"This Is News from WORLD Magazine": Afghan war end date set, NAACP comes out for gay marriage - black pastors push back 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Obama calls for more government to level the playing field
During his campaign-style State of the Union address Tuesday night, President Barack Obama attacked economic inequality by mentioning the word “fair” nine times.
“We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well while a growing number barely get by,” said Obama, providing a glimpse of his main 2012 reelection motif. “Or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules.”
It was a speech light on the debt and deficit (two topics that dominated Congress last year). It was a speech that contained just a single mention of entitlement reform (and that came with zero specifics). Instead, Obama, arguing that the American dream is in danger, presented an economic agenda that included empowering government to do more to ensure fairness for all.
The president also renewed his call for a new minimum tax rate on the wealthy.
“Tax reform should follow the Buffett rule: If you make more than $1 million a year, you should not pay less than 30 percent in taxes,” said Obama, referring to billionaire Warren Buffett, who has said his secretary pays a higher tax rate than he does because his income from investments is taxed at a lower rate. “In fact, if you’re earning a million dollars a year, you shouldn’t get special tax subsidies or deductions. On the other hand, if you make under $250,000 a year, like 98 percent of American families, your taxes shouldn’t go up.”
Obama’s vision provides a stark contrast to conservatives, who argue that a government-directed push for fairness only pits Americans against one another.
“No feature of the Obama presidency has been sadder than its constant efforts to divide us, to curry favor with some Americans by castigating others,” said Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, who offered the formal Republican response Tuesday night. “As in previous moments of national danger, we Americans are all in the same boat. If we drift, quarreling and paralyzed over a Niagara of debt, we will all suffer, regardless of income, race, gender, or other category.” … MORE >>
back to top113 Comments to “Obama calls for more government to level the playing field”
Excellent summary and highlights of both speeches.
“The President’s grand experiment in trickle-down government has held back rather than sped economic recovery.
He seems to sincerely believe we can build a middle classout of government jobs paid for with borrowed dollars.
Today I’m much more impressed with Gov. Daniels’ speech and it is well worth reading.
Report comment to moderator
He talked about the Navy building a clean energy area. I want to know
1. which company got the contract?
2. How much Federal Money did this company get?
3. What is the relationship between Mr. Obama and the Dem Party and the The Energy Company Board and Leaders?
Report comment to moderator
“Instead, Obama, arguing that the American dream is in danger, presented an economic agenda that included empowering government to do more to ensure fairness for all.”
And we’ve seen just how well that’s been working.
Can someone just impeach this fool? Preferrably just before the election…
Report comment to moderator
Here’s a quote from Arcadia yesterday “AJ: Re: Class warfare. When Mitt pays 13% and his campaign bus driver pays 30% who do you say is winning? 13% on $400,000 per week vs. 30% on $,1200 per week?”
Yipes! That is unfair!! But I say let’s rewrite the tax code so the bus driver only pays 13% at most, the other way round is more tax and spend leverage for the Dems in the name of “fairness.”
Report comment to moderator
Make It Man: Can someone just impeach this fool? Preferrably just before the election…
Unfortunately for the impeachment case, disagreeing with the defenders of plutocracy is not a crime.
Obama’s exactly right on his diagnosis: The system is rigged so that the rich get richer and everybody else struggles and fails.
It’s got nothing to do with working hard. People are working hard and still falling behind.
It’s got nothing to do with government spending. Private sector wages are declining for all but those at the very top.
And it’s got nothing to do with “dividing people.” It’s those who rigged the system in the first place that did that.
Nobody is asking for handouts and things given without effort, although I’m sure the right will go all out claiming that. But what is really being asked for is only a reform to the rules so that nobody has an unfair advantage.
What you have right now is a like a 100-yard dash where one lane is downhill and the other 99 lanes are on a a 30 percent incline. Astonishingly, some people think that it’s improper to point out or object to that.
Report comment to moderator
Anyone who was disappointed by our president’s campaign speech hasn’t been paying attention for the past three years.
Report comment to moderator
“Instead, Obama, arguing that the American dream is in danger, presented an economic agenda that included empowering government to do more to ensure fairness for all.”
—-
Wait is that not what China does? empowering government to do more to ensure fairness for all…To the point the Government control peoples lives.
Report comment to moderator
“Instead, Obama, arguing that the American dream is in danger, presented an economic agenda that included empowering government to do more to ensure fairness for all.”
—-
Wait is that not what China does? empowering government to do more to ensure fairness for all…To the point the Government control peoples lives.
Report comment to moderator
When Mitt pays 13% and his campaign bus driver pays 30% who do you say is winning?
—
even at 13% Romney is still paying more in dollars, then a bus driver. which seems to go unreported why is that?
Report comment to moderator
People are working hard and still falling behind.
–
That is because Mr. Obama has done nothing about the gas prices, which cause every thing to go up in the stores.
Report comment to moderator
Conan 5 Obama’s exactly right on his diagnosis: The system is rigged so that the rich get richer and everybody else struggles and fails.
You are half right. The system is ALSO rigged so that those on the low end are incentivized to stay there. It’s those in the middle who struggle.
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/entitlement-america-head-household-making-minimum-wage-has-more-disposable-income-family-mak
When you think about it, this is a natural outcome of our system where money buys privilege at the top end while voting blocks buy privilege at the bottom end.
Report comment to moderator
You got that right PR, for government enforced fairness see China or Cuba for the communistic model or Greece or France for the Socialistic version. The president needs to define those terms more clearly, but don’t look for it in this election cycle.
Report comment to moderator
It is amazing that Obama’s speeches are always about himself and how much he has done for the country, except that most of the things he touts were accomplished despite his policies.
Obama began his speech by saying that his grandparents fought fascism, but now he is implementing fascist policies, i.e. national socialism.
He said, “I will work with anyone.” which is just a flat out lie as he explained, “I will oppose any effort to put in place policies which brought on this economic crisis in the first place.” In other words, he will work with anyone EXCEPT Republicans.
He blamed the Wall Street crisis on regulators who looked the other way, but it was Democrats who were in charge, like Barney Frank who was having sex with the banking executives he was supposed to oversee.
Then he said he put, “new rules to hold wall street accountable so these crises will never happen again.” Well, that is just pure fibbery, since the Federal Reserve was specifically designed to encourage a continual cycle of high risk loans, failures and bailouts.
He said, “GM is back on top as the world’s #1 automaker.” Really?
He said, “What is happening in Detroit can happen in other industries.” In other words, Obama’s America would look like Detroit.
He said he would “Open 75% of offshore oil resources.” Not likely.
He said, “Oil production is the highest in 8 years.” This is mostly on private land out of reach of his draconian regulations aimed at stopping them.
He said, “America is the least dependent on foreign oil in 16 years.” That’s because demand is down due to a bad economy.
He said, “America will develop every source of energy available.” Oh, so that’s why he just killed the Canadian pipeline.
He said there would be “No bailouts, no hand outs and no cop outs.” Huh? That pretty much defines his presidency.
The man has a “mouth speaking great things”, none of which are true.
Report comment to moderator
It was hash and rehash of old, tired, and worthless ideas. He channeled his inner Marx on Obsmaspeak for “fairness” – “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” Obama clearly wants wealth redistribution. His campaign slogan needs to be “You make it; we take it”
When Geogre Soros, Buffett, the Hollywood elites, the sports millionaires, the Clintons and members of Congress pay their “fair” share maybe I think about it.
Report comment to moderator
4. I liked what Daniels said about that. Don’t raise taxes, close loop holes. You can raise taxes all you want, but a guy who can afford an army of tax lawyers will still not pay his share.
Report comment to moderator
Adios: It is unfair. It used to be much, much fairer. The wealthy paid much higher rates than the rest of the hoi-polloi. But over the past 50 years that situation has become reversed. Dramatically.
