like a trite socialist Democrat.) Despite the fact that tax increases have repeatedly been shown to hinder, not help, the economy, he is shamelessly pandering to the prejudices and jealousies of traditional Democrat constituencies. So much for hope and change.
It matters little that Obama’s plan would not impose the tax on incomes between the current cut-off of $102,000, and his rather arbitrary number of $250,000. What is important is what this idea tells us about the message of an Obama candidacy: Rich people are bad, and ought to be punished; poor people are noble, oppressed by the rich, and are entitled to their share of the wealth - the implicit message being that the rich are somehow the reason the poor are poor.
Not that this should come as a surprise to anyone with a brain wave. Obama has not been named America’s most liberal senator for nothing. Some Republicans are relieved that Hillary Clinton will not get the nomination; one wonders, however, whether this wish granted will become our curse.
To be fair, Obama is doing little to hide his far-left agenda. His own website touts his determination to end “special-interest loopholes and deductions, such as those for the oil and gas industry.” Of course, ending a deduction amounts to a tax increase, which is the real goal, despite the fact that closing the “loopholes” will even further hinder exploration and research and development.
Obama also pledges to “stop the abuse of tax shelters.” This is little more than code for raising the capital gains tax (he would nearly double it) and ending other investment opportunities, all of which may temporarily increase government collections but will have a longer-term negative effect on the private economy. It doesn’t take an economist to realize that less money in the hands of citizens means less money to invest, buy a house, go on vacation, or simply save. Like the Clintons, Obama prefers the Government be in charge of more “investment” (spending), which means it must take from us the funds to “invest.” (Make no mistake, Obama will insist that the national debt leaves us with no choice other than to raise taxes, but that is argument secondary to the sexier image of Saint Obama taming the robber barons.)
Despite the fresh, pretty package that many see in Obama, the true colors of a Big Government Democrat always bleed through. Obama is no different. He seems willing, indeed eager, to do whatever it taxes to tax us more, from increasing payroll and income taxes to eliminating tax incentives to invest and save.
As if obliged to pay tribute to the Great Democrat Tax God, Obama predictably invokes the Holy Grail of current liberal orthodoxy when he promises to “reverse” the “irresponsible” Bush tax cuts “for the wealthy.”
But even as he intones the tired mantra of “tax breaks for the rich,” we get a glimpse into Obama’s political soul. He says the Bush tax cuts would “cost the nation over $2.3 trillion.” This is disengenuous. What he really means is that these lower taxes would cost government spenders $2.3 trillion. Only a reversal of those cuts, a reversal favored by Obama, would cost “the nation” - if “nation” is defined as its citizens. The odd implication of his rhetoric is that the money somehow disappears if not in the hands of the government, when, in reality, the money is far better spent by those who make it than by those who take it.
At least Obama is consistent. He is making it painfully clear that he will happily tax anyone and anything - except those he chooses to define as “middle class” and “poor”.
Under Obama, many families who now consider themselves solidly middle class (even struggling, at times) will be surprised to learn that, by virtue of a Presidential election, they have become part of the “rich,” thereby eligible to provide more of their hard-earned dollars to fund government “investment.” While that may help boost their egos, it won’t help the family budget a bit.
Filed Under Front Page ·
Comments
13 Responses to “Obama and taxes: An unchanged liberal agenda”Search
Our Sponsors
Poll
Loading ...LST Book Club
-
Defending Identity: Its Indispensable Role in Protecting Democracy
by Natan Sharansky -
Fear No Evil
by Natan Sharansky -
The Case For Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror
by Anatoly Shcharansky -
The Jewish State: The Struggle for Israel's Soul
by Yoram Hazony -
Bobos in Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There
by David Brooks -
Snobbery: The American Version
by Joseph Epstein -
A Conflict of Visions: Idealogical Origins of Political Struggles
by Thomas Sowell
flockigil
Buck Ofama!
What, a Dim wants to raise taxes and spend more money? I’m shocked, shocked I tell you.
Obama’s tax and economic plan will be absolute disaster for this nation. As John McCain said, Obama is running to serve out the second term of the Carter administration. And, hey, he’s already hired Zbigniew Brzezinski. By the time Zbig gets through with our foreign policy, Russia will own South America.
