Skip to comments.Delay on tax cuts an ominous sign
Posted on 09/30/2010 6:21:28 AM PDT by Graybeard58
In calling for the end of the Bush tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans, President Obama on Monday told a TV interviewer that high-income people such as he "don't need a tax cut" because they have enough money to pay their expenses. If they got a $100,000 "tax cut" that is, if they were allowed to keep more of their income instead of having the government confiscate it to spread the wealth around they wouldn't spend it like average consumers would to stimulate the economy, he says.
His argument is specious on two levels. For the sake of discussion, let's say "the rich" get their "tax cut," and let's say Mr. Obama is a typical "rich" American, which he certainly is not if only because his income is a mere $400,000 and taxpayers finance many of his ordinary expenses.
But let's say he gets a $10,000 tax cut. He says he wouldn't spend it, but he certainly would invest it; after all, the rich got rich and stay rich by making their money work for them.
Even if he only put his tax cut in a certificate of deposit, he would generate more economic benefit than simply by spending it. That's because his bank would lend the money for any number of purposes, including home purchases or renovations, business expansions, or car or equipment purchases.
That spending would create economic activity and private-sector jobs.
All the while, however, the bank would earn interest, giving it more money to lend to spur further economic and job growth. Mr. Obama, too, would earn interest that would help him pay his future expenses, such as his children's college education or many of his ordinary expenses after January 2013.
Contrast that with his 2009 "stimulus," which was enthusiastically and unanimously supported by Connecticut's congressional delegation, the handmaidens of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. To fund that government waste, Mr. Obama and the Democrats sucked $817 billion from the economy, specifically from the credit markets. That squeezed out $817 billion in private-sector economic activity to preserve, among other things, the economically unproductive government jobs held by unionists. As much as the president claims the "stimulus" saved America from a depression, today's deepening economic doldrums speak to a much different, darker reality.
And the reality on the debate over the Bush tax cuts is no one will see his or her taxes decline if the tax cuts are extended, but extending them would prevent a tax increase of more than $3 trillion, the largest in U.S. history. But if Mr. Obama and congressional Democrats get their way, they will raise taxes on America's highest achievers by $700 billion, giving the government plenty of cash to pay for more public-employee-union bailouts and more special favors for the vested interests while draining $700 billion in badly needed capital from the economy at the worst possible time.
Voters have every right to be extremely suspicious of the Demo- crats' refusal to vote before Election Day on extending the Bush tax cuts and of their promise to extend those for the middle class after the election. Remember: These are the same radicals who in 2008 promised you "hope and change."
Ping to a Republican-American Editorial.
If you want on or off this ping list, let me know.
Scam..all taxes go up in January as Dems and Pubs try to blame each other...Sick.
... to each according to their needs
Obama would kick the live baby of a dead mother.
SHAME! SHAME! SHAME!
I can hardly wait until we rid ourselves of this parasite, Obama.
In calling for the end of the Bush tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans
should be: In calling for the halt of the OBAMA TAX HIKES
theres a big difference between spending on consumption and spending on investment
You spend it on food, the food is gone, and money is gone
You spend it to build a tv, sell it at a profit. Society has a tv and you have more money
Bill clintoon raised the tax rates retroactively. Remember that? Then GW Bush lowered them but only until the end of 2010. Had to compromise with the demonrats. Now that we are approaching the sunset of the lowering of clintons tax rates, they will go up on Jan 1. Add to that new taxes inteded to pay for our “free” healthcare.
All this talk from demonrats about lowering tax rates is just pre election garbage. Dims don’t ever lower rates, they only issue temporary tax credits that are nearly impossible to qualify.
“let’s say Mr. Obama is a typical “rich” American, which he certainly is not if only because his income is a mere $400,000 and taxpayers finance many of his ordinary expenses”
Obama is not rich- his wife just jaunts to Spain for a $500K 6 day vacation with 20 of her best friends and he flies his dog to Maine on private jet (sarc).
Where has this writer been? obama spent more than his $400K salary this year just on family vacations.
Even I know obama “earned” about $4 MILLION last year. Mostly from royalties off the books Ayers wrote for him (speaking of “unearned income”). PLus a $1 million Nobel prize windfall, which I believe he “donated” for a big write off.
obama equates his multimillionaire taxpayer supported existence to that of “rich” people who earn $250K, many of whom CREATE JOBS. They “don’t need” to keep their own money. Nah.
