To hear conservatives tell it, you’d think mobs of shiftless welfare moms were marauding through the streets of Greenwich and Palm Springs, lynching bankers and hedge-fund managers, stringing up shopkeepers, and herding lawyers into internment camps. President Obama and his budgeteers, they say, have declared war on the rich.
On Tuesday, Washington Post columnist (and former Bush speechwriter) Michael Gerson argued in an op-ed that “Obama chose a time of recession to propose a massive increase in progressivity—a 10-year, trillion-dollar haul from the rich, already being punished by the stock market collapse and the housing market decline.” The plans are so radical, “there will not be enough wealthy people left to bleed.” CNBC’s Larry Kudlow wrote that “Obama is declaring war on investors, entrepreneurs, small businesses, large corporations, and private-equity and venture-capital funds.”
[…]
Obama’s proposals don’t mean the government would steal every penny you make above the $250,000 threshold, or that making more than $250,000 would somehow subject all of your income to higher taxes. Rather, you’d pay 36 cents to the government in income taxes on every dollar over the threshold, rather than 33 cents.
[…]
Second, this return to 2001’s tax rates was actually part of the Bush tax plan. […] Third, we know from recent experience that marginal tax rates of 36 percent and 39 percent aren’t wealth killers. […] Fourth, we also know from recent experience that lower marginal rates on income taxes, and lower rates on capital gains and dividends, aren’t necessarily wealth producers.
[…]
What would happen if the marginal rate on the portion of your income above $250,000 were to rise from 33 percent to 36 percent? Under the old regime, you’d pay $16,500 in federal taxes on that amount. Under the new one, you’d pay $18,000. The difference is $1,500 per year, or $4.10 per day. Obviously, the numbers rise as you make more. But is $4.10 a day bleeding the rich, a war on the wealthy, a killer of innovation and enterprise?
“I’m telling you right now,” the actor warned, “if these tax breaks are not reinstated into the budget, film production in this town is going to collapse, and television production is going to collapse, and it’s all going to go to California.”
IF even left-winger Alec Baldwin doesn’t accept the liberal line on taxes, why should Obama?
screw taxes & money.
how about dump the monetary system all together.
we just trade technology and *needful things*.
-that autta trip up the banking elites for a day or two..
#155 -funny stuff. -personally, i think *they* will activate the next phase around june 21.. though i’m hoping they wait until the end of september. i have few things i need to take care of first.
no doubt though, there will be an extreme crash. what we look like on the other side is anyone guess.
the frantic, unbridled corruption of the bankers and their puppets in government will not stop until they have raped every last nickel of whats left of our financial system and middle class. -this seems all to obvious now.
(at that point, THEN we remove all traces
of any monetary system and switch to old fashion trade. -only way we’ll ever break out of the carefully manipulated boom and bust monetary cycle)
-in the mean time, anyone have a roomy spaceship? i’d rather watch the chaos from the other side of the galaxy.
for a distraction..
fwiw.. i found this epic article by lyndon h. larouche that puts a rather interesting spin on history and current events. -he’s born in 1922, so he defiantly has a “tempered, been there, done that” opinion.
“How London Goes Down”
http://larouchepac.com/node/9392
-it’s long, but interesting and somewhat agreeable nonetheless. i always respect the opinion and thoughts of anyone from that era,
no matter what their slant is.
lastly.. we need a new [Constitutional?]
Third Party. -or a complete reset. it’s
quite obvious the current two party system
has become too corrupted and compromised by foreign powers to ever look out for anyone but themselves,
any takers?
food for thought.
-s
#165, Loser,
The “unintended consequence” was sub-prime mortgages because the banks were afraid to reject someone who was “risky.” ACORN and their ilk “forced” mortgages (which the banking community would be considered sub-prime) on the banks by threatening legal action.
Can you show me a case where ACORN threatened to sue a bank if they did not give a “sub-prime” mortgage? The whole “sub-prime” mess is overblown. There are more foreclosures from people losing their jobs or having medical expenses.
Most of the “sub-prime” mess was committed by fraudulent brokers looking for commissions. The banks and mortgage holders didn’t care as long as they made money that quarter.
ACORN is a great organization and have brought many benefits and stimulus to inner cities. Yes, ACORN helped get money for projects. Money that the banks held from those same depositors that were trying to make their lives a little better. People taking some RESPONSIBILITY for their lives.
Of course, self responsibility only applies when people get hurt, then it is all their fault for what others have done.
MikeN, notice how the Omamabots won’t address Obama wanting to raise taxes even if it doesn’t raise revenue?
