“Acts of Retribution: There will be Blood”: Obama’s New Bestseller
Of course, anyone who was paying attention to the Obama dramaturgical troupe when its performance was still off-off-Broadway in previews knows that “A New Era of Responsibility” is running entirely according to script. Obama told us he was going to declare war on the affluent. Why are we surprised? Why are many Democrats and even such prominent supporters as Warren Buffett suddenly saying (in effect), “Hey, wait a minute, what do you guys think you’re doing?” As Mr. Henninger notes, as we approach the dénouement of this morality play, it is suddenly dawning on people that “something deeper is underway here than merely using higher taxes to fund his policy goals in health, education and energy.”
The “top 1%” isn’t just going to pay for these policies. Many of them would assent to that. The rancorous language used to describe these taxpayers makes it clear that as a matter of public policy they will be made to “pay for” the fact of their wealth — no matter how many of them worked honestly and honorably to produce it. No Democratic president in 60 years has been this explicit. . . .
The economy as most people understand it was a second-order concern of the stimulus strategy. The primary goal is a massive re-flowing of “wealth” from the top toward the bottom, to stop the moral failure they see in the budget’s “Top One Percent of Earners” chart.
Shortly before the election, I wrote in this space about Obama, selfishness, and liberal guilt. “What prodigies of expiation,” I asked back in those halcyon days, “might be accomplished were this young, charismatic, half-black apostle of egalitarian change elected President of the United States?” All you had to do was listen to his speeches to see what was coming. As I said just days before the election (just about the time Obama said he was only a few days away from “fundamentally transforming the United States of America”),
His comment to Joe the Plumber gave us some indication: he would set about trying to “spread the wealth around.” But redistributionist initiatives do not take place in a vacuum. They unfold in a context of moral expectation. And this brings me to what may be the most alarming thing Obama let slip in the course of his campaign. I mean his suggestion, uttered in the final few days of the race, that those who do not favor higher taxes are guilty of “selfishness.” (In criticizing his tax and welfare plan, Obama said, McCain and Palin “wanted to make a virtue out of selfishness.”) . . . .
Because he regards the American people as essentially selfish (a sentiment memorably reinforced by Michelle Obama when she described the America was “just downright mean“), Obama cannot help regarding success as a form of failure. That side of Obama’s program does not play well outside his inner circle, so he has been careful to overlay it with seductive talk about “tax cuts for 95 percent of taxpayers”–an absurdity on the face of it since 43 percent of those who file do not pay any income tax at all. (Meanwhile, it is worth remembering that those reporting the top 1 percent of adjusted gross income pay nearly 40 percent of all income taxes collected, while the top 5 percent pay more than 60 percent. To use another word Obama likes, is that “fair”? How much more does he want?)
Selfishness can be a vice. It can also be another name for that “well-ordered self-love” that Thomas Aquinas extolled as “right and natural.” (I have more to say about selfishness and altruism here.) But the important issue facing the American people at the moment is whether they wish to elect a commander-in-chief or a nanny-in-chief. Obama’s seductive rhetoric and and emollient promises have not been able to conceal his ambitions to become America’s protector and nanny-in-chief. He wants you to be happy–but on his terms. He wants to tell you what to drive, what temperature to keep your house, how much to eat. He wants to conscript your children in “voluntary” national service programs that are all-but-mandatory. He wants to determine how prosperous you will be allowed to be–and then to tax you back to a pre-determined level if you make too much.
So here we are then. Our prince has come. The dragon, Wealth, has been put to the sword, and everyone is gathered downstage to await the finale. It turns out, though, that many who bought tickets thought this entertainment was a species of Romance or Comedy that had a happy ending. Others of us knew that wasn’t what was advertized and said so. I suspect this particular drama is going to have a very limited run. As Daniel Henninger put it,
The White House says its goal is simple “fairness.” That may be, as they understand fairness. But Figure 9 makes it clear that for the top earners, there will be blood. This presidency is going to be an act of retribution. In the words of the third book from Mr. Obama, “it is our duty to change it.”