And, interestingly, the wealthy are able to do this while employing far fewer people than they used to. Consider only Mitt’s father who was CEO of American Motors, which actually made things, and employed workers in it’s factories.
Today’s capitalists, especially the bankers make their money with computer programs, shifting huge amounts of money around the world, always keeping a slice for themselves. The internet entrepreneurs/CEO leverage technology the same way, employing far fewer people per million earned. And of course even the manufactureres employ far fewer people per widget made.
Technology and efficiency have trashed the old world model where entrepreneurship and business start-ups always led to much greater employment. Yet the population is still here, so simply trashing the government budget is not the solution.
Report comment to moderator
The president is pitching the same “used car” scenario. That has worked so well for his administration his 1st 3 years in office. Meanwhile, fuel is up 83%. This is costing his own base, the teamsters, their jobs. If the president was serious about wealth redistribution, why doesn’t he just seize all of George Soros’ assets? Of if Liberals are so concerned about tax breaks for the wealthy, why is there not a balanced budget amendment along with a fixed flat tax?
Report comment to moderator
Several, at least twenty, years ago, I heard a talk by Art Linkletter. He was telling about a failed investment he made. He was investing in a ranch in Australia. In those days, the tax rate was 90%. He had only 10% to lose, so it was a wise move. If it worked out, he has a ranch in Australia, if not, he loses 10%. It didn’t work out, but he had an interesting story to tell; and it didn’t cost him anything.
It tells me a lot about what people do with their money when government takes most of it. The government got very little of it in those days. As I said before, Congress is not going to pass a law that takes the money of the Obamas, Clintons, Kerrys, Boxers and Pelosis.
MIM is wrong in this, Obama is no fool. He knows this. He is a Marxist ideologue.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia, that is exactly why the bus driver needs to pay less. If anyone is paying 30% it is too much. The government needs to be be much leaner, bring down fuel costs. Not allow them to go up hoping people will get greener. I am all for green, btw, but smart green.
Report comment to moderator
“Obama’s exactly right on his diagnosis: The system is rigged so that the rich get richer and everybody else struggles and fails.
It’s got nothing to do with working hard. People are working hard and still falling behind.”
Yup, it would take one to know one. I mean after all, he’s the one giving hand outs to companies like Solyndra…
As to impeachment…I’d rather not have Biden…
Report comment to moderator
In reference to #4: Here’s a quote from Arcadia yesterday “AJ: Re: Class warfare. When Mitt pays 13% and his campaign bus driver pays 30% who do you say is winning? 13% on $400,000 per week vs. 30% on $,1200 per week?”
Am I missing something with the numbers here? The bus driver is paid $1200 per week for 52 weeks for a total annual salary of $62400. On his annual federal income tax return, he gets to claim an exemption of $3700 and a standard deduction of $5800 (2011 numbers) for a taxable income of, at most, $52900. The federal taxes owed on that amount for a single person is $9356 (2011 numbers). $9356 is only 15% of $62400. How does that get inflated to a 30% tax rate for people who make around $60K a year?
Report comment to moderator
“The wealthy paid much higher rates than the rest of the hoi-polloi. But over the past 50 years that situation has become reversed. Dramatically.”
No they didn’t. 50 years ago they had more loopholes/deductions than the moon has craters.
Btw, Dave Ramsey is worth about 50 plus million and pays almost 40% in taxes every year…
But guys like Buffet wanna complain about not paying the fair share, how about we just lower our rates down to theirs instead?
Forget raising taxes. Just put everyone at a flat 10% and call it a day.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia,
I agree with you 100% that technology has trashed the old world model. I suspect that anyone working in the private sector today would see that. Isn’t that what also happened in the “industrial revolution?” The question is, what do you do about it? Do you let capitalism work its way through it, painful though it might be for many or do you let the government step in and try to solve it? I think that those of us who are conservatives wish for the former because we believe that for the latter, the only answer is socialism.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia,
I didn’t see you’re comment from last night until this morning. It’s obvious you’re a big fan of class warfare, just like Obama. If either of you was concerned with fairness, why not a flat tax? Everybody pays the same rate. But you’re not really concerned with fairness, just punishing the rich because they’ve done better than you. That’s wht Obysmal is your guy. I find it pathetic that jealousy of others who’ve done well is what leads you to this nonsense. And why no mention of John (did you know he was in Vietnam) Kerry, who paid an even lower rate that Romney? What about all his employees that pay more than him? They get no mention because they’re on your side. Just like the fraud Buffett. If you and Barry are so concerned rich folks are not paying their share, why not go after the billions in taxes he and his companies already legally owe, yet haven’t paid in nearly 10 years? Again, because he’s on your side. It’s not about fairness with you lefty’s, it’s about punishment. Sad, and very un-American.
And don’t you ever stop to think about how things got this way? The very people you’re looking to to fix this wrong in your eyes problem, are the very ones who set the tax code up like this. You look to govt to correct this percieved wrong, yet they are the ones who enable folks to play the tax system in the first place. Flat tax, everbody pays the same rate. It’s fair and equal. But let’s face it, that’s not really what you and Barry want anyway. You class warmongers want to pick the winners and losers. You need to get a clue.
Report comment to moderator
The reason Mr. Obama needs the more money. So he can funnel it to his union buddies and he also knows as soon as Obama Care kicks in and the American People see the real cost. They will be demand it to be removed.
Report comment to moderator
“And it’s got nothing to do with “dividing people.” It’s those who rigged the system in the first place that did that”
And who did and does that “rigging.” Check which percent Obama and his cabinet and czars and regulators and policy advisors belong to. And who have the governmental power to do that rigging. And spent all last night explaining that he wants to do more “rigging” in the name of “fairness”, in Orwellian Newspeak.
Report comment to moderator
Markin,
That’s easy. Fuzzy math and made up numbers. They’ve been pulling that for years. The only way their scheme works is if they lie on the numbers, as you’ve demonstrated nicely in 21. The numbers as they say they are don’t add up.
Report comment to moderator
In the 20th century some conservative criticized then Veep Henry Wallace: “The only difference between Wallace and Andrei Gromyko is that Gromyko actually knows what he’s doing!”
I just worry that BHO doesnt fully get it and he relies too much on those with a view of the USA distorted thru ideological lenses which are rejected by most Americans. A white man with BHO’s light resume and empty suit would have not stood a chance in getting to the WH. A sincere man but one sincerely misguided.
Report comment to moderator
I still chuckle when I read about how John Kerry bought a yacht yet in order to escape the Massachusetts tax rates on it he kept it moored in Rhode Island. He got called out on this and begrudgingly paid the state tax and then some to call off the media scrutiny.
I hate the way Newt is going to continually paint Mitt as some type of Little Lord Fauntleroy/Poor Litte Rich Guy. It is so much a leaf from the BHO/Occupier’s play book and Newt is truly playing to the lefty audience of pundits who despise him and will never give him any acclaim/credit.
Report comment to moderator
I would advise any candidate for the WH to sell off all but maybe 2 of the estates/houses he owns or else put them in the names of his children.
Report comment to moderator
THey still went after Cheney’s blind trust. Facts don’e count to Democrats as long as they make serious accusations repeated over and over by the corrupt media.
Report comment to moderator
Peter L. posted a response to Arcadia’s whine about the bus driver and Mitt this morning on WVs. It’s excellent, and again, deals with the fuzzy math Arcadia and company use.
“I thought Arcadia was smarter than the below average TV viewer. Romney’s 13% is on his investments, not his salary. The MSM and Democrats like to manipulate the facts to get their point across, and no one challenges them. Also, one would have to earn over $100k/year to get into the 30% bracket. So the bus driver is not poor. If he is paying that rate on $62k/year, he needs a new accountant!”
