Obama Declares War on Investors, Entrepreneurs, Businesses, And More

[red states rule]

It will be a long 4 years for those who create jobs, and make the country work. Obama and the Dems have put them at the top of their hit list


Obama Declares War on Investors, Entrepreneurs, Businesses, And More
Friday, 27 Feb 2009


Let me be very clear on the economics of President Obama’s State of the Union speech and his budget.

He is declaring war on investors, entrepreneurs, small businesses, large corporations, and private-equity and venture-capital funds.

That is the meaning of his anti-growth tax-hike proposals, which make absolutely no sense at all — either for this recession or from the standpoint of expanding our economy’s long-run potential to grow.

Raising the marginal tax rate on successful earners, capital, dividends, and all the private funds is a function of Obama’s left-wing social vision, and a repudiation of his economic-recovery statements. Ditto for his sweeping government-planning-and-spending program, which will wind up raising federal outlays as a share of GDP to at least 30 percent, if not more, over the next 10 years.

This is nearly double the government-spending low-point reached during the late 1990s by the Gingrich Congress and the Clinton administration. While not quite as high as spending levels in Western Europe, we regrettably will be gaining on this statist-planning approach.

Study after study over the past several decades has shown how countries that spend more produce less, while nations that tax less produce more. Obama is doing it wrong on both counts.

And as far as middle-class tax cuts are concerned, Obama’s cap-and-trade program will be a huge across-the-board tax increase on blue-collar workers, including unionized workers. Industrial production is plunging, but new carbon taxes will prevent production from ever recovering. While the country wants more fuel and power, cap-and-trade will deliver less.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/29434104

[April15]

As a business man I see a brighter future with Obama than we had with Bush or RR. Regardless of the tax rate there is more business and money flowing when the rich are taxed.

[red states rule]

As a business man I see a brighter future with Obama than we had with Bush or RR. Regardless of the tax rate there is more business and money flowing when the rich are taxed.

Well, you can file for bankruptcy again, and turn around and blame Reagan and Bush

Companies do not pay taxes, they mpass them on via higher prices, and reducing overhead

[Lizabeth]

As a business man I see a brighter future with Obama than we had with Bush or RR. Regardless of the tax rate there is more business and money flowing when the rich are taxed.

I disagree under RR, I along with many saw a distinct increase in my take home pay. His policy to decrease taxes and make the states be fiscally responsible for their own welfare programs removed the burden from the taxpayer. Taxing businesses only results in passing the increase along to the overburdened working class.

Prof. George Reisman of Pepperdine University said it best: we currently have 15 federal Cabinet Departments, 9 of which exist for the purpose to interfere with housing, transportation, health care, mining, agriculture, education, labor and commerce. Under a true capitalist government 11 of the departments would not exist and only the departments of Justice, Defense, State and Treasury would remain. Making government not only more efficient but what it was designed to do.

Obama's economic plan is creating an even bigger federal government and removing more and more governing authority from the individual states.

[red states rule]

I disagree under RR, I along with many saw a distinct increase in my take home pay. His policy to decrease taxes and make the states be fiscally responsible for their own welfare programs removed the burden from the taxpayer. Taxing businesses only results in passing the increase along to the overburdened working class.

Prof. George Reisman of Pepperdine University said it best: we currently have 15 federal Cabinet Departments, 9 of which exist for the purpose to interfere with housing, transportation, health care, mining, agriculture, education, labor and commerce. Under a true capitalist government 11 of the departments would not exist and only the departments of Justice, Defense, State and Treasury would remain. Making government not only more efficient but what it was designed to do.

Obama's economic plan is creating an even bigger federal government and removing more and more governing authority from the individual states.



Who pays taxes and who does not?

snip

Brian M. Riedl, a budget analyst at the Heritage Foundation, says Obama's plan amounts to an unfair redistribution of the tax burden. He said that the top 20% of taxpayers now pay 80% of all taxes collected by the government. And 40% of households pay no income tax.

Under Obama's plan, he said, the top 20% of tax filers would pay 90% of all taxes, and the number of families who owe no tax would climb to near 50%.

"President Obama is offering a free lunch to a lot of Americans on the backs of 5% of the taxpayers. That can be called class warfare," Riedl said. "I think a lot of Americans believe that even the rich should not face tax rates that add up to about 50%."

And Riedl argues that targeting the rich could backfire: "You can only increase taxes on the rich so much before they stop working, saving and investing, and that reduces economic growth for everybody."

Based on his budget, those arguments are unlikely to gain traction with the president.

"The ladder into the middle class and beyond has become harder and harder to climb," Obama's budget says. "The American dream has slowly slipped beyond the grasp of millions as we have deliberately ignored the very investments in our people that strengthen the middle class and neglected the drivers of economic growth that will sustain our economy for the long run."