Kind of hard to defend psychosis…
Ready for ad hominem now instead of addressing gov policy…
#173, Cow-Paddy, Ignorant Shit Talking Sociopath, Retired Mall Rent-A-Cop, Pretend Constitutional Scholar, Fake California Labor Law Expert, Pseudo Military Historian, Phony Climate Scientist, Leading Troll Extraordinare, Asstrologist, and President of the “I Hate America Club”
So why do you hate America?
It is revealing how all Republican leaders believe that tax-cuts for the working class are a “Tax Increase.”
Listen to their language — it’s true.
Face it Americans, if you aren’t rich, you’re invisible to the GOP.
Paddy-Zero==”Kind of hard to defend psychosis…” /// but you keep trying!
HAR!!!!!
The only time the budget was close to being balanced in recent history was from 1996-2001 during and slightly after the Clinton presidency/Gingrich Congress.
This was before Bush signed the 2001 tax cuts.
Now how can raising the taxes for those earning $250K or more back to the rate of that period be “bad”.
Tax cuts worked for Reagan simply because the tax structure was insane back then.
(* No, there was never a budget surplus regardless of what was touted as the national debt never decreased a dime during that period although it was close.)
2 attacks so far & no acknowledgment of the psycho policy…
Paddy-O-Dipshit==do you have a link to the quote?
This is as close as I could get to the “context” of the comment which was made even before he was elected.
http://distributedrepublic.net/archives/2008/04/19/obama-ill-raise-your-taxes-even-if-it-lowers-revenues
Typical scumbag misquoting of a more complex statement. If you were capable of it, you should be ashamed.
Unless you have a different quote that is.
Well take your silence as admission you’ve been caught one more time again.
#179 “And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?
SENATOR OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness. We saw an article today which showed that the top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year — ”
Yes, this is the psychosis we’re talking about. It didn’t matter to O’Mama if revenue goes down due to his tax increases. It’s about fairness, not economics.
The guy needs to be committed…
#180–Paddy-Zero==yeah, ok. “I hope Obama fails.” Means that Boss Limbaugh hopes he succeeds and only his policies fails – – – – but – – – –
“I would look at ….” means he would raise capital gains taxes even if the best evidence available was that such a tax would reduce overall government revenue.
Is that your position Paddy-O-Zero?
Is that REALLY your position Paddy-O-Zero?
# 181 bobbo said, “Is that your position Paddy-O-Zero?”
My position is that he said EXACTLY what he said.
#182, Cow-Patty,
But you still haven’t answered why YOU hate America.
Well Uncle Dave, the title of your post has been thoroughly refuted. Maybe, you should change it…
#182–Paddy-Zero==”My position is that he said EXACTLY what he said.” /// Well, what he exactly said was: “Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.”
What you parroted like a brainless zombie was what MikeN posted at #166: “Obama in a debate sad that he would raise taxes even if it made the government less revenue, as a matter of fairness.”
Well===it wasn’t a debate and thats not what he said.
Why don’t you back down off your horse and admit the simple truth? Stupid to let someone else’s misquote decrease your credibility (sic) just because it matches your prejudice.
Is this “thinking” in your estimation? Do you ever change the first retarded idea that enters your mind Paddy-Zero?
Comrades, comrades please… we all be in the govn’t cheese line together someday, we must all get along… maybe Uncle Dave will also bring some crackers, yes?
Comrade bobbo, I note you have two Zeros in your name… this is good, yes?
#187–Mogas==no, not zero’s but “o’s” as you must know. Nicks and corruptions thereof mean little, only to get the lowbrows excited==sometimes a little humor. Like saying “comrade.” Not as relevant as what may follow.
We need more commies on this thread though. Point of view helps to balance the wild eyed LIEBERTARIANS.
#168, Poison Twin,
Twenty states are now passing TARs (Tenth Amendment Resolutions).
Not quite. From your own link,
Most are symbolic measures and none have passed yet, but local officials are hoping to send a message to Washington to back off.
Do you know the difference between PASSING and PASSED.
I said passing, as “in the process of” not “have already done so.”
Sheesh.
AFA defending their actions to the states, I don’t think that will be a problem as 90% of America thinks the bailouts were done against their wishes.
#188 You call these Republican parrots libertarians? I suppose Genghis Khan was freedom fighter? Hitler was an Anarchist? George W Bush wasnt owned by the corporations (much like Obama)?
As an (admittedly left leaning Kropotkinesq) libertarian, I find you comments offensive 😛
#189, Loser,
The point you miss is if ONE effen retarded legislator offers a bill you act as if they passing it. Before most legislatures even consider something, it has to come out of a committee. So how many have even reached the floor of their respective legislatures?