Stop the class warfare lies.
Report comment to moderator
All the carpping about Romney moving investments off-shore get one thinking. Well, if he doesn’t get the nod he could do investment seminars. I’d go
Report comment to moderator
AJ- And to think Buffet would know that his lower rate is on his investments, and his secretary on her salary income.
And I confess that I got my information listening to Glenn Beck the other day.
Report comment to moderator
Adios,
Again though, why can he do that? Because the tax code allows it. Who writes the tax code? Crooks like Charlie Rangel. These people are the problem, not the solution.
Report comment to moderator
“Unfortunately for the impeachment case, disagreeing with the defenders of plutocracy is not a crime.”
Well that’s not what I was talking about; dragging our constitution through the mud, and usurping powers that rightfully belonging to other branches of government, and the people, is…
Trouble is, there are plenty of idiots that will let him get away with wildly expanding the powers of the government in general, and the presidency in particular.
Report comment to moderator
AP has fact checked, and found Obama lacking, as usual. Same speech as the last 2. Same wish list. Same plans that didn’t work for him, or us, before.
FACT CHECK: Obama pushes plans that flopped before
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20120125/D9SFO48G0.html
“It was a wish list, not a to-do list.
President Barack Obama laid out an array of plans in his State of the Union speech as if his hands weren’t so tied by political realities. There can be little more than wishful thinking behind his call to end oil industry subsidies – something he could not get through a Democratic Congress, much less today’s divided Congress, much less in this election year.
And there was more recycling, in an even more forbidding climate than when the ideas were new: He pushed for an immigration overhaul that he couldn’t get past Democrats, permanent college tuition tax credits that he asked for a year ago, and familiar discouragements for companies that move overseas.
A look at Obama’s rhetoric Tuesday night and how it fits with the facts and political circumstances:
OBAMA: “We have subsidized oil companies for a century. That’s long enough. It’s time to end the taxpayer giveaways to an industry that’s rarely been more profitable, and double-down on a clean energy industry that’s never been more promising.”
THE FACTS: This is at least Obama’s third run at stripping subsidies from the oil industry. Back when fellow Democrats formed the House and Senate majorities, he sought $36.5 billion in tax increases on oil and gas companies over the next decade, but Congress largely ignored the request. He called again to end such tax breaks in last year’s State of the Union speech. And he’s now doing it again, despite facing a wall of opposition from Republicans who want to spur domestic oil and gas production and oppose tax increases generally.”
Same crap, same speech, different day.
Report comment to moderator
Obama’s speech was an abject failure. He didn’t address the issue of spending that is leading the country toward a financial crisis. Nor did he address the related issue of entitlement reform. Essentially, he argued for an increase of government activity without explaining how he would pay for it. If he thinks taxing the rich will solve the problem, he has rocks in his head.
Mitch Daniels in a brilliant address argued that since the dollar is the basic currency for international trade we have a short window of opportunity to deal with the entitlement reform necessary to solve the spending problem and indeed to save Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. He has great confidence that the American people can deal with these issues and get the country on a sound financial footing, if only we can muster the political will to do so.
He, also, said we are not far behind Greece in facing a devastating financial crisis and that actions taken in 2012 will decide whether or not we have this crisis.
Obama, whether deliberately or not is hard to say, is in the process with trillion plus dollar deficits of leading this country over the Niagara Falls, a term that Daniels used. Obama’s address last night was a typically overblown rhetorical candy address in a state of the nation that is on a disastrous course.
Two of the country’s most fiscally savvy statesmen, Daniels and Paul Ryan, have been prophetically warning the nation that we are in deep trouble. We need to pay attention and stop getting sidetracked with minor issues.
Report comment to moderator
Here’s some more on Obama’s, and liberals, playing fast and loose with the numbers. I know, Math is hard Barry. Too bad for him, some people can actaully do Math, and again, the numbers when looked at, are nothing like Barry says. Fuzzy math.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/24/obama-praises-teachers-for-adding-10-cents-to-students-lifetime-hourly-earnings/
“President Obama’s State of the Union speech included a statistical hat-tip to teachers unions — an estimate of the added earning potential of children who have “good” teachers. But the giant number the president cited doesn’t amount to much on a per-student basis.
“At a time when other countries are doubling down on education, tight budgets have forced states to lay off thousands of teachers,” Obama said Tuesday night.
“We know a good teacher can increase the lifetime income of a classroom by over $250,000. … Most teachers work tirelessly, with modest pay, sometimes digging into their own pocket for school supplies — just to make a difference.””
“With the U.S. Department of Education estimating that 25 students sit in the average American public school classroom, that “lifetime earning” comes out to $10,000 per child.
A high school graduate, at age 18, can expect to be in the workforce for 47 years, when he or she turns 65 — stretching that $10,000 benefit to $212.76 per year.
And assuming an average work-year of 2,000 hours, that $250,000 amounts to 85 cents per day, or just north of 10 cents per hour.”
$250,000.00 sounds great, but reality is far less appealing.
Report comment to moderator
All the rhetoric aside, Obama is presiding over a country where fewer and fewer and frewer and frewer children will grow up in a home with a mother and a father. But this trend is already 5 decades old, so it is not all Obama’s fault.
Report comment to moderator
PITTS Indeed, many facts contradict Obama’s claim that the nation is stronger
The facts that PITTS list don’t strengthen Obama’s claim but they don’t contradict it, either. The unemployment rate is always a lagging indicator of recovery, in every recession. Food stamps mean eating, and nourishment maintains strength. The increase in the national without an increase in interest rates and inflation proved that the US government is sound.
Unfortunately for PITTS, his facts don’t support the Republican claim that Obama has made the economic crisis worse.
Daniels admits that Obama didn’t cause the financial crisis and recession but charges that Obama’s budget has made our problems worse. This is rich, coming from the director of the budget that was the cause of our woe.
More importantly, there are solid facts to back up Obama’s claim that our economy is strengthening.
Daniels insists on calling our situation “grave,” yet in 4Q 2008 when we were experiencing the worst collapse in GDP since the Depression, Republicans excoriated Obama for badmouthing the economy. (Actually, our condition may be both “grave” and “strengthening.”)
“More government” is a misnomer. Obama wants to streamline. It would be more objective to report “further government.” As a superb CEO, he has kept a tight control of SG&A expenses.
Report comment to moderator
Republican loud-mouths are making life easy for Obama. He needs to walk a very fine, difficult line in dealing with the issue of fairness. Independents believe our economy is unfair. In this, they are unlike Republicans. Nevertheless, independents worry that government taxation of the rich might perversely make their own misery worse. In this, they are somewhat like Republicans. Obama needs to speak about fairness, but he must do so gingerly, and reassuringly. Fortunately, he only has to make small noises. It’s enough to say “fairness” in a speech, mildly, and Republicans holler from coast to coast. This helps Obama sound sane.
Report comment to moderator
“He, also, said we are not far behind Greece in facing a devastating financial crisis and that actions taken in 2012 will decide whether or not we have this crisis.”
Of course when I bring this up, people like Scroop say: “but Greece is an entirely different scenario”.
Yeah.. I know. In fact we’re probably actually in worse shape in terms of Debt to GDP ratios… The difference is that the dollar is the standard of currency, and the drachma and the Euro are not, so we can print money with near impunity… and manipulate the interest rates, and devalue the dollar…
Actually it will catch up to us sooner or later, and the “landing” won’t be pretty… Insanity. Have you not looked at the price of energy and groceries? I don’t give a rats behind about the official definition of inflation because that’s a doctored figure anyway… And what happens when the interest rates finally begin to go up? You think that debt is just going to get smaller all by itself, when that happens?
