Re: > Hussein bin Obama's "Tax Cut" is Socialist Income Redistribution!
- From: Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1999@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 10:27:20 -0700 (PDT)
On Sep 24, 10:16 am, "JC" <dontbot...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Jerry Kraus" <jkraus_1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:3d77f452-672e-472f-b744-2ec1621845c5@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Sep 24, 8:32 am, Patriot Games <Patr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/obamas_patriotic_to...
September 23, 2008
Obama's "Tax Cut" is Income Redistribution
By Ken Blackwell
During his Fox News interview with Bill O'Reilly, Sen. Barack Obama
responded to one question where the statistics contradicted his
position by saying that "there are lies, damned lies, and
statistics."
He then went on to say that 95 percent of Americans would get a tax
break under his economic plan. That's ironic, because his comment on
"damned lies and statistics" is the perfect commentary on his own
plan. Taken with Sen. Joe Biden's novel definition of patriotism,
Team
Obama is making an argument that Americans have never bought.
The statistics speak for themselves. Only 62 percent of Americans
pay
federal income tax, meaning that 38 percent get a 100 percent refund
of any taxes withheld. So Mr. Obama's 95 percent that will receive
money from the government includes roughly 33 percent of Americans
who
pay no income tax. One-third of Americans pay no income taxes yet
would receive a government check of perhaps $1,000 or more.
That is pure income redistribution. Some pundits argue that this is
Keynesian demand-side economics. It is not. Having the government
take
money from business entities or affluent individuals and giving it
to
those who pay no federal income taxes is not Keynesian. It's
Marxist.
American voters don't buy Team Obama's arguments. A recent Gallup
poll
shows that 53 percent of Americans believe that Mr. Obama would
raise
their taxes. A recent Zogby poll shows a majority of Americans
understand that raising taxes will hurt the economy.
Energy prices have pounded the U.S. economy. The recent woes on Wall
Street have further shaken our weakened economy. Certain pillars of
our economy, such as productivity gains and American ingenuity,
continue to be powerful economic assets. But the current debt
situation, spending trends, the cost of combating global terrorism,
along with the energy crisis, leaves our economy in a truly
precarious
position.
Most credible economists warn that raising taxes during an economic
downturn only makes the situation worse. Given our current economic
situation, Mr. Obama's tax plan is the equivalent of pouring
gasoline
on a fire.
Then we come to the Team Obama fantasy that the Obama plan would cut
taxes for most Americans. Yes, Mr. Obama says he will cut rates for
lower-income Americans, but will more than offset that by raising
taxes on dividends, capital gains, higher incomes, corporations,
estates, and payrolls. But most Americans own stock, either directly
or through their IRA, 401k or union pensions. Dividend and capital
gains taxes will take money from all those. Those Americans on Main
Street who own a house or have other investments will be punished by
a
capital gains tax increase.
Businesses and corporations do not pay taxes; we do. Businesses
don't
have huge piles of money sitting in the closet that they simply turn
over to government when taxes increase. For every dollar that you
increase taxes on a business, they simply increase their prices by a
dollar. Who then pays the tax? We do. We do, when the product that
we
bought last week for $20 suddenly costs $21.
Mr. Obama's plan for universal health care and increased spending on
just about everything costs hundreds of billions of dollars. To keep
his promises to provide those things while eliminating the deficit
and
giving checks to lower-income families, he will have to raise taxes
by
hundreds of billions of dollars. But if lower-income Americans
receive
a check for $1,000 under the Obama plan yet have to pay $2,000 more
when buying food and clothes, they are worse off.
Affluent Americans have not had a tax holiday during the Bush
administration. Most analysts agree that the affluent pay more under
Mr. Bush. In 2000, the top 1 percent of earners paid less than
one-third of all income tax; now they pay 40 percent. The affluent
already carry more of the burden.
The ancient Roman philosopher Pliny the Elder once said, "In wine
there is truth." It means that people tell you what they really
think
once they have a couple of drinks.
I don't think Mr. Biden was drinking on the campaign trail last
week,
but it was a rare moment of complete candor when he told ABC News
that
people who are well-off have a patriotic duty to pay higher taxes.