Here’s a prediction: more and more people are going to be waking up to that duty soon, and with a vengeance.
Yep, but never forget our tax code taxes not WEALTH, but INCOME. The Sens Boxer, Feinstein, Kerry, Kennedy etc already have most of their money. Many, I’d guess, live day to day off tax-free municipal bonds, as beloved Breck Girl John Edwards did. They know they wont be affected by Obama’s scheme and can work to block any changes to the arrangement.
Many of those whose wealth is actually in equities (Buffett & Gates,) should be having second thoughts. The middle tier entrepreneurs, who work hard to create their wealth and the future of the country, are, I’d guess, scared spitless, about now.
Roger:
A lot of typically Kimballian rhetoric but not much substance. Obama is only planning on reversing the Bush tax cuts and making a few other, modestly progressive changes. Taxes will still be lower under his budget than they were under Reagan’s. Breathe, Roger, breathe.
One more thing. The “class warfare” rhetoric is all in your head: it’s pure projection. And what’s so outlandish about talk of “fairness”? Look at it this way: The flatter the tax code, the greater the tax burden is on less wealthy earners. After all, the necessities cost the same for everyone, rich and poor alike, and a flat rate would take a bigger bite out of a $45,000 a year salary than out of a $250,000 a year or a $2,500,000 a year salary. But putting a greater portion of the burden of paying for government on the less wealthy is unfair since government serves everyone. The way, then, to achieve some measure of tax burden equalization while avoiding disincentives to work, thus shrinking the economy, is to implement a modestly progressive tax scheme. This is precisely what liberal Democrats want to do. And it’s precisely what most voters believe to be the right thing.
No socialism here, no Marxism, certainly no “Leninist” plots to “destroy the United States.” There’s just modestly regulated free-market capitalism with a progressive income tax to pay for a government that provides some measure of basic protection against the unforeseen consequences of the market’s workings.
This is all middle-of-the-road, Roger. At least it was until far-right extremists like yourself took the reigns. Well, elections have consequences, as someone once said. And the extremists are no longer in charge. Voters have seen to that.
I’ve never in my life hated a politician.
I hate Obama. I loathe him. He makes my skin crawl. You bet it’s our duty to change this presidency.
Don’t tread on me, Obama. You wanted a revolution? You’re going to get one, but it’s not going to resemble anything you wanted.
Clearly, we now have a Thief-in-Chief in the White House. But at least he’s OUR Thief-in-Chief, we have no one to blame but the majority of the electorate. Oh, bother.
One wonders when this “nanny and chief” will be telling us to beat our swords into plowshares.
As an old prof of mine used to say: “beware those propounding the shackles of fairness”.
Dear Lord, did anyone expect a different outcome?
It’s going to be ugly, and we all get to pay. Time to pray for the country, and start figuring out how to use the tools of media more effectively against those who hate the hoarders, wasters and other enemies of the state, before the effects are all the worse.
Yikes. Interesting times indeed.
I understand the United States’ estimated expenditures for 2008 were $2,979,000,000,000. How do the Americans’ Congress and President get away with claiming such a sum is inadequate or that it’s a simple matter of justice that their subjects give them more?
If Obama the Wealth-Slayer really intends to steal/destroy America’s wealth, all for the sake of some twisted “moral war”, it’s about time us “wealthy” folks pull all our money out of the economy. When people become obssesed with “moral wars”, they usually never listen to reason, no matter how much evidence you’ve got showing that they are screwing up (especially when they refuse to suffer the consequences with the rest of us).
Of course, there’s the possibility that he doesn’t even want to be our nanny-in-chief: considering the statements of him and his family, and the people he’s associated with, it’s possible that he really just wants to utterly destroy America, reasoning that America is too mean and nasty to live.