Don’t give no tax break to them rich folks, all they do is create jobs and we don’t need no stinkin’ jobs, we need more welfare.
Their collective idea is simply to tax and spend the taxpayers' money.
The administration has even floated trial balloons about nationalizing 401k accounts to help Social Security.
Any hand wringing by the regime is just window dressing. The goal is state ownership of everything and everybody.
Big government types like big government. They hate the private sector and the free market. But most of all they despise this country. Remember former auto czar, Bloom: 'The free market is a joke.'
The middle class has been under attack by the elites for over 40 years. The education system has been intentionally dumbed down. The assault on our culture and values has eroded love of country. We've outsourced many middle-class blue-collar jobs, while expanding government and government programs. So lower-middle class people end up dependent on government handouts. If you don't have a government check you're screwed.
Obama, the king and master of nothing, kills America financially and when the economy realizes some growth again, those waiting to get rehired as managers and engineers start to find they have to work two jobs as cashiers and janitors.
These liberals are going to friggin' sing and dance along, all the way, as they dance off a cliff.
Batten down the hatches! Taxes a plenty next year.
Been planning on the tax onslaught for about a year.
The dims in the past would raise taxes first, then spend it all and them some, adding to our national debt. This go round, they passed a bunch of new spending laws that have not been funded. So they have created a situation where taxes will have to raised in order to be stay with the laws provisions. This is a hell of a trap if you ask me. All that social spending will have to be paid for with massive taxes on an already weak ecomony. If the repubs get majority power and don’t fund all this crap, then the moochers will raise hell and riot with the dims and their media leading the way.
It’s going to be ugly either way.
If this is true (and so far I have been unable to verify the quoted statements), then the Rat Progressives are finally publicly admitting that their taxation policy is based on whether you “can pay your bills” and whether you’ll save your money or spend it. Thus, they’ve finally admitted that their tax rates and policies should be implemented such that no one shall be “allowed” to keep the money they’ve earned if it’s more than they need to pay their bills and/or they save any of it.
We absolutely MUST find a saved copy of this TV interview and publish it to the high heavens!
Has anyone here seen this interview? Does anyone here know where to find a copy?
Those quotes are so fake, although he believes it, Obama is not so stupid as to use terms like “confiscate wealth” and such, you guys are being played.
Actually the grocery store makes a profit and could potentially lower its prices if it gains enough consumers. If it is a publicly traded company its shareholders will see an increase in value for their investment due to higher profits.
Consumption is a stimulus. When the money comes from the government (in the form of spending) it’s just a “shuffling” of money from consumers to the fed. The difference is government cannot accurately and fairly stimulate the market because its “needs” are artificial. When the government spends its (our) money it does not reach the parts of the market that need stimulus. They also take a huge chunk out of the money in “administrative” costs before it ever reaches the market.
Most of that money has made its way to union coffers to help buy the next election. The remainder went to various large contractors and new infrastructure. None of it created jobs or increased investment capital. All of it was taken from individuals that would have invested or consumed according to their real needs.
Whether he did or did not make the statements, his actions indicate a desire to “spread the wealth around”. A far more damaging statement to make in my opinion.
“Those quotes are so fake, although he believes it, Obama is not so stupid as to use terms like confiscate wealth and such, you guys are being played
“FOLKS, DON’T MAKE FOOLS OF YOURSELVES, OBAMA NEVER MADE THOSE STATEMENTS, YOU’RE BEING PLAYED”
Thanks for noting this. I was searching frantically for the source, and naturally unable to find it. I too concluded this was a fake. I posted a comment at the Waterbury Republican American asking them to point to their source, and naturally my comment was not allowed to be posted. I’ll add the WRA to my mental list of not-credible publications.
I wish people would be a little more skeptical and check things out a little better before posting here.
I believe the author added his own interpretation to the "quote" in a rather clumsy way. I saw some of a speech with this same garbage (couldn't stomach very much of the insane, 100% lies) and the part above is quoted fairly accurately. I'm not sure about the use of the actual word "expenses", but that's what he was communicating to the useful idiots.
Most of this op-ed piece is over the average persons head (yes, there are enough really stupid people to vote a Marxist into office who had no executive, management, or legislative experience to speak of).
The author should have kept it at this level:
And the reality on the debate over the Bush tax cuts is no one will see his or her taxes decline if the tax cuts are extended, but extending them would prevent a tax increase of more than $3 trillion, the largest in U.S. history.
I suspect the Rats have no intention of extending ANY of the Bush tax cuts.