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obama-budget28-2009feb28,0,3387309.story?page=2

[April15]

Well, you can file for bankruptcy again, and turn around and blame Reagan and Bush

Companies do not pay taxes, they mpass them on via higher prices, and reducing overheadI was prepared for Bush so I am not in financial trouble business wise. I knew business would slow down so I took precautions that I did not with RR. I really believed that rising tide crap.

[April15]

I disagree under RR, I along with many saw a distinct increase in my take home pay. His policy to decrease taxes and make the states be fiscally responsible for their own welfare programs removed the burden from the taxpayer. Taxing businesses only results in passing the increase along to the overburdened working class.

Prof. George Reisman of Pepperdine University said it best: we currently have 15 federal Cabinet Departments, 9 of which exist for the purpose to interfere with housing, transportation, health care, mining, agriculture, education, labor and commerce. Under a true capitalist government 11 of the departments would not exist and only the departments of Justice, Defense, State and Treasury would remain. Making government not only more efficient but what it was designed to do.

Obama's economic plan is creating an even bigger federal government and removing more and more governing authority from the individual states.

Lizabeth,
If capitalism was not based on greed there would be no need for housing, transportation, health care, mining, agriculture, education, labor and commerce departments. Now these departments can work much more efficiently than they do and I believe Obama will get to making them more trim and effective.

[April15]

Who pays taxes and who does not?

snip

Brian M. Riedl, a budget analyst at the Heritage Foundation, says Obama's plan amounts to an unfair redistribution of the tax burden. He said that the top 20% of taxpayers now pay 80% of all taxes collected by the government. And 40% of households pay no income tax.

Under Obama's plan, he said, the top 20% of tax filers would pay 90% of all taxes, and the number of families who owe no tax would climb to near 50%.

"President Obama is offering a free lunch to a lot of Americans on the backs of 5% of the taxpayers. That can be called class warfare," Riedl said. "I think a lot of Americans believe that even the rich should not face tax rates that add up to about 50%."

And Riedl argues that targeting the rich could backfire: "You can only increase taxes on the rich so much before they stop working, saving and investing, and that reduces economic growth for everybody."

Based on his budget, those arguments are unlikely to gain traction with the president.

"The ladder into the middle class and beyond has become harder and harder to climb," Obama's budget says. "The American dream has slowly slipped beyond the grasp of millions as we have deliberately ignored the very investments in our people that strengthen the middle class and neglected the drivers of economic growth that will sustain our economy for the long run."


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obama-budget28-2009feb28,0,3387309.story?page=2

As these very wealthy have investment income as their only source of money I seriously doubt they would pull all their investment cash out and do what with it? Your claim seems to be without merit.

[red states rule]

Lizabeth,
If capitalism was not based on greed there would be no need for housing, transportation, health care, mining, agriculture, education, labor and commerce departments. Now these departments can work much more efficiently than they do and I believe Obama will get to making them more trim and effective.

April, Conservatives see people, we see the potential, liberals see victims

As Rush said at CPAC

It wasn't us who asked if Obama was authentic, we just said he was wrong.

The racism, sexism and bigotry we were charged with doesn't go on on our side, we want everyone to succeed. You know why, we want the Country to succeed and for it to succeed it's individuals must succeed, trying to be the best they can be, and not being told like the Democrats tell people that you can't succeed, you're a minority, you're a woman.

Take a look at the constituency groups who depend on the Democrats to improve their lives, are they better off?

April, Obama is trying to turn America into a nanny state

[red states rule]

As these very wealthy have investment income as their only source of money I seriously doubt they would pull all their investment cash out and do what with it? Your claim seems to be without merit.

How will 20% of the people pay 90% of the bill April? Look at CA and NY. The "rich" are leaving and those states are losing the revenue. The same will happen here. While they will not leave, they will stop invesyting and taking risk - thus the government will not take in as much in revenue

[April15]

How will 20% of the people pay 90% of the bill April? Look at CA and NY. The "rich" are leaving and those states are losing the revenue. The same will happen here. While they will not leave, they will stop invesyting and taking risk - thus the government will not take in as much in revenueI don't know about NY but in California it is not the rich. Those leaving are cashing out their homes for easy money and moving to poverty states where what costs millions here is only 80 k. there.

[red states rule]

I don't know about NY but in California it is not the rich. Those leaving are cashing out their homes for easy money and moving to poverty states where what costs millions here is only 80 k. there.

Here is what Mayor Bloomberg said - and it applies to CA and Federal income taxes as well

BLOOMBERG: One percent of the people that live in the city, the households that file in the city pay something like 50% of the taxes. In a city that's about 40,000 people so, you know, a handful left, any raise would make it revenue neutral. The question is, "What's fair?" If one percent are paying 50% of the taxes, you want to make it even more? A little over half the people, half the households who file tax returns don't pay any taxes. And about 30% of the households that file get a credit from the government. The government sends them a check. That's the Earned Income Tax Credit.


Why do liberals want to punish achievement and reward failure April?