Assuming that’s not the case, remember this old saying; “The road to evil and ruin is planned with logic, constructed with reluctance, and paved with good intentions.”
Funny. Wasn’t it the left who railed against the Republicans when they tried to “legislate morality.” Obama is justifying his historic looting of the citizenry by declaring “ambition” the enemy of the state.
Thank you, Mr. Kimball, for stating what so many of us sense. My wife and I are gratefully for the privilege of growing up in a nation where we had the opportunity to work of a better life for ourselves and our children and grandchildren.
We believe our liberties are from God not our government. We believe our security is in strength not surrender. We believe our prosperity is from private enterprise not public entitlement. We believe truth is self-evident not relative.
Though not perfectedly practiced, our predeccesors used these principles to establish a form of government that liberated its citizens from the tyranny of the state. Tragically, a significant number of Americans have recently embraced a vision for America that is the antithesis of our founding principles.
Obama believes the government grants liberties not God. Obama believes security is found in compromise and self-criticism rather than strength. Obama believes personal prosperity is oppressive and evil and must be controlled by the government. Obama believes that truth is best determined by the government.
The Second Culture War is upon us. The liberals are committed to winning at all cost and have taken the offensive. Some fret that the conservatives are too fragmented to mount a successful counter-attack. I believe Obama has over-reached and is awakening a sleeping giant. From my lips to God’s Ears.
The best response to Obama’s claim that some people want to “make a virtue out of selfishness” is, “You’re damn right we do!” There is no justification for the “anti-selfish” moral code that says we must destroy the rich and productive for the sake of the poor and unproductive.
For a glimpse of an alternative to Obama’s morality, read Ayn Rand’s “The Virtue of Selfishness.”
It’s our duty to RESIST. Citizen Cain!
Here’s the Obama economic plan: Take every known legislative step that encourages the creation of wealth and prosperity and do the exact opposite.
What is happening should not be a surprise to anyone. As a candidate for the office of the President of this country, Barack Obama clearly revealed himself as a Marxist, though many refused to acknowledge that fact. Now the fact that he was and is a Marxist is increasingly apparent. His staff appointments (those working directly under his authority in the White House, not subject to Senate confirmation) include a number of the same persuasion. The chief of staff has been quoted as saying(if not verbatim to the following effect) “The present situation is too great an opportunity to pass up.” Marxism has no place for individual endeavor nor for belief in a Supreme Being. Its fundamental concept is that we are all part of the “masses” who must bow to the whim of the state and its leaders. They are our gods, but regrettably all too human gods.
I know of no examples from history where an assault on those who had acquired great wealth from commerce didn’t exacerbate the divide between rich and poor. It always leads to a small class of politically connected “lords” and a vast sea of peasants doing the bidding of their masters.
Right up until the peasants grab the pitchforks.
Maybe a little pre-emptive pitchforking would be in order.
The other part is that, “Wealth” has no lower limit in Obama’s world.”
An income of a quarter million dollars is just the start for expropriation by the government. Obama is operating from the dictum of “From each according to their ability, to each according to their need.”
The problem with this dictum is that everywhere it has been tried has lead to pain, death, the destruction of wealth and endless poverty. Pursuing this dictum causes the needs of the poor to magnify while the people of ability stop producing. Meanwhile, the bureaucracy which must administer it takes over all social functions.
The people hurt the worst by this dictum are the poor, because they cannot flee. Zimbabwe was once the second most prosperous country in Africa. It is now an economic basket case due to Robert Mugabe’s Socialism. Obama’s socialism will lead us the same conclusion if he is not thwarted.
Public Tax Meeting
Possibly the above post can put the government’s plans into more human terms.
(*cough Geithner cough *)
First to wake up was Whoopi Goldberg. Well, maybe Buffet beat her to it, but just lacks her megaphone. Anyway, I laugh and laugh. Go Obama! Go, go, go Obama! Mug all these Libs and turn them into Cons!
