Valerie Jarrett recently suggested that the idea Obama administration has launched a class warfare campaign is only known because of Fox News. True all the other major network’s would cover the story the way Pravda would cover the communist party in the former Soviet Union, passing along the party propaganda as news. However after years of Obama insisting we need to raise taxes on the rich, without regard to the economic impact, in the name of some misguided idea of fairness, I think the American people see he is all about class warfare. Recently he is insisting on raising taxes on people making over $200,000 next year, suggesting the GOP should just forget about what is best for the country and cave into his terrible economic plan.
The coverage of this on networks like ABC should please Valerie Jarrett as they pass along the ridiculously useless statistic that only 3% of small businesses will be affected by Obama’s plan to increase taxes. First of all most of those businesses not affected are not the ones that will provide the job growth we are looking for. Many of the small businesses not affected are people looking to supplement their income or provide work for themselves only, with no intention of growing the business to hire others. The more important statistic is that 40% of the revenue to be collected from this tax increase is from small businesses, and that number would be closer to 50% in good economic times. In addition, the vast majority of the small business creating jobs will be the ones that are successful and affected by this tax increase.
President Obama has said we should not raise taxes in a recession, although we are not technically in a recession, we are perilously close with many projecting we will slip back into recession. The last thing we need to do is to increase marginal tax rates to take even more from the private sector so it can be wasted by Obama on things like high speed rail, Solyndra, and Tom Barrett’s trolley.
We should extend the Bush tax rates through next year, but let the raid on social security funds end. Then we can let the campaign decide the vision for the future. Personally I think to bring the deficit down we should cut spending and reform entitlements first. If we can‘t do those things, we will not be able to ever raise enough money to balance the budget.
Obama is running a campaign to pit one group against another, with class warfare as the centerpiece. He really has no choice with his record of complete failure; he can’t run on his record. His only plan for the future is to do more of the same, which is the definition of insanity to keep doing something that does not work. Obama may be successful, because as Mark Belling says, he is telling a lie that people want to believe. Obama is saying if we just tax the rich more we can fix our fiscal problems. The claim is ridiculous, but it just might work as it plays into people’s greed. If we fall for it we will all pay dearly in the long run.
Wasn't it responsible consumerism that led to the very best of days for our nation?
National defense would obviously be priority number 1, as it's expressly mandated by the Constitution, although, I'm sure there's plenty of fat in that budget which can be cut! Veteran affairs would be priority number 2. Segregated funds, with revenues raised by the excise taxes, would continue to fund their related purposes. Everything else would be assessed by current need and availability of funds during the budgeting process.
Of course living outside one's means is irresponsible. But to indulge in luxuries if you have the means, and a sound cushion of liquidity as a backup in case something unexpected were to arise, is most certainly not irresponsible - it's the American way and dream, isn't it? Envy, desire, and a false sense of entitlement is what leads people to live beyond their means and get themselves into trouble - and that is irresponsible and it needs to stop. But you can't honestly blame the haves for tempting others into being irresponsible - that's such a ludicrous argument! Instead, the proper solution is personal responsibility and sound individual fiscal policy. I'm by no means a wealthy person. But I take proper care of what I have and spend a dollar wisely, which has allowed me to build up a cushion of liquidity and take part in having some toys. Just because I'm not living paycheck to paycheck and have a few toys, Bren and other liberals have called me affluent - PLEASE! I know plenty of people that make far more than I do that live like slobs and spend money like a fish out of water, and thus are in fact living paycheck to paycheck, and yet many liberals would have compassion for such people! Like Michael Moore's presented sob stories in his film Capitalism: A Love Story. Those people are living that way clearly by choice!
The lazy and unwise should have less than the prudent, hard-working, and wise - otherwise, where's the incentive to be prudent, hard-working, and wise?
http://factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/ Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased? A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not. The Clinton years showed the effects of a large tax increase that Clinton pushed through in his first year, and that Republicans incorrectly claim is the "largest tax increase in history." It fell almost exclusively on upper-income taxpayers. Clinton’s fiscal 1994 budget also contained some spending restraints.
As for my specific tax code, every case is different and that's why I prefer our existing tax code (with some corrections) to cookie cutter %s. I think my tax rate is fair, I have no complaints. I've answered your question twice now. And I'm not quite sure how you can compare my car to multiple offshore accounts. Perhaps it was assembled in a Right to Work for Less state, but Toyota at least infuses cash into our economy. Explain how offshore accounts work for America, please?
There you ago again with blaming the drug dealers - only this time the drug dealer is Madison Avenue and AMC's Mad Men (Don Draper and company). Detroit's only poor decade was the '70's. And the product coming from Japan and Europe at that time wasn't much better in terms of quality and longevity in all honestly, was it? But for some reason, it was enough to turn the masses against Detroit. I recall that in 5th grade of public school, 1989, my teacher actually 'taught' the class that foreign cars were better than American made cars - that's absurd! I was the only kid in the class that refused to drink the Kool-Aid and argued extensively with the teacher about it. In retrospect, I should have told my parents and taken the complaint to the school board! The public schools here were indoctrinating children against the American industrial worker. In Asian cultures, the schools teach their children domestic production patriotism in their consumerism. And we do the exact opposite - it's incredible really! I'm sorry, but that's messed up! You hear all the statistics claiming that the product coming out of Detroit was so comparatively bad, but the real world experiences tell a different tale, as evidenced on any discussion board pertaining to the subject. Here's just one example: http://www.businessweek.com/debateroom/archives/2009/02/americans_shoul.html Bottom line is that Americans are stupid and greedy, and now they feel entitled to boot!
So, you prefer a tax code: so huge and complicated that the average person can't make heads or tales of it; is full of loopholes; and effectively picks winners and losers? Ok, that clears up a lot - thanks for answering honestly! Seeing as how you keep on bringing it up, I must ask how a Welsh vacation contributes to the US tourism industry?
In the meantime the US infrastructure is crap. Outdated, unfunded, and in disrepair. Even if we could recover economically, it is unsustainable because China will be doing things better, cheaper, and faster.
It should be noted that the congress could repeal NTR at any time they want, and after the T-Square incident in China, there were some abortive attempts to do just that. However, they did all fail, as will future efforts to do so, simply because of the complexity of our relationship with China and, more importantly, $$$ interests by huge American multinationals... Get used to it, America has made the choice NOT to be the Greatest Economic Nation on the face of the planet... we just want to get rid of a tanned president and fight 24/7 like kindergarten children in congress... We really are addicted to the Scorched Earth Policy… We have met the enemy, and it is US. It does not have to be this way...
Nothing in my post had anything to do with the 'tanned' President. Perhaps your love for dark skin is an indication of YOUR fixation with sodomy.
He is an economic traitor, and he is no doubt one of the puerile mindsT-Party, childishly parroting freedom and liberty, when that is being taken away by corporations. Love him talking about this push back as greed. What the hell moron got us into this problem in the first place? Thanks for writing this and demonstrating why this country is going to hell thanks to traitor like him. Tell us Bryant. What is this status quo getting us?
So sick and tired of self-loathing people like you who cry for the rich. This county is benefiting nothing from them.
Admittedly, this has nothing to do with BJs and Sodomy, but, neither does "your point"...