Obama Economic Logic Akin to Madness...
by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny
Since 1980 total Federal Tax increases have totaled 3.3% of GDP. If President Obama is reelected the possibility of a huge 3.5% Federal Tax increase in quite likely. Impact on the business sector, our economy, and the middle class in particular will be staggering.
We are indeed likely to see the biggest single tax grab by the Feds in the last 43 years if our Hope and Change Guru of Collectivist Statist Thought, President Obama is reelected to the Oval Office. He will oversee the implementation of a massive attack on our liberties, and a suffocating attack on our business sector and the economy.
Unfortunately the alternative to Obama, Obama Light Mittens Romney may turn out to be not much different if elected, and only sightly better. Flip - Flop.
Update: For more on Federal Taxes discussed from a different perspective visit The Humble Libertarian.
Via: Memorandum
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny
Since 1980 total Federal Tax increases have totaled 3.3% of GDP. If President Obama is reelected the possibility of a huge 3.5% Federal Tax increase in quite likely. Impact on the business sector, our economy, and the middle class in particular will be staggering.
AEI - All the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts.
Gone.
It would have been the Mother of All Tax Hikes, a $3 trillion tax increase during shaky economic times. It would have broken a campaign promise not to raise taxes on middle-income Americans.
President Obama was shockingly close to embracing such a plan back in 2009. And if he’s reelected in 2012, Obama may well reconsider the idea and let all the Bush tax cuts expire as they are scheduled to do in 2013.
At least, that’s the story—and prediction—told by journalist Noam Scheiber in his new book, The Escape Artists: How Obama’s Team Fumbled the Recovery.
Short version: In the fall of 2009, Obama’s chief congressional lobbyist Phil Schiliro cooked up a plan to extend the middle-class Bush tax cuts for two years while letting the upper-income tax cuts expire on schedule. If Congress couldn’t devise a way to pay for the $2.3 trillion extension of the middle-class cuts, they would expire in 2015. Schiliro easily sold White House budget director Peter Orszag on the idea. “[Orszag] believed the only practical way to balance the budget was to repeal all the Bush tax cuts, not just the upper-income variety.”
Orszag then presented the plan to Obama: {Read More}
We are indeed likely to see the biggest single tax grab by the Feds in the last 43 years if our Hope and Change Guru of Collectivist Statist Thought, President Obama is reelected to the Oval Office. He will oversee the implementation of a massive attack on our liberties, and a suffocating attack on our business sector and the economy.
Unfortunately the alternative to Obama, Obama Light Mittens Romney may turn out to be not much different if elected, and only sightly better. Flip - Flop.
Update: For more on Federal Taxes discussed from a different perspective visit The Humble Libertarian.
Via: Memorandum
This is the democrats' wet dream. This massive tax increase is just what they've been clamoring for, so I hope we get it.
ReplyDeleteTime to test their theory that huge tax increases will fix our problems.
The MSM is going to battle to make sure BHO is reelected. It is amazing to see how many people put any credence in a "ABC poll" shows Mitt with a low rating. If they would charge for all of the free positive publicity they give BHO I would buy their stock just due to the revenue.
ReplyDeleteBHO has discarded the guise of creating jobs and now is just about being "fair". His latest Buffet rule says nothing about jobs but does say the rich are not paying their fair share, whatever a fair share is. With him it is all about government and he knows if he gets 51% of Americans on the government roll, the democraps are in forever.
The blame team has no budget, no idea of tax reform, no clue on jobs creation but they can blame everyone for every thing. Mitt would not be my choice but anyone will be better than BHO.
I've been asking Shaw over at Progressive Eruptions to explain (objectively) what the anti concept fair, fairness, or paying ones fair share means. I'm still waiting.
DeleteI left a comment on her post this morning. Asked the question again. You may fine the article, as well as my comment interesting.
Using the GDP comparison is not the magic wand of defining government finances. GDP is not a stagnant number. Currently, our GDP is way down due to no growth, or negative growth. As growth rises we will collect more money (even if we keep the current tax level) but not enough to pay our yearly debt (over 1 trillion and rising) and certainly not enough to pay the 16 trillion off. And yes, I think our goal should be to pay off ALL that debt.