Hope we survive until then.
There won’t be much left to steal.
How will you prevent American companies from deciding to incorporate somewhere else to escape punitive taxation?
How will you force the productive class to keep earning more, when the marginal return makes it futile?
The only problem with all these static theories is that the system responds to all the inputs. Or as it was so elegantly stated, “Under communism, they pretend to pay us. We pretend to work.” People pretended to eat after the result of the five year plan was announced, too.
Collisions with reality hurt.
Here’s a prediction: more and more people are going to be waking up to that duty soon, and with a vengeance.
This sentence needs clarifying. Are more and more Obamaists going to be “waking up” and seeing an opportunity for fiscal mayhem? Or are the general public going to be “waking up” and seeing the necessity of a rebellion? I hope it is the latter.
Yes, Obama has always been for the everyman. He definitely wants nothing to do with the wealthy, elite in America.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/13/everyman-obama-hobnobs-socialites/
Roger,
This is not for posting online but rather something you might find of interest for a separate post.
If you go to the online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, you’ll find a nice little example of liberal bias / political commentary tucked into the entry for — of all things! — “Ancient, Medieval and Renaissance Theories of the Emotions.”
I hope the formatting transfers clearly. Here’s the passage in question:
“The problem with sophistic rhetoric is that it makes its emotional pitch in ways independent of the subject under discussion, perhaps even distracting from the subject at hand (e.g., by invoking anger at Al Qaeda, while considering the merits of invading Iraq). Presumably, however, a particular subject may have characteristics that themselves provoke certain emotions, indeed that should provoke certain emotions, and appropriate rhetoric will highlight those features without ever leaving the subject at hand. In this respect, the arousing of emotions might even count as a kind of salience argument for the beliefs so produced (e.g., anger at particular outrageous events can serve as a reason for believing that a politician should be impeached).”
You can find this yourself at:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/emotions-17th18th/LD1Background.html
My apologies for any inconvenience caused by using this venue. I didn’t see another email address available.
I enjoy your posts — nice to have intelligent conservatives fighting the good fight….
And then to think…… The downward spiral has just begun.
How far will it go before more and more stand up to this evil punishing behavior?
Awhhhh crap! Yet another Obot meme we’ll have to be fighting on these comment threads. Thanks for the heads-up Roger. We who are about to do battle salute thee.
The Piketty/Saez logic is typical of the French Left which believes in a Lump of Wealth theory akin to its belief in the Lump of Labour. In other words, there is a fixed amount of wealth in the economy each year regardless of cause and effect or creative dynamism on the part of independent economic actors; if some get more of this wealth than others, it’s because the polito-economic system is unjust. Ergo, redistribution can create ‘social justice’ and need have no adverse effect on the aggregate of national wealth because that is always there, somehow (delivered in a bag to the Treasury every Jan 1 by fairies, for example). Adherence to the Lump of Labour theory is what gave rise to the economically disastrous 35-hour week inflicted on France by Leftist politicians who believe that political will is sufficient in itself to dictate desired economic outcomes regardless of actual, existing realities. Economics is despised by Parisian political theorists as a vulgar, money and commerce tainted Anglo-Saxon affair which compares badly with the morally-uplifted French pursuit of social compassion. Which may be why Piketty and Saez don’t care to notice that if the dynamic rich didn’t exert themselves to create all that wealth, it would never exist to be redistributed.
Obama’s one greedy bastard.
Let’s see: A man or woman decides to work 70, 80, 90 hours a week starting a business and puts his/her money right back into the business instead of enjoying it. They do this for ten, fifteen, twenty, thirty or so years and what is their reward? Barack Obama and his desire to expand the government by punishing these people.
It’s something like this that convinces me that Obama isn’t ignorant about how the economy works – he damn well does know who these people are and why they are important to the growth of the economy. By snuffing the production out of these people, we have more economic crises and Obama has an opportunity to profit from each and every one of them.