Tell me in one month how many States have refused any Stimulus money.
#190–HughRipper==I am devastated you have me at the wrong end of the stick. I make no comments regarding Kropotkinesq libertarians who any reasonable person can only admire.
No, my scorn is aimed at the LIE – – LIE – – LIEBERTARIANS of the Ayn Rand self centered “I got mine, screw everyone else” strain of diseased social anarchy. The silly folk. They think they argue for “liberty” but they only argue for their own authority over others. Just the opposite from good old Peter.
#172, Poison Twin,
Can you show me a case where ACORN threatened to sue a bank if they did not give a “sub-prime” mortgage?
Here’s one I found with just 5 seconds of typing. Of course, you may deny that it was due to sub-prime, but why would a bank refuse a loan that wasn’t risky? In effect, the bank was sued because they rejected, what they considered, a risky loan.
http://tinyurl.com/528mhf
And I just LOVE this one:
The home in the 300 block of Ellwood Avenue used to be owned by Donna Hanks. She lost this home in September, after owning it since 2001. When things got tough she struggled to make her payments. Her mortgage? $1995 a month. Her income? $2200. Donna’s story is one that ACORN is taking a stand against.
“We feel that it was unjust, we feel as though she was strong armed robbed, we feel that Wells Fargo could have modified her loan and that is what we are asking for right now,” says Beverly.
Is the bank just supposed to GIVE her the house? The banks don’t want the house. They want their money because they have to pay the Fed for the loan. If they don’t foreclose and resell, they might go out of business. I guess ACORN doesn’t realize that without the banks, they wouldn’t have anybody to bitch at.
http://tinyurl.com/dxcr3r
#191, Poison Twin,
Your entire post is BS and you know it.
Two or three years ago no state wouldn’t have thought about a TAR. The fact that TWENTY have them in the works and are being quite vocal with them is telling.
“Obama’s ‘War On The Wealthy’ Is Now Totally Verified”
Fixed
#193–LibertyLIAR==nice link. Just like Paddy-Zero you use any evidence at all as “proof” of your BS position, but any review shows you are a nincompoop!
The linked article only alleges the claim of red-lining was not true. WHAT THE FRICK IS ANY BANK THAT IS REDLINING GOING TO DO??????? YOU don’t know, and no one knows whether there was red lining going on or not.
YOUR PROOF AND CREDIBILITY?=== ZERO !!
Further, and consistently, your naivete (at best) or LIEBERTARIANISMS (most probably) is revealed by two demonstrated facts:
1. You think Banks would make a loan if they found a qualified borrower AS IF redlining was not a fact.
2. You totally confuse a suit for redling and loans being given thereafter as an instance of “sub-prime lending.” Totally different issues, but what do you know/care?
Bray on stalwart LIEBERTARIAN. As Paddy would say if he weren’t just like you: “Stupidity Verified.”
# 196 bobbo said, “2. You totally confuse a suit for redling and loans being given thereafter as an instance of “sub-prime lending.” Totally different issues, but what do you know/care?”
Actually, redlining is done based actuarial data. That the law made illegal in no way speaks to its validity as a tool to put something into a category, even “sub-prime”.
193, Loser,
Here’s one I found with just 5 seconds of typing. Of course, you may deny that it was due to sub-prime, but why would a bank refuse a loan that wasn’t risky?
If you read your own damn link you would have read this part.
The whole idea of the CRA was to stop predatory lending practices where banks would take peoples money but refuse to lend back that money. In other words, DISCRIMINATING on the bases of race only. Exactly what this bank was sued for. And exactly why the bank settled out of court.
But, I didn’t see ACORN’s name there.
Your second story.
Acorn has not sued or threatened to sue the bank. They can’t on either end because they are not an interested party on either end. The man who cut the lock is an individual and has been charged with a criminal offense; he is not ACORN. The current owner can sue ACORN all he wants but won’t get anywhere. The same holds true that the Republican Party can not be held responsible for what Bush did even though Bush is a member of the Republican Party.
Interesting is the very first posted comment of this short news blurb.
As this commenter points out, the woman was scammed and the mortgage holder had to have known about it.
Intelligence in proving your weak case has never been a strong point with you. I asked for examples of where ACORN threatened or forced a bank to make a sub-prime loan. You didn’t. Why? Because you can’t.
#194, Loser,
The fact that TWENTY have them in the works and are being quite vocal with them is telling.
No, the fact that some right wing nuts have suggested resolutions in no way means the various Legislatures are even considering it. One person with a piece of paper does not make a law let alone a tidal wave of opinion.