But for some odd reason people like Scroop think this trajectory is actually sustainable and call for us to stay the course, and in fact think we’re improving, and that we don’t have inflation…
I don’t see us in recovery until the debt goes down significantly, and unemployment numbers go back down to something reasonable… And heaven help us when the interest rates finally must go up.
Report comment to moderator
#5 Conan “Obama’s exactly right on his diagnosis: The system is rigged so that the rich get richer and everybody else struggles and fails.”
How is the system rigged? And what is wrong with success? Doesn’t it depend on what people do with their money, not on how much they have?
For example, Romney has given away $7 million to charity in the last two years. Joe Biden gave away $369 bucks. The Obama’s gave away $10K, which is only a fraction of 1% of their income.
So who is greedy?
Report comment to moderator
“The system is rigged so that the rich get richer and everybody else struggles and fails.”
Right. And the rich consist of politicians and appointed federal officials who haven’t worked an honest days work in their lives and wouldn’t know a budget if it bit their fanny off.
The rest of us try to run, or work for small businesses, while these vultures try to kill us off with their regulations and taxes…
Report comment to moderator
Here’s the contrast …
Generous people like Romney who gives away 15% of his income are castigated round the clock as being the greedy rich, while the actual greedy people like the Obamas and Bidens prefer legislation that uses other people’s money to give to the poor.
Conservatives want everyone to have the opportunity to be rich. Liberals who think there is something wrong with being rich want to solve wealth disparity by making everyone poor.
Report comment to moderator
MAKE-IT-MAN – The fact that we issue debt in dollars means that everyone knows we can devalue it. Still, lenders don’t care. The market has signaled a willingness to finance even more government debt. Interest rates and inflation remain historically low. We’re in a period of unquenchable thirst for US paper on the part of everyone with cash. If the people who have money want us to take it out from under their mattresses for them and throw it at government programs, why not, when we’ve got miles of roads and bridges to fix?
The debt isn’t nearly as high as it was after WWII, preceding the great middle class boom. And you know what we had done with all that money — we literally blew it up in four years of explosions.
One reason our debt is not a crisis is that we own both the liability and the asset of the debt. We owe ourselves. While it’s true that all this debt is not in the hands of American citizens, as it was after WWII when everybody bought US Savings Bonds, that’s not a bad thing. Here’s why. Today, our citizens are purchasing foreign debt as well as US paper. Because of the higher interest rates on foreign debt, our economy earns more on the foreign debt we own than we pay on what we owe. We lend at high rates and borrow at low rates. Slick, huh?
Since you mention Greece, please explain why government austerity worsened the economy there and in Ireland and Spain.
Report comment to moderator
Let’s take another look at some real Math, not the stuff made up by Obysmal and his minions.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/2012/01/25/truth-about-federal-tax-burden/?cmpid=cmty_twitter_foxbusiness_truth-about-federal-tax-burden/
“But what the president failed to tell you is that taxpayers in the lower brackets, including secretaries, do not pay more federal income taxes than the upper brackets, including millionaires or billionaires. Their effective rates may be the same, but their portion of the federal tax revenue pie is much smaller.
The federal tax burden in this country disproportionately falls on the upper bracket, including small businesses who create most of the jobs, which pay wages to taxpayers who pay federal income taxes the government overspends.
The top 5% of earners in this country pay 58.72% of all federal income taxes, according to the National Taxpayers Union. The top 10% pays 70%. The top 1% pays 38.02%. The bottom 50% pay 2.7%.
That means about half the country currently pays no taxes at all. That likely includes some secretaries, unless they are very well paid.
What you didn’t hear is this: taxpayers in the lower brackets are not always stuck there, and many in the upper brackets don’t stay there for the rest of their lives.
A 2007 Treasury Department study says almost 58% of U.S. households in the lowest-income quintile in 1996 achieved success and moved to a higher level by 2005. And more than 57% of households in the top 1% in income dropped to a lower-income group by 2005.”
Report comment to moderator
Except for Make It Man, the discussion on this thread is about rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
Report comment to moderator
Why target a certain group of people?
Report comment to moderator
“But guys like Buffet wanna complain about not paying the fair share, how about we just lower our rates down to theirs instead?”
I like that. Or the flat tax…
But you know that Buffet’s Berkshire Hathaway company, is in arrears for huge amount of taxes for the past 8 years or so? I think Buffet just needs to start with what’s legally owed rather than ask the government to hike taxes up on everyone…
Report comment to moderator
“One reason our debt is not a crisis is that we own both the liability and the asset of the debt. We owe ourselves.”
Yeah? And is that why China keeps dumping dollars and calling for another standard of currency?
Sorry, I’m not buying it. The Asians are the ones who are propping up our debt…
Report comment to moderator
“We’re in a period of unquenchable thirst for US paper on the part of everyone with cash.”
That’s only because they think the dollar is slightly more attractive than the Euro- not because the dollar is in such great shape. If the Euro wasn’t in such bad shape we’d be down for the count… As it is, it’s a race to see which of us hits bottom first…
Report comment to moderator
“Since you mention Greece, please explain why government austerity worsened the economy there and in Ireland and Spain.”
It didn’t. It was the massive over-spending that did that. Or do you suggest they keep spending so that responsible economies can keep propping up their debt?
Report comment to moderator
Scroop Moth’s posts stirs memories.
I actually had to (or did) read numerous (translated) excerpts from Pravda (the newspaper of the Soviet Union) during the 70’s (and early 80’s), at one time.
Scroop Moth’s comments about the American economy (and Obama’s ‘management’ thereof) sound eerily similar to editorial comments made in the Pravda about the (then-current) Soviet economy and Soviet ‘leadership’:
Stuff like: “The Soviet Economy is on path to complete all goals in the Five-Year Plan! Comrade Andropov has deftly and heroically steered the motherland through the shoals of Western imperialistic economic attacks! Comrade Andropov has increased tractor and bra production 30,000%! But, sadly, Comrade Andropov continues to uncover economic sabotage by counter-revolutionaries, Trotskyists, wreckers, and other enemies of the people; the class struggle for the heart of the Motherland continues!
A direct quote from Vladimir Ilyich Lenin:
“The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation.”
Then from Wikipedia (Soviet Union):
“The Five Year Plan intensified the class struggle with many attacks on kulaks (successful peasant farmers), and when it was found that many peasant opponents were not rich enough to qualify, they were declared “sub-kulaks”
Get ready to be re-classified, folks.
Report comment to moderator
Lots of critiques, little time. I’ll limit myself to this one for now, Adios.
The government needs to be be much leaner, bring down fuel costs. Not allow them to go up
Just yesterday the WSJ had a big article on how we are now awash in natural gas. While they were finding it, the energy co’s were busy touting how many jobs would be created, how desperate we are for energy independence, how they really needed tax breaks, etc. Yet according to the article there is now a GLUT of natural gas, which should be GREAT for consumers, right? But no, the gas producers are now CUTTING BACK PRODUCTION, in order to keep prices high.
How do you suggest the government respond to those companies next requests for help? I would only need one finger.
Report comment to moderator
MARK IN:
It looks like you have the tables in front of you. At what adjusted gross does the rate go to 30%? Pay the bus driver or Mitt’s head groundskeeper that much and you too will see the point. I know Newt paid 28 and change on his $3 mil last year. I think HE should go to one of Mitt’s seminars… Would that be patriotic? Adios?
Report comment to moderator
DRILL. BABY DRILL (but not too much).
From CNBC today:
Natural gas futures surged 8 percent after Conoco Phillips said Wednesday its shutting down 100 million cubic feet per day (0.1 bcf) of production in 2012 due to lower prices.
It’s a smaller shut-in than the half-a-billion cubic feet per day of natural gas Chesapeake Energy announced Monday that it is putting into place.
Occidental Petroleum also said Wednesday that it is cutting back on pure gas drilling in the mid-continent and South Texas due to “horrible” natural gas prices.