Obama is a sick individual. And so are his die-hard supporters, too.
Barack Obama is existentially committed to the notion that the affluent are not paying their fair share. And he has every intention to stick it to them good and hard. Those targeted should pull out of the economy as much as possible. There’s little sense investing in a market where the rules can arbitrarily be changed at any moment. Wealth preservation during the Obama era should be the goal—and not the seeking of investment opportunities. This sad situation will not likely be reversed unless center-right Republican candidates do well in the elections of 2010.
He is Barack Obama.
Your money is his…
He hated the American Dream. With a Vengeance.
In the spring of 1991 the doors at the Harcard Law Review were opened, and a Community Organiser set his course for the Presidency of the United States. He came in search of his American Dream, and glided to it along the tongue-bathed avenues of the Old Media. Hypocrisy, power and taxation beyond his wildest dreams. He was Barack Obama but the world will remember him by another name… Tax-Us.
Zero is our “legacy of irresponsibility”, a walking entitlement dispenser elected by an irresponsible media and welfare dependent America. His legacy will be a dependence mentality to a majority of America that is prepared to sit back and allow the ever diminishing productive population to support them. (pretty much like Canada)
Throughout this process Zero and his flunkies will continue to play their one tune supporting class warfare. As we all become like California and the outstretched hands exceed the wallets to be picked, as business flees over the border to Mexico or shuts down and as healthcare goes in the sewer Zero undoubtedly will begin to play the fiddle.
Fortunately, the MSM will be depleted by 2010 and the loyal opposition will be the Internet where the music doesn’t play the same tune over and over.
“There’s nothing wrong with making money, but there is something wrong when we allow the playing field to be tilted so far in the favor of so few. . . . It’s a legacy of irresponsibility, and it is our duty to change it.”
I’ll re-paraphrase what I said next door at Hansen’s, in the form of a question:
Why are we to take at face value, this contrived and specious deployment of the old class warfare ploy? (ruse, I say)
Answer? Because its a three-fer: the latter, to provide cover for the super rich (the few in this case), because they can endure these abysmal economic times, and rearrange their finances (they always do…); and yes they are going to get hit, but they themselves describe the presidents economic policy atrocities using terms akin to those of some pernicious nuisance, but they, themselves are a long ways away from being down to their last 10 billion, and besides they voted for him, and they love heem!
In the ‘former’ part of the two-fer, he gets cover while he hones in on his real target: the finacially (up until now) independent middle class. More on that later…
the middle part of the three-fer is that the class warfire tactics are always a sure-far way to keep the hell-fares burning, so his rainbow supporters get to vent their rainbow resentments at one target- the super rich, and feel good about themselves for voting in someone they believe was so courageous during a “crisis”, that he did not “waste it”.
And as the crisis worsens, well… Blame Bush™/Failed Policies of the Past™/obstructionist partisan repubs in congress [public domain]/Rush What’s his Name?™/Occupation of Iraq™/Failed Policies of the…IOW rotate the wheel, stupid, “Its the Failed Policies of the Past™” stupid/ its the economy stupid/ “I inherited a multi-trillion dollar deficit that I voted for in congress, but so did John Mccain” (also new)/ any other strawman you can get up and running on the teleprompter/Bad Hair Day [patents pending]/ My dog ate my other plan/ Medical Marijuana/Reds/Poppers/Disco bisquits/Speed/Crack/
Green jobs/Green Water™/Fizzlam™/Same-Sex marriage/California supreme court ruling on Same-Sex Marriage/Him/ Not you, the other guy/No you: you’re blockin’ my teleprompter/…But the real modus, is all straight down the line Jeremy Wright.
Ol’ huffin’ Puffin’ Jeremiah lectured us on how middle class prosperity and success is just sellin’ out to “rich white people”, and michelle told us that we were “just plain mean”. Living in our pampered, work-a-day, retirement strategy ethic, Eric Holder said we were “cowards”.