ReplyDeletePrior to RR we paid taxes at twice the rate we pay now and did not have a multi-trillion dollar debt (even though we were paying large expenses like WW II, the highway system, etc., etc.) but did have the greatest growth the World had ever seen. That seems to disprove the cry, that higher taxes kill growth.
It's simple Math, we are not collecting as much as we spend. If some (me included) have a problem with what we are spending on, that does not make the bills disappear. And it is totally irresponsible to not pay our debts.
As a fiscal conservative, not a money spending liberal, I think we should raise taxes and have that money go ONLY to paying off the debt, while cutting spending.
I refuse to get into the cat fight about who is a larger debtor President. The blame game is not a serious discussion on what to do about our huge debt.
"I refuse to get into the cat fight about who is a larger debtor President. The blame game is not a serious discussion on what to do about our huge debt."
DeleteI applaud you for the above statement Anon. Sadly too few conservative/libertarians and libs see it the way you do. Good for you!
Your simple and true statement "It's simple Math, we are not collecting as much as we spend" lies at the very crux of our national problem.
I might even go as far as to agree, and note I said might, to raising taxes with the % increase going exclusively (and only) to paying down the trillion plus debt this nation owns. Not some other feel good entitlement liberals love to pursue.
The other aspect of the balancing act is this... We the People of this HERETOFORE Great Republic must decide once and for all that we can not, should not, and will not continue to be the policeman of morality worldwide. Other nations bear a total and personal responsibility to police their own. Only when this nation is actually threatened by an actual verified threat or overt act of aggression are we justified in responding militarily. Such was our philosophy prior to Korea. It was right then, and it ethically and morally remains right today.
This nation's government MUST discontinue its interventionist foreign policy. It MUST maintain a well equipped and disciplined, as well as agile and mobile national defense force. It MUST continue to invest in and be on the cutting edge of defense technology. It has the ethical right, as well as the moral responsibility to defend it's people. It however has no right to decide how other people ought to lead their lives. Either individually or as a nation; unless we are either overtly threatened or aggressively attacked. Actions for which it is our government's RESPONSIBILITY to be prepared for at all times.
I apologize for the long winded "lecture", and beg your considerations. Anon made very valid observations, some of which conservatives ought to find common ground with. As well as understanding my lecture is in line with the classical ,liberal thinking of our founders as well as true conservatives of the modern age.
So, who among you will join us in forging objective and rational solutions to the common problems confronting this nation?
The clock is ticking...
I agree with your (and Ron Paul) military nonintervention, and bringing ALL our troops home.
DeleteNorth Korea is a good example. Why is America pounding the drums? It's more of a problem for China, and they don't seem interested in pressuring North Korea.
Since we developed a military empire (military stations all over the World) after WW II, it's no surprise the World leaves it to us, to confront these dangerous tyrants.
Bush simply progressed and supported the idea that America is the police force of the World when he invaded Iraq. Saddam (as bad as he was) never threatened America, nor was he a threat to America. If we were not a part of the UN fly over zone patrol, we would never have been shot at by Iraq.
I wonder why folks seem to think that higher taxes on the rich will only
ReplyDeleteaffect the rich. As soon a possible after a tax increase on business the
prices of goods will increase to reflect the additional coast of doing
business and us common folks will pay a higher price for goods (plus a
profit for the business).
It's all naked greed on Obama's part. Tax revenues are at a near record level, and Obama and his family love to squander the money on an extravagant lifestyle. It's all "gimme gimme gimme".
ReplyDeleteAnon said:
"Saddam (as bad as he was) never threatened America, "
Actually he threatened the US many many times.
"If we were not a part of the UN fly over zone patrol, we would never have been shot at by Iraq."
Under the terms of the cease fire, Saddam was not supposed to have engaged in this aggression. At all.
You are still justifying overseas military intervention. I do not.
Delete