Just think about what investor in the current Republican race likely made a few million off of these price jumps. Good for him, bad for the rest of us…
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia, think about Pres. Obama’s remarks last night.
Report comment to moderator
MAKE_IT_MAN #54 — This WP story says you’re wrong:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/in-greece-fears-that-austerity-is-killing-the-economy/2012/01/09/gIQA9hAFpP_print.html?hpid=z3
Their unemployment has gone from 13% to 18% because of austerity.
Germany in good fiscal order has a far more extensive social safety net than Greece. The reason the recession knocked the wind out of the Greek treasury is that it can’t collect income taxes. Greece also had a wildly over-leveraged private sector.
Our problem isn’t domestic spending, it’s the Republican addiction to underpayment of taxes on disposable income. Government is the special tool invented by democracy to solve problems like these, not the problem. You can’t be Mr. Fixit if you you blame the tool for what’s broke.
Why do you think our interest rates and inflation are at historic lows? Your answer seems to be that investors are dumb. What reason do you have for thinking that the interest rate on government debt in the future will be greater than the growth rate in the economy?
Reuters is reporting that market participants at Davos believe that improvements in the euro are a consequence of a flood of new paper (ECB cash, LTRO’s) and not produced by stricter enforcement of budget discipline.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/25/davos-economy-europe-idUSL5E8CO4QY20120125
Cutting spending will not lead to growth. The only way to grow and then repay debt is to increase spending first. Listen to your dirty inner hippie, MAKEITMAN.
Report comment to moderator
Companies don’t grow by cutting spending. They constantly redeploy spending. Cutting spending absolutely is only appropriate as a strategy for declining revenues.
Report comment to moderator
#41 Scroop Moth
“As a superb CEO, he has kept a tight control of SG&A expenses.”
What are SG&A expenses?
Report comment to moderator
salary, general & administrative
Report comment to moderator
Bob my argument is that only the food stamp worker is government. The food stamps are food, and eating isn’t government. The fact that more people are on food stamps is pretty great, because they’re eating, and the farmers are making a living. So let’s congratulate ourselves, and not scorn Obama. But, you retort, let the Salvation Army feed. While that would indeed humble the hungry, it wouldn’t be as efficient. It takes more Salvation Army officers to serve a bowl of potato soup and stale donut than it takes food stamp workers to feed a family of four, I believe.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop Moth
The man who built my house, general contractor, has only worked about 6 months since he finished our house in August of 2008. He doesn’t show up on any unemployment records; self-employed.
Report comment to moderator
Well, at lunch I met the idiots who still believe Obama knows what he’s doing and that he’s not responsible for the past 3 years — it’s Bush’s fault. One of them came to me later and asked if we were still friends. Of course, we are. We both find Congress despicable. Obama has done nothing but prolong this agony. And don’t think HAFA and HAMP helped anybody. I have a job because the banks were still at liberty to string people along with these programs and continue with foreclosures. The lot of them (Congress and President) are incompetent, plain and simple.
Food stamps and food pantries humble the hungry, too, and to say otherwise is typical of the left — a failure to understand reality.
Get it through your heads. We are bankrupt. You can’t spend money you don’t have. Stop kicking the can down the road, because at the end of this road, there’s a cliff. We are less than a mile away. Enough.
Report comment to moderator
Louise: You are right about that. But overall, R’s are much more of the drill, baby, drill crowd.
NJL: Food stamps and food pantries humble the hungry, too,
Indeed, maybe we should allow the wealthy to feed on their proud corpses. (With apologies to Mr Swift who calculated that there were approximately 1,000 wealthy Dublin families who could account for 20,000 young children per year).
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia: From the 1040 Tax Rate Schedules table, “Filing status single: If your taxable income is over 83,600 but under 174,400, your tax rate is 17,025 + 28% of the amount over 83,600.” Notice that between 83,600 and 174,400, the marginal tax rate is 28%. (The marginal tax rate is 25% between $34,500 and $83,600.) The total tax paid on $174,400 is $42,449, which is only an effective tax rate of 24%. Above 174,400, the marginal tax rate is 33% but once again the effective (overall) tax rate will be below 33%. (For instance, at $200,000, the effective tax rate is 25.4%. At $379,000, the effective tax rate is 29%.) All of the tax rates are lower if you can claim more than the standard deduction (e.g. give money to charity) and/or if you have dependents.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia, my comment was in response to Scroopy’s about the Salvation Army, an organization he doesn’t seem to know much about. Anytime someone has to ask for food it is a humbling experience. I’ve worked on food drives. I would not cut food stamps, but I would prefer that the recipients have jobs. I scorn Obama because he has let this situation deteriorate.
You, and other Leftys here, fail to comprehend that the solution is NOT more government. The solution is jobs.
Report comment to moderator
How ironic that Obama would use the quote by Lincoln. It is clearly antithical to what the current president adheres to & upheld in his “speech”. His added statement to the quote about more efficient government completely missed Lincoln’s intent. To fit Obama’s ideology, the quote would need to be shortened to “Government should do for the people.” Perhaps he would like the “doing” to be done more “efficiently”, but still, government “should do”. Obama did a good job putting a Marxist twist upon words quoted by a truely great past president.
Report comment to moderator
NJL: You, and other Leftys here, fail to comprehend that the solution is NOT more government. The solution is jobs.
And your solution is tax cuts for guys like Mitt who claim to be “job providers” but in reality loathe having to employ anybody. They’d much rather move those billions all over the world and keep a cut every time.
You want to allow these “job poviders” to repatriate their profits without being taxed, but then refuse to say that those tax breaks should be dependent on their actually hiring Americans. That somehow amounts to “undue regulation” and is “burdensome”.
Mark In: Thanks. So the bus driver who busts his hump to make 83K by working 60 or 70 hours a week or slinging hash when he is off duty pays 24% while Mitt who makes almost that much every week by NOT WORKING AT ALL pays 13%. And a fair amount of that is done by parking his money overseas…
…And of course making whopping contributions to the Mormon church so they can build more edifices where they can baptize dead people of all faiths…but that’s a different story line.
Hey, if any of the Occupy political theatre specialists are out there (not likely in this crowd) how about a silver platter piled high with $100 bills and the label $400K weekly income at every Romney rally?
Report comment to moderator
Xion: How is the system rigged?
In many ways. One example is that taxes on money made from moving money around — stocks, bonds, etc. — are at a much lower rate that taxes on money earned through work.
The tax rates on wage income at the highest levels have dropped from around 90 percent to about 30 percent. All this talk about “class warfare” that we hear these days is over a proposal to raise that by four percentage points — it used to be far higher and the rich still were quite rich.
That’s a couple of quick examples. Look at the way anti-trust laws have weakened over recent years. Or how it’s become acceptable, even defended, for companies to lay off thousands of workers while paying executives multi-million dollar bonuses.
Books could be written about this, and have been.
And what is wrong with success?
For what feels like the hundredth time, nothing is wrong with success.
What is wrong with demanding fairness? Why are you so determined to defend a fundamentally broken system that punishes the ordinary people for not being rich?
Why do you keep returning to the dishonest insistence that my argument has something to do with disliking success or thinking the rich are “evil?”
Doesn’t it depend on what people do with their money, not on how much they have?
That’s irrelevant. It’s not about how much people have. It’s about fixing the broken system so that people who work for living have a fair chance to succeed as well. So they can be assured of earning a fair wage, and can feel secure that they’re not going to lose their job overnight because of a CEO’s whims.
What do you have against a fair system?
For example, Romney has given away $7 million to charity in the last two years. Joe Biden gave away $369 bucks. The Obama’s gave away $10K, which is only a fraction of 1% of their income.
If you take away the money that Romney donated to his church, how much went to actual charity?