While 0bama gets street cred for his “courageous” fight by ‘stickin’ it to the super rich man! he goes unnoticed according to plan, per the black liberation theocratic protocol, with his equal opportunity annihilation of the middle class [sneer italics his, not mine]
“While middle-class families have been playing by the rules, living up to their responsibilities as neighbors and citizens, those at the commanding heights of our economy have not.”
But middle class not trusted to make charitable contributions themselves anymore, and with what anyway? Government good, so why not us make those pesky donations instead? uhinvestments, I mean?
“There’s nothing wrong with making money, but there is something wrong when we allow the playing field to be tilted so far in the favor of so few. . . . It’s a legacy of irresponsibility, and it is our duty to change it.”
Hi-jack it you mean…
So I’ll wager The 0ne must think we are making it just too easy for him if we fall for the shibboleth super rich strawman he keeps “courageously” knocking down every time its placed next to him on stage, (but not so close as to obscure the teleprompter text reading of the day)
But don’t worry yourselves, we’ll all get to draw the shortest reed and get new jobs in the New Leave N0 0ne Else Left Behind Administration: we’ll get to fill the new positions of “Pariah” and all be winners in the “fundamentally traansformed” gummint Lottery just as Shirley Jackson so chillingly described.
Paging Jasper Johns encaustic: make up multiple copies of yourself, etc…rinse, repeat
And remember, in the new Obama administration, you don’t have to be a celebrity anymore to the target of the newly “fundamentally transformed” national socialism’s paparazzi*; they’ll be comin’ to yer neighborhood soon…
* Sponsored by the We The Peep Hole Foundation.
Barack Obama truly believes that the American stock market is a tool by that the wealthy use to impoverish the rest of us while enriching themselves. And Obama has already told us that he plans to destroy that market and replace it with a government system of wealth redistribution and the equalization of income among all Americans. Mr. Obama has learned from his days as a community organizer that the wealthy are largely criminals who stole their money from the poor and he also learned that the only way to separate these crooks from their stolen gains is to take them to court and sue, or to legislate legal means to confiscate their wealth so it can be used to fund programs for the poor. Thus Americans can expect to get nationalized and universal health care, free university and college tuition for all, massively government subsidized mortgages, and other even more grandiose programs to impoverish the wealthy and enrich the poor. Of course by 2012 the public will be so sick of unending waiting lines for health care and education, confiscatory taxes, and the lack of almost any disposable income, that they will vote Obama out, but by then real and lasting damage will have been done, and for generations Americans will bitterly recall the Obama legacy.
One difference between the way capitalism and socialism distribute the wealth is that capitalism does it by offering products and services, while socialism does it with taxation. However, the critical difference between these two systems is that capitalism does not force the consumption of any product or use of any service against anybody’s will. Socialist taxation, on the other hand, demands involunatry participation and is enforced with the threats of fines and imprisonment, and can excalate to killing the non-participant who attempts to evade first the fines, then the imprisonment. To this socialists argue that in order to survive people need food, need shelter, need health care, need education, and need jobs. Capitalists agree completely with this list, but they seek to fulfill it with volunatry participation and interaction, not with death threats by some “power in charge”. The natural threat of starvation for idle hands and minds is sufficient to get the least motivated cutting grass or handling baggage to afford food, and for the most motivated, even a 15-year-old poor immigrant like David Sarnoff, can become the founder of NBC. Either end of the capitalist spectrum can be achieved like this without socialist death threats, with just the discomfort of hunger for motivation, only in America.
Thank you Roger,
another voice of sanity in an insane time.
Perhaps “The President’s Budget and Farcical Preview” was also ghostwritten by Bill Ayers as well as Dreams of my Father & The Audacity of Hype; a very thorough analysis by Jack Cashill: http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=75611
writings compared with such as William Ayers’ forgotten communist manifesto: Prairie Fire & Days of Rage.