John Fitzgerald Kennedy and Daniel Patrick Moynihan are spinning in their graves.
How come the “gullible ones” haven’t learn from history? Previous Dimwits have tried the “take from the rich and give to the poor” concept and failed. The poor are still the poor but with a free capitalistic society, they have a chance to get out of their poverty. That can’t be said for “BO”s plan of “tax and WASTE”.
4 - Carter’s second term > Bush’s third term. And I believe a certain democratic president raised taxes during the 1990’s…how did that turn out? And final point, Obama’s top economic guy, Jason Furman, is much more of a centrist than a liberal. He is pro-free trade and has voiced support for privatization of social security.
Houdem:
Lived through both the Carter Presidency and the Bush Presidency.
There’s a reason why Carter only had one term.
I was in the military when Carter was President. We lost more prestige among the nations of the world than Bush ever did because we became a paper tiger and Mulsim Extremists walked right the frik over us and we do nothing.
We were’t even given ammuntion to trai with—and the lack of funding and training resources resulted in the fiasco at Desert One.
Carter punish the oil companines for making “windfall profits” and we ended up with gas lines going around the corners at gas stations.
Carter punished the rich by imposuing “luxury taxes” and the business that caterd to the rich went bust in this country adn went overseas. The ship building industry in Maine nevfer recuperated. We ended up spending more on welfare and unemployment thanwe collected in “luxury taxes”
The absolute WORST part of this is Brezinski. Picking that dunderhead to lead his foreign polcy advisors shows me Obama is dangerously niave and ignorant.
I could give a rosty red rat’s rump if his economic advisor is a centrist. The market will go in the tank before Obama is sworn in because folks will be divesting themselves of investments before the increased Captial Gains Tax comes in.
We’re paying 4 dollars a gallon for gas, and Obama is against increasing domestic production.
We’ve damn near won in Iraq and Obama wants to surrender.
Food prices are rising, and Obama’s answer is to increase my frikkin taxes.
Yah—what a great frikkin idea that is.
With this.
Ranking of presidents from the s&p 500 at the beginning of their term to the s&p 500 at the end of their term.
Bill Clinton 1993-2001 1 433.37 1,342.54 17.4%
Gerald R. Ford August 1974-1977 5 86.02 102.97 17%
Harry S. Truman April 1945-1953 7 13.64 26.57 15.6%
Dwight D. Eisenhower 1953-1961 9 26.57 58.11 14.9%
Ronald Reagan 1981-1989 4 131.65 286.63 14.4%
George H. W. Bush 1989-1993 10 286.63 433.37 14.4%
John F. Kennedy 1961- November1963 3 58.11 74.01 12.4%
Jimmy Carter 1977-1981 6 102.97 131.65
11.2%
Lyndon B. Johnson November 1963-1969 2 74.01 103.86 10.2%
Richard M. Nixon 1969-August 1974 8 103.86 86.02 0.6%
S&P 500 Annualized Total Return (%)
Nice try hammy.
Oh and the mortgage meltdown will be worse than the tech meltdown was. Oh and the mortgage meltdown was preventable while the tech meltdown was not. Oh and Bush is directly responsible for the mortgage meltdown.
They stole the money……… Nevertheless the payroll tax on the high end may actually help the situation slightly. …However, I would rather that they lower the rate and take it all the way up on income and dividends. Say at 3%-5%,( the #’s have to be crunched, where is Bettencourt?) or whatever makes the thing become viable. We cannot keep expecting ONLY working people (under $90,000 per year or whatever it is now.) to pay the full burden, when so many are retiring. The whole economy has to be Taxed in some way to keep the thing going. …I realize that some may see this in a bad light, but we must look outside the box on this one and that’s something the Washingtonians are not good at.
One more thing. If the payroll tax were to be lowered to 3% and it were paid on both income and dividends, That would make it MUCH EASIER for companies to hire people. They would pay the matching 3% and that would go all the way up. If a large concern pays their CEO 20 million, He would pay 60 grand and they would also. If you make $40,000, you and your employer would pay $1200 each. The 3% may not be the magic #, but it should be looked into. I think I’l include this in my Minicule fair tax proposals.