Nevertheless, this is not relevant to my point. I’m sure it makes you feel good to beat on Democrats though.
Report comment to moderator
OK all you “pay your fair share” lefties, time to man up. I expect all of you to contact your leader Barry, and demand that his staff and the rest of the govt employees “pay their fair share”. To not do so would expose your hypocrisy, and we know you don’t want that. Time to put up, or shut up with the class warfare.
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/01/26/great-news-the-fair-share-administration-owes-over-800000-in-back-taxes/
“We heard a lot on Tuesday night from President Obama about the wealthy paying their “fair share” in his State of the Union speech. (Well, you heard it a lot; I read the speech and then commenced to have a life on Tuesday night.) Obama made half a dozen references to fairness in relation to taxes in the address, including taking a shot at Congress:
But in return, we need to change our tax code so that people like me, and an awful lot of members of Congress, pay our fair share of taxes.
Just like with charity, perhaps fairness should start at home:”
”
From postal workers to congressional staffers, federal workers failed to pay billions in taxes in 2010. According to records released by the Internal Revenue Service, active and retired federal employees and military personnel combined owed $3,420,168,684 in unpaid taxes for 2010, an increase of more than 3 percent over the previous year.
As has been the case in past years, the agency with employees who owe the most in unpaid taxes is the U.S. Postal Service, where 25,640 employees owe nearly $270 million. Employees in the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives owe more the $10 million. Active duty military owe more than $100 million.
What WTOP doesn’t mention except in a chart is what the White House itself owes. That comes to $833,970, or twice what the President makes in a year. Andrew Malcolm catches that, though, and notes that Obama’s staff can’t exactly claim poverty, either:
A new report just out from the Internal Revenue Service reveals that 36 of President Obama’s executive office staff owe the country $833,970 in back taxes. These people working for Mr. Fair Share apparently haven’t paid any share, let alone their fair share.”
Time to man up. And tell them to get Buffett’s billion owed as well.
Report comment to moderator
http://online.wsj.com/public/page/news-opinion-commentary.html
The Buffett Ruse. Obama’s ploy means the highest capital gains tax since 1978. — not because he thinks higher rates will raise revenue, but merely so he can score points against Mitt Romney and stick it to the successful.
That isn’t tax fairness. It’s tax folly.
The Buffett rule is rooted in the fairy tale that taxes on the wealthy are lower than on the middle class. The cBO notes that the effective income tax rate of the richest 1% is about 29.5% when including all federal taxes such as the distribution of corporate taxes, or about tice the 15.1% paid by middle-class families.
This because wealthy tax filers make most of their income from investments — whichis taxed once at the corporate rate of 35% and again when it is passed through to the individual as a capital gain or dividend at 15%, for a highest marginal tax rate of about 44.75%.
++ Read the whole article for the rest of the story that Democrats don’t want the Lefties to understand.
Report comment to moderator
How ironic that Obama would use the quote by Lincoln. It is clearly antithetical . .
Actually, the Republican party’s opposition to federal spending on internal “improvements” is antithetical to Lincoln’s philosophy. The parties have reversed positions on this policy. Democrats until the 1930’s and even later in the South were the social conservatives (though pro-immigration) who resisted Big Government. Obama speaks legitimately about history. I believe that Rep. Lincoln would come to Washington today as a Democrat. There are lots of things that individuals can’t do on their own and shouldn’t do on their own even if they had the money and competence. Common endeavor is one of the individual’s greatest assets. For example. You need to insure against the risks of catastrophic illness. Nobody can spread that risks better than the government, for private companies have a market incentive to offload risk and rescind your policy when you get sick. ACA is an example of government doing for individuals what they cannot do for themselves.
Moreover, when Obama says “government” he means what Lincoln meant: government of the people, by the people, and for the people. When Republicans say “government” they mean “alien occupying power.”
If you admire Lincoln, be a Democrat.
Report comment to moderator
AJ: OK all you “pay your fair share” lefties, time to man up. I expect all of you to contact your leader Barry, and demand that his staff and the rest of the govt employees “pay their fair share”. To not do so would expose your hypocrisy, and we know you don’t want that. Time to put up, or shut up with the class warfare.
I have no idea why you assume anyone would argue they shouldn’t pay their back taxes. Of course they should.
Seriously, what could possibly lead you to assume that anyone would say otherwise?
By the way, what does “class warfare” mean to you? I hear that term bandied around a lot. It seems to mean any suggestion that a multi-billionaire might ought to pay a bit more than 13% in taxes.
Right now it’s being employed to oppose an increase on the highest marginal tax rate of four percentage points, which would still leave that bracket about 50 percentage points lower than it has been at times in the past.
I think it’s an overused buzzword that has lost any real meaning. What do you think?
Report comment to moderator
Well let’s Conan,
I’ve heard nothing from the liberal news sites on Buffett’s billion owed. No cries for collection. Also no outrage over Obama’s job guy GE CEO not paying any tax on 14 billion in profit. Also, the tax thing with govt workers is ongoing, again nothing in the news from liberals about it. No outrage for these examples, like Romney’s getting. Nothing.
Now as for class warfare, yes it’s being employed right now, but by Obama and Dems, not the people you allege. They’re simply defending themselves against it. It’s jealousy, it’s coveting your neighbor stuff, and it’s anger that someone has done well. It’s un-American and disgusts me. And it’s all we hear from Barry and Dems. They are pitting Americans against one another based upon wealth. It’s cynical and pathetic. It’s not the American way. Meanwhile Obama and his rich pals are somehow excempted from it as if they’re the ruling class and that they deserve their wealth, unlike rich Republicans. It’s the same tactic the ruling class of communists have used for decades. That’s what I think about it. Disgusting, pathetic, and un-American.
Report comment to moderator
Speaking of over-used buzzwords Conan, be fair. I don’t understand why you think that higher taxes and taxing money twice is fair. Why do you? This is what feeds our current “class warfare,” an updated term for the class struggle that Karl Marx defined in his economic theory of the means of production in a capitalist system.
Obama and the disgraceful Occupiers want the government to pick the winners of that struggle by making things fair. What’s the definition of fair? They have no quantifiable definition of fairness beyond wanting someone else’s money. The several decades of Democrat controlled legislatures have gotten us into this tax-code mess.
A flat 15% federal income tax on everyone would be the fair way to go. Or do you have a different number that defines fairness? It is only fair that every citizen has a share in their nation by contributing to its support.
Report comment to moderator
My inquiring mind still wants to know exactly how Obama presumes to keep kids in high school until they graduate or turn 18 – which ever comes first.
Just another campaign bullet point in Barack’s campaign promises.
Report comment to moderator
AJ: I’ve heard nothing from the liberal news sites on Buffett’s billion owed. No cries for collection. Also no outrage over Obama’s job guy GE CEO not paying any tax on 14 billion in profit. Also, the tax thing with govt workers is ongoing, again nothing in the news from liberals about it. No outrage for these examples, like Romney’s getting. Nothing.
Romney himself isn’t getting any outrage either. But he’s serving as an example of what’s wrong the system. Nobody has alleged that Romney did anything wrong, and certainly nothing illegal. Everything he did is legal… some of us think the laws need to be changed and that his public release of his tax returns gives us good data to show just why they need to.
As for the GE CEO, etc., if they’re also paying no or low taxes due to the system, then it’s the system itself that needs changing. Obama made a point in the the SOTU to include himself among people who pay much less than they should under the current tax laws.
So it’s a different case to start with, since Romney has paid all the taxes he owes, as far as anyone can tell. Tax delinquents have not.
Now as for class warfare, yes it’s being employed right now, but by Obama and Dems, not the people you allege. They’re simply defending themselves against it. It’s jealousy, it’s coveting your neighbor stuff, and it’s anger that someone has done well.