Imho the real purpose of the Shamulus / Scamulus is clearly to make people more dependent on “givernment”, handing over more control, thus “(help)bring an Empire to its knees”- BHO
With all the unfilled vacancies at Treasury & the phone ringing off the hook, perhaps they will ” rehabilitate” Madoff with ‘community service’ to help run Treasury, after all, he has “experience” with what they are attempting!
They’ll just redefine ” The Rich” as anyone making $25,000
Q: What’s the difference between Barak Hussein Obama & Jesus?
A: Jesus knows how to build a Cabinet!
To Jim:
“The “class warfare” rhetoric is all in your head”
“While middle-class families have been playing by the rules, living up to their responsibilities as neighbors and citizens, those at the commanding heights of our economy have not”
This is an instigation of class against class. Rather than saying something to the effect of, ‘dishonest people have not lived up to their responsibilities’, he turns irresponsibility into something exclusive to those in the upper class of income earners.
Obviously, there were those at the top who overreached. There were also quite a lot of people in the middle and bottom who overreached. But rather than say something poignant, like, ‘This crisis shows the danger of attempting to live above one’s means’ or ‘This proves that borrowing does dull the edge of husbandry’ (the more Shakespeare references the better in any crisis), Obama is trying to drive home the point that it was only those at the top who were irresponsible and short-sighted. This is class warfare.
The idea of class against class is a Marxist one (though obviously not exclusively). I’m in your corner in saying that the President is not a Marxist, but his affection for the Eruopean-model welfare state is a little alarming.
Also, the support you provide for your argument in claiming that we merely have a ‘modestly progressive tax scheme’ is a little off-base. While you are correct in saying our tax system is very moderate, it should also be noted that middle of the road tax policies aren’t necessarily indicators of moderate political policy, ideology, or rhetoric.
SON OF “STIMULUS” DUE OUT THIS SUMMER
It’s coming to your tax bill very soon.
http://greensrealworld.blogspot.com/2009/03/son-of-stimulus-due-out-this-summer.html
This is “too easy, drill sargeant!”…First: The market “dropped” 20% (not 30%) since the election. Of course, the Dow’s back up 10% this week so Obama’s “market” is down 10%…Second: How powerful is the “special interest lobby” that represents the top earners in the US? Look no further than the “noise level” about this issue. The bottom line is a top tier tax level that reflects the Clinton-era levels…Of course, THAT’S not going to damp down the “there will be blood” crowd, as evidenced by this columnist..Memo to Kimball: Elections MATTER. Your side LOST.
Our Government is still in debt. But I assure you that investment will start with people from the middle class. Stocks are so rock bottom that the regular investor will invest. Wealthy people that had Madoff with their money, are going to wait the longest to go back into the market. Wealthy people are going to wait it out the longest.
My brother-law who is always trying to figure out the market, says he is cautious, but ready to buy on the dips. He said that the stock market could still go a 1,000 points down.
Since Reagan, the amount of debt has risen out of bounds. Republicans use the Constitiution to drive up debt. Republicans love debt.
Debt to the ratio of the stock market is very scary. It would actually be 4,000.
This is such a savory ordeal…because at some point it will be the Clinton years all over again. The middle-class will rise again.
The democrats will be victorious!
Yes yes, let’s create an economy that encourages the rich to hide their money in overseas accounts, rather than invest it in something productive at home. After all, capital flight has been such a good things for Mexico…
And why can’t I ever catch my mispellings BEFORE I post?
I’m expecting a Dow at 3500 by Christmas. If you can’t resist the little bear rallies, be sure to take your profits frequently. Fear may be keeping Timmy the Tax Cheat from sorting out our sick banks. There is that Pandora’s box of $40 trillion in credit default swaps that continue to suck up the bail out money. Not to mention the coming crash in commercial real estate. Four more years of the Age of Obama Depression and we will be ready for change we can believe in.