That perfectly states the liberal Democratic philosophy that those
who
do the right things in their personal life to make more money have
an
obligation not only to pay more taxes (which they do even under a
flat
tax because 17 percent of higher-income is more than 17 percent of
lower-income), but that they should pay an ever-higher additional
percentage on top of that. Liberal Democrats consider it patriotic
to
pay more taxes, and have a consistent record of voting to help
nurture
our patriotism for us.
That reveals what is really going on here. The statistics don't lie.
Team Obama's plan is not economically prudent, and it's not a
patriotic tonic for what ails our economy.
Mr. Blackwell is a senior fellow at the Family Research Council, the
American Civil Rights Union and the Buckeye Institute in Ohio.
Yes, we know. That's why we like it.
And his "public service" programs will be workfare.
Welcome to the real world, Patriot.
What they don't tell ya about all these grandiose schemes is how many
people will have to be added to the welfare rolls because of them.
Take me for instance. I'm retired but I don't want just sit idle so I
have a little business going. I put up the money for youngsters just
out of school or just out of a job that want to try to earn a living
doing something they really like to do. So, some do a little farming,
some raise a few head of cattle, some do woodworking, some mow yards,
some install gutters and some make and sell quilts, crafts and other
things. I put up the money to buy the supplies, I own the equipment
they need and the buildings. When they sell their product, we pay all
the expenses off the top, then we split the profit 60/40, they get the
60. If there is a loss, I take the hit. Now, I have to give up social
security because of the income I have, which is not all that much
(under 3 grand a month) because there's always someone else waiting
for their turn.
So, here comes Obama and he's going re-arrange the furniture on the
Titanic. What am I going to do? I'm just going to tell all those kids
they're on their own and I'll sit back and relax on social security.
What are those kids going to do? Well, most of them say they will just
relax on welfare.
The one thing that seems to get lost in all this hatred of Bush is
immense numbers of small businesses that have been created because of
the increased incentives they added to the mix. Frankly I don't
understand why they have not publicized that more than they have. The
Clinton administration was more interested in putting people to work
rather than creating opportunities for them to start their own small
businesses. That's fine. But, I just seem to think the old religious
phrase "give a man a fish he will eat for a day, but teach him to fish
and he will eat forever" works best.
I have so much resentment and hate for the federal government that it
makes me just want to scream sometimes. I have arranged my affairs in
such a way that I do not pay any taxes other than a little sales tax
now and then but that goes to the state government (whom I not all
that fond of either) so it's not all the tax and retax schemes that
bother me. It's the damn constant changing of the rules that drives
me, and most other people that actually have to contend with them,
crazy. Remember this. The government is operated by people that can
only command a wage that is maybe 70% (probably much less) of what
their counterpart in civilian life would make, using equipment that is
provided by the lowest bidder and directed toward benefitting the
person or corporation that handed them the most money under the table.
So, why in the hell would anyone in their right mind, choose to
promote that kind of operation?
--
"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under
the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the
socialist program until one day America will be a socialist
nation without ever knowing how it happened." - Norman Thomas,
Socialist Party presidential candidate 1936-68, Cofounder of the
American Civil Liberties Union
Three months before his 1959 visit to the U.S., Khruschev, then
ruthless dictator of International Communism stated:
"We can't expect the American people to jump from Capitalism to
Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them
small doses of Socialism UNTIL they awaken one day to find they HAVE
COMMUNISM."
JC
http://www.reason.com/- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I'll tell you a secret. Those young people don't really want to mow
lawns. They'd like to be doing something a little more useful and
challenging, like tutoring children, studying engineering and science,
working in hospitals. But, because you're too cheap to pay taxes, you
don't want to support any programs like those. Stop being a selfish
old man who's exploiting young people for profit, and admit that you
don't know it all.
.
- References:
- Re: > Hussein bin Obama's "Tax Cut" is Socialist Income Redistribution!
- From: Jerry Kraus
- Re: > Hussein bin Obama's "Tax Cut" is Socialist Income Redistribution!
- Prev by Date: Re: the "Economy" sinks McCain
- Next by Date: Why are Lies broadcast and then fact-checked?
- Previous by thread: Re: > Hussein bin Obama's "Tax Cut" is Socialist Income Redistribution!
- Next by thread: Re: > Hussein bin Obama's "Tax Cut" is Socialist Income Redistribution!
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