I’m not inclined to respond to this gross mischaracterization yet again. You guys have yourselves convinced that that’s all it is, envy, jealousy, etc. There’s just no point in trying to explain why that’s wrong. It’s like talking to a brick wall.
Meanwhile Obama and his rich pals are somehow excempted from it as if they’re the ruling class and that they deserve their wealth, unlike rich Republicans.
No, they’re not. They themselves don’t say they are exempted, and certainly nobody else does. That is all in your head.
Report comment to moderator
#79. My inquiring mind still wants to know exactly how Obama presumes to keep kids in high school until they graduate or turn 18 – which ever comes first.
Louise, only about 20 states, plus the District of Columbia, currently require students to attend school until age 18. This is a matter that has been left to the states to decide. Obama’s mandate oversteps the federal government’s bounds, and he’ll use funding as leverage, with the help of his allies in Congress.
Ultimately, education decisions are best left up to parents, not the government — state or federal. Some 16 and 17 year olds are better off wrapping it up early and getting started on real life, with their parents’ blessing. It’s disppointing Mr. Pitts doesn’t even mention the issue.
Report comment to moderator
Bingo Narissra – thank you! Exactly my point
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia, I have not asked for tax cuts for the rich. Don’t put words into my mouth. Watch yourself.
I don’t think there should be “pass-through” S corporations or a different rate on dividends. Income is income. But neither will I say that Romney should pay 50% if everyone else is only paying 10%. Let everyone pay the same rate and take away all the sweet deals. I’m a renter. How do I benefit from the mortgage interest deduction? I don’t. I’m penalized in all sorts of ways.
Report comment to moderator
The whole Congress has exempted itself from insider trading and all sorts of things that would send the rest of us to jail. Obama, too.
What I would like to see is if you send a person to jail for stealing a loaf of bread, you also send a banker to jail for stealing a house. Until there are criminal penalties and actual prosecutions, thing won’t change. What does it cost any of these banks to pay the SEC fines? Dollars. No admission of guilt. All they have to do is promise not to do it again, and they don’t until they do it again.
Report comment to moderator
#72 Conan “One example is that taxes on money made from moving money around — stocks, bonds, etc. — are at a much lower rate that taxes on money earned through work.
Yeah, but they already paid taxes on the income at the higher rate. How many times do people need to be taxed on the same money?
For what feels like the hundredth time, nothing is wrong with success. What is wrong with demanding fairness?
Well, when a lefty uses the word ‘fairness’ they mean paying other people’s mortgages, giving people special privileges based on the color of their skin, or sexual preferences and a myriad of other unfair criteria.
Why are you so determined to defend a fundamentally broken system that punishes the ordinary people for not being rich?
The system is broken, but it is the government that made it that way. Even so, the left will always attack people making a buck and ignore the real culprits, namely corrupt politicians.
Why do you keep returning to the dishonest insistence that my argument has something to do with disliking success or thinking the rich are “evil?”
Well, naturally you would never think such a thing, but many on the left do.
Report comment to moderator
No. The system is not broken. That is a lazy cop-out to get off the hook by corrupt politicians who want to blame their constituents for electing them and pretending they have no choice but obeisence but to what their voters want.
The system needs more participation and oversight, not arm-chair whiners and complainers. Have we gotten so pampered by watching ballgames on tv that we don’t know how to get active in the game itself?
Report comment to moderator
Xion: Well, when a lefty uses the word ‘fairness’ they mean paying other people’s mortgages, giving people special privileges based on the color of their skin, or sexual preferences and a myriad of other unfair criteria.
So rather than listen to what I’m actually saying, you’re just going to assume you already know because I am a “lefty” (in your system of categories) and so automatically have a pre-set list of opinions you can just refer to?
Don’t bother paying any attention to my actual positions, just assign them to me off your checklist?
yeah. I’m bored with that.
Report comment to moderator
#87 Conan, if you spent as much time telling us your positions as you do denying them, then maybe we could get somewhere.
Are you saying that now you do not support Affirmative Action and wealth redistribution? If not, then what do you mean when you say ‘fairness’? What exactly would that look like? I assume that in your system Romney would have less money and “the poor” would have more, correct? Well, how exactly will that work?
You say you would change the system. So would I. The “system” has been rigged by the government. It allows banks to create fiat money out of thin air and to gamble with assets they don’t have. They can buy insurance on other people’s assets and when they fail every decade or so, the taxpayer has to bail them out.
Fixing these things would solve many of our economic problems, but your beef is with wealth inequity. The only way to solve that is with socialism which in the end would make everyone poor.
Report comment to moderator
See? After all these months I’ve been talking about this here, you still don’t understand my argument.
You say you would change the system. So would I. The “system” has been rigged by the government. It allows banks to create fiat money out of thin air and to gamble with assets they don’t have. They can buy insurance on other people’s assets and when they fail every decade or so, the taxpayer has to bail them out.
I agree. That’s a real problem and needs to be fixed.
Fixing these things would solve many of our economic problems, but your beef is with wealth inequity. The only way to solve that is with socialism which in the end would make everyone poor.
Wrong.
I categorically do NOT advocate solving the income disparity problem by simply taking from the top and giving to the bottom.
What I am talking about is a series of reforms:
*Strengthen anti-trust laws.
*Close tax loopholes and raise the top marginal tax rates. The increased revenue can go to faster debt reduction.)
*Create incentives for companies to keep jobs in America rather than offshoring.
*Create incentives for companies to manufacture goods in America rather than offshoring.
*Raise tariffs on imports to further encourage buying American-made products.
*End all forms of corporate welfare.
*Create or enhance programs allowing the poor to afford higher education.
There are probably other things we could do too, these are just off the top of my head.
All of these things would, over time, allow the poor and middle-class to earn more, find jobs more easily, keep more money in the American economy rather than China and India and improve overall job security. Meanwhile, yes, it would become less likely for any one person to accumulate more wealth than some small countries have.
And none of it is about “socialism.”
Report comment to moderator
More government is just feeding the bureaucracy beast. What’s wrong with the antitrust laws we have now Conan? I don’t know the specifics.
The best incentives for corporations to stay in the U.S. is to keep their tax rates low, allow more “right-to-work states. Yet, manufacturing in China has made products affordable even for people on food stamps.
Higher education would be more affordable if tuitions weren’t subsidized by government. Universities keep money out of circulation that could be used to lower costs.
Report comment to moderator
#89 Conan, I agree with many of those goals, however I think we could accomplish the same thing with less government not more.
“Strengthen anti-trust laws.”
This is a solution for a problem we don’t have and so it won’t help anything. Monopolies do not occur naturally. They need help from the state. The only monopolies America has ever had (and will ever have) were ones with heavy government involvement, such as energy, transportation, telecommunication, etc.
Close tax loopholes
I definitely agree with this, but would go further and institute flat tax with no exemptions or deductions. If you want fairness, then there is nothing “fairer” than a flat tax.
Raise the top marginal tax rates. The increased revenue can go to faster debt reduction.)
Again, this doesn’t really solve anything. You could tax the wealthiest Americans 100% and we would still go deeper into debt. We need to reduce the wasteful spending.
What is destroying the budgets of many states is outrageous public pensions and salaries that are much higher for equivalent work in the private sector. Fairness means no favoritism for any group.
“Create incentives for companies to keep jobs in America rather than offshoring.”
If you mean lowering the regulatory and tax burden then I agree. If you mean government subsidizing particular industries, then definitely not.
“Create incentives for companies to manufacture goods in America rather than offshoring.”
See my last comment.
“Raise tariffs on imports to further encourage buying American-made products.”
Bad idea. If we raise tariffs then so will everyone else and the cost of everything goes up, harming the poor. A better incentive is to allow American companies to compete by rolling back regulations, taxes and union excesses that force American goods to cost so much more.