The top 1% of earners pay 40% of income taxes. Why do we keep hearing this? How much of the income was theirs? If they earned 40% of the income they should be paying a tad more than 40% of the income taxes. Income is not a zero sum game, so high earners are not stealing from anyone. I’d take a flat income tax for all if it allowed for the costs of income tax collection and enforment went away.
Hey – capitalistforchange – at least compare apples to apples and not to oranges. The 20% that was lost is totally different than the 10% – unless your math is different than any standard teaching. FOr example – 20% of 10000.00 is 2000.00 – with me so far? but 10% of the difference (8000.00) is only 800.00. so down 2000 & up 800 DOES NOT EQUAL A 10% NET LOSS! Apparently – Obama supporters cannot +,-,X or divide. HMMM – explains how he won. And before you use a military reference regarding the “Nanny-in-Chief” you might do well to remember that his popularity rating among military is about 30% for him. And since I’m a lifelong military family member I can attest to the fact that a lot of us think that’s a padded percentage! People like you elected a man who outrageously said numerous times that he is proud to be a black man while “forgetting” that he’s HALF WHITE!!!!! His character showed true numerous times but you WOULDN’T see beyond the halo you gave him. Hope that makes you warm & fuzzy inside when the idiotic Obama energy taxes kick in and you see your utility/food/gas and sales tax increases double & triple your bills.[And yes, I'm fully aware that there is no way for Obama to directly affect local sales taxes - however how do you think your local govts are going to answer the problem of higher energy/utility costs to them? A Money tree called - Pick The Taxpayers Wallet!] BTW – even the almighty Orzag acknowledged that the “tax cuts” would only “help to pay” the tax increases proposed in the budget. Read that correctly and you see that the OBAMAIES are giving to you with one hand because they are going to take twice as much from you with the other. Just remember you voted for the lunacy!!! Oh and “YOUR SIDE LOST!” Weren’t you the group whinning to high heaven “That’s not fair! You’re not nice!” when we said that last time – HAHAHAHAHAHAHA – change – that’s a good one. ROFTL
bill t:
The top 1% of earners pay 40% of income taxes.
–Approximately true.
Why do we keep hearing this?
–Lefties don’t listen well.
How much of the income was theirs?
–All of it.
If they earned 40% of the income they should be paying a tad more than 40% of the income taxes.
–I didn’t look up the numbers, but since the tax RATES at that level are SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER (esp. in some jurisdictions, e.g. California), they would be getting a smaller piece of the total pie than 40%. I would guess around 15-20%.
I agree: a flat tax is a fairer tax. Sorry to use a dirty word, but a flat tax tends to have a stimulative effect, since the top earners have more money to spend. Even if they put it into the bank or into other investments, it still provides a (sorry again) stimulus.
This is the American version of what Daniel Ortega did when Sandanistas took over Nicaragrua in 79. First thing they did was plow up all the coffee and tobacco fields to plant beans, so that the peoples would have plenty of what they need, you know- beans.
By plowing up all the things they could sell on the world market and buy all the beans they could possibly want, they, in effect killed the dreaded golden goose that layed the gold that would have been their source of another dreaded thing- capital.
Kind of reminds me of the mother that gave her son the money to buy food and he comes back with a hand full of beans, and following her not so enthusiastic reaction, the boy points out- “but these are magical beans!!”
Make what you want of that, but childe ubhamas will make us all sacrifice a lot of capital just so that we can keep climbing that magic bean stalk to all those goodies at the top- which seems particularly silly when you consider that people who need health care aren’t going to like what they find at the top, especially after that long queue in front of the magic beanstalk.
Last creator of jobs and wealth to leave, don’t forget to hit the lights.
Never thought it would come to this, but hey It is Better in the Bahamas.
Last creator of jobs and wealth to leave, don’t forget to hit the lights.
Never thought it would come to this, but hey It is Better in the Bahamas.
BTW I love your blog!