[April15]

April, Conservatives see people, we see the potential, liberals see victims

As Rush said at CPAC

It wasn't us who asked if Obama was authentic, we just said he was wrong.

The racism, sexism and bigotry we were charged with doesn't go on on our side, we want everyone to succeed. You know why, we want the Country to succeed and for it to succeed it's individuals must succeed, trying to be the best they can be, and not being told like the Democrats tell people that you can't succeed, you're a minority, you're a woman.

Take a look at the constituency groups who depend on the Democrats to improve their lives, are they better off?

April, Obama is trying to turn America into a nanny state
I work with a lot of different business people. All are trying to make money. None care what some politician is saying about people who are female or minority not being able to succeed. We work with them day in and day out and they are making it. Some even better than the rest.

[red states rule]

I work with a lot of different business people. All are trying to make money. None care what some politician is saying about people who are female or minority not being able to succeed. We work with them day in and day out and they are making it. Some even better than the rest.

and if they work hard and make over $250,000 Obama will punish them and take a bigger share of their profits

[Lizabeth]

Lizabeth,
If capitalism was not based on greed there would be no need for housing, transportation, health care, mining, agriculture, education, labor and commerce departments. Now these departments can work much more efficiently than they do and I believe Obama will get to making them more trim and effective.

Those departments are a complete duplication of efforts. Tell me what did the federal branch of the dept of Education do other than create an unrealistic plan of "no Child left behind" or "It takes a village to raise a child".

Cute catch phrases that is all. And by the way if you do your job as a parent no child will be left behind and you won't need the entire "village" as it were to raise your child for you. If you are not responsible then lets give your child to some one who wants to be a responsible parent and does not look at the kid as an increase in benefits.

As for greed...the worst offenders have been politicians of late. Lots of bribes and dirty deals have been consummated in the name of what's in it for me! For example COAH and the abuses of eminent domain.

[red states rule]

Those departments are a complete duplication of efforts. Tell me what did the federal branch of the dept of Education do other than create an unrealistic plan of "no Child left behind" or "It takes a village to raise a child".

Cute catch phrases that is all. And by the way if you do your job as a parent no child will be left behind and you won't need the entire "village" as it were to raise your child for you. If you are not responsible then lets give your child to some one who wants to be a responsible parent and does not look at the kid as an increase in benefits.

As for greed...the worst offenders have been politicians of late. Lots of bribes and dirty deals have been consummated in the name of what's in it for me! For example COAH and the abuses of eminent domain.

The real greed right now is how much money Dems want to take away from risk takers and hard workers

[April15]

Here is what Mayor Bloomberg said - and it applies to CA and Federal income taxes as well

BLOOMBERG: One percent of the people that live in the city, the households that file in the city pay something like 50% of the taxes. In a city that's about 40,000 people so, you know, a handful left, any raise would make it revenue neutral. The question is, "What's fair?" If one percent are paying 50% of the taxes, you want to make it even more? A little over half the people, half the households who file tax returns don't pay any taxes. And about 30% of the households that file get a credit from the government. The government sends them a check. That's the Earned Income Tax Credit.


Why do liberals want to punish achievement and reward failure April?

I don't see it as a punishment nor do I consider the earned income credit rewarding. Those who, in my tax practice, got the EIC in the past have moved up and are making good bucks now. They just needed a little help with school or some other minor setback in their life. I don't see EIC as anything other than a helping hand for some people.

[April15]

Those departments are a complete duplication of efforts. Tell me what did the federal branch of the dept of Education do other than create an unrealistic plan of "no Child left behind" or "It takes a village to raise a child".

Cute catch phrases that is all. And by the way if you do your job as a parent no child will be left behind and you won't need the entire "village" as it were to raise your child for you. If you are not responsible then lets give your child to some one who wants to be a responsible parent and does not look at the kid as an increase in benefits.

As for greed...the worst offenders have been politicians of late. Lots of bribes and dirty deals have been consummated in the name of what's in it for me! For example COAH and the abuses of eminent domain.

The NCLB is a Bush failure. Ask any educator! Yes some of them are redundant but in time they will, with Obamas persistence, be slimmed down and be efficient.
And on this,
And by the way if you do your job as a parent no child will be left behind and you won't need the entire "village" as it were to raise your child for you. If you are not responsible then lets give your child to some one who wants to be a responsible parent and does not look at the kid as an increase in benefits.
I can agree.

[red states rule]

I don't see it as a punishment nor do I consider the earned income credit rewarding. Those who, in my tax practice, got the EIC in the past have moved up and are making good bucks now. They just needed a little help with school or some other minor setback in their life. I don't see EIC as anything other than a helping hand for some people.

You would not see it as punishment - you see it as spreading the wealth around

Remember April, socialism is great until you guys run out of other peoples money to spend

EIC goes to people who do not pay any federal income taxes - and Obama calls them tax cuts :rolleyes:

What is really is taking money from one person and giving it to another