“End all forms of corporate welfare.”
Absolutely! I agree. In addition, let’s stop all foreign aid which is a form of welfare for other countries.
“Create or enhance programs allowing the poor to afford higher education.”
Yes, definitely. However the education system we have today is severely broken. What we need is competition, but a heavily unionized government monopoly dramatically increases costs and decreases quality.
Report comment to moderator
I just listened to Obama’s speech in Michigan. The man sure can talk, but it is so infuriating since he says precisely the opposite of what he means.
For example, he said he wants more fairness and defines it as “people all playing by the same rules”. That is exactly how conservatives would define it, but Obama doesn’t mean that in the least. His whole presidency is defined by breaking people into various victim groups and then shifting the wealth from one group to another. In other words, he institutes different rules for different groups.
He says that he wants to improve education and make it more affordable, but he doesn’t mean that at all. As he goes on it becomes clear that all he wants to do is to subsidize public schools more. Well, that does nothing to improve education or lower the cost to students, it merely pays the public teachers more.
Everything Obama wants to do, is precisely the things that got us into the mess we are in now. Paying the public sector far more than the private sector is what is causing the bankruptcy of American cities and states.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer in 83,
What do you have against S-Corps? The income is taxed personally (ie. as if the entity was a partnership) at whatever rate the shareholder pays, just doesn’t get the double tax that C-Corps do – once as C-corp earnings and again as person income when it is distributed to shareholders. It’s the double taxation that is one of the deterrent to businesses staying in America.
S-Corps also don’t get taxed as SS and Medicare income either, since they aren’t wages. (Shareholders can be employees and collect wages as well.) But the individual doesn’t get the benefits it would with the SS records showing increased SS wages either, so that should be a wash over the long run as far as the Gummit is concerned.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer,
When I was a renter, many moons ago, renters could take a deduction somewhat equivalent to the deduction homeowners take. I can’t remember if it was federal or just an Arizona thing. Is that no longer the case, or not in your state?
Report comment to moderator
We unfortunately missed the speech but I had my children look at the transcript and what impressed them was is read like a brag-sheet for a fitness report (Navy’s report card for job performance). Jobs were being lost until all his reforms were in “full” effect. Everything went wrong in 2008, and that is to blame for continued decline since 2009. We need the President to accept his responsibility and stop blaming others for the job he has done for the last 3 years.
Report comment to moderator
#95 Rob “We need the President to accept his responsibility and stop blaming others for the job he has done for the last 3 years.”
Funny you should say that. Even today, in his fourth year of a failed presidency he is still blaming Bush.
I wonder what it is like to golf with Obama? Every time he shanks it into the shrubbery I wonder if he says, “Aw, Bush!”.
Report comment to moderator
@89 Conan, if you run for president I will consider you a serious challenger to the Chas/Mrs.RickyWeaver ticket. Good ideas all! :–)
Report comment to moderator
Progress? Shortly after I complain about the gov’t-subsidized college tuitions we all knkow about, Obama goes the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor and tells the students that he wants to link federal aid to a college’s ability to control costs. He wants states to bring down the cost of education and find ways for more students to graduate. Then he will give them more federal support.
This was all wildly popular with the enthusiastic students who know that he and Michelle were in their shoes not too long ago. For the rest of the rally he loosely reiterated most of his SOTU speech, including the plight of Buffett’s secretary.
Report comment to moderator
“… including the plight of Buffett’s secretary.”
The poor dear makes over 200,000 per year and owns two homes.
Report comment to moderator
All secretaries should have such a generous boss. – ?
Report comment to moderator
If all bosses made what Buffet made, then more secretaries could have such a generous boss.
Report comment to moderator
Xion: The poor dear makes over 200,000 per year and owns two homes.
So?
Do you make a living? Are you wanting for food or shelter? Why do you care what anybody else makes?
OK, more seriously … if the above is true (I don’t know, you’re the only person I’ve seen saying it but I haven’t paid close attention), then what of it? Most secretaries don’t make anywhere close to that, but they too pay taxes at a higher rate than does Warren Buffet.
Finding out that the chosen poster child makes considerably more than we might have assumed does not change the facts regarding the majority. I suppose she’s the 1% of secretaries.
Report comment to moderator
This man we call The President of The United States–Barack Obama, is sounding more and more like a socio-path. I have never seen a political ego so big, with nothing but failure to show for. He sounds like one of those WWF wrestlers talking his game up before a big match. Nothing this man has done has been beneficial to our economy. Yet I don’t know about any of you, but I get an uncomfortable feeling we are going to be stuck with this character for some time…
Report comment to moderator
Buffett’s secretary would pay at the same tax rate as her boss if her income derived from investments. This is pure PR on Buffett’s part to keep the stupid Occupiers away. It’s Buffett’s fault his secretary might be in a different tax loophole than he is. For some reason she doesn’t mind.
Report comment to moderator
#102 Conan “Most secretaries don’t make anywhere close to that, but they too pay taxes at a higher rate than does Warren Buffet.”
No they don’t. Warren Buffett’s secretary does not have a lower income tax rate than Buffett. It is a myth, a lie, if you will. If Buffett earned a salary, he would pay the highest tax rate.
Capital gains are taxed at 15%, but these are additional taxes over and above the original income used to purchase them. Capital gains can be taxes over and over again. So the ultimate tax rate could be very high.
Report comment to moderator
But he doesn’t earn a salary and most of the top wealthy people do not, or if they do, it’s a minimal part of their wealth. It comes from capital gains.
Capital gains are not taxed repeatedly, as you claim. The original income used to buy stocks is taxed; the gains are the profits, the amount above that original investment. The original investment capital is taxed only once.
And the majority of secretaries earn between $30,000 and $45,000, or did in 2005. (http://iaap-hq.org/ResearchTrends/average_salaries_HISTORICAL_INFORMATION.htm) That puts most of them in a 25% tax bracket.
Report comment to moderator
Warren Buffett prefers to pay taxes on capital gains rather than income taxes on a typcal salary because that’s how he gets to keep more of his own money!
I wonder if he donates to charitable causes.
I wonder how much more money he will make on his trains now that his friend Obama rejected more pipe lines from Keyston XL.
Report comment to moderator
I wonder what any of #107 has to do with anything.
Report comment to moderator
Capital gains can be taxed multiple times. Here is an article explaining how and why:
And Obama isn’t going around talking about average secretaries. He is specifically using Buffett’s very wealthy secretary as an example of gross injustice in nearly every speech. The sad part is how many Americans are buying what he is shoveling.
Report comment to moderator
What is your source for the information on her pay?
Do you not get the irony of your sneer? You’re scorning her for earning considerably more than most secretaries and paying the corresponding tax rate — she should not complain, you suggest, because she makes a lot of money — while simultaneously trying to argue that people who make billions should not have their taxes raised.
Report comment to moderator
Don’t be ridiculous. I am not scorning anyone. I could care less how much Warren Buffett or his secretary makes. It is Obama and Democrats who keep promoting Buffett’s secretary as the poster child of economic injustice. If the woman can afford two homes, one with a swimming pool on a golf course, then where is the injustice?
You consider it unfair that wealthy people should pay lower taxes. Sure, but they don’t. If they pay their income taxes (unlike many in the Obama administration), then they already have higher income tax rates. Buffet’s annual salary is only about $100K per year. His secretary apparently makes more than that.
Report comment to moderator
If the woman can afford two homes, one with a swimming pool on a golf course, then where is the injustice?
Again, I ask: Where are you getting this information?
Report comment to moderator
http://www.omaha.com/article/20120127/NEWS01/301279949/672
God bless her and everyone else that works hard for a living, but she’s hardly an example of downtrodden American.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!