Tonight we can expect more faulty economics from the president in his State-of-the-Campaign Address. He will apply zero-sum thinking into concocting weak reasons why the wealthy don't pay enough taxes. He will ignore the other contributions which those members of society make. He will no doubt wax poetic about the “Buffet-Rule” and how “unfair” it is that he supposedly pays taxes at a lower rate than his secretary (who will be in the audience to become the poster person for unfairness, greed, etc).
This analysis will ignore numerous facts, among them that investment income should be taxed a lower rate than regular income because A) it has already been taxed when it was earned as regular income, B) it can be lost if the investment vehicle fails or does poorly, C) lower taxes rates on investment ENCOURAGES further investment which we want, and D) the US corporate tax rates are already among the world's highest.
Some say the president is a Socialist. I don't believe this is true. He is willing to use Statist or socialist, or any other means/policies appropriate toward the realization of his real goal which is to weaken the US economy (in keeping with the dream he admits he got from his father to attack nations which he views as imperialist powers).
He will ignore the need for the Federal government to begin to spend within it's means, oblivious to the $5 Trillion+ in debt his administration has accrued in a little over three years.
He will in effect reverse his previously held position (although he won't say this aloud) that the Bush administration debt was unpatriotic and a bad thing...
He will, without mention, ignore the failures and indefensible actions his administration took such as the ill-fated and ill-advised Solyndra loan and the illogical refusal to complete the Keystone XL pipeline.
He will promote anew divisive class-warfare language and principles (again assuming the economic pie is zero-sum) while ignoring real job growth measures that would increase tax revenues and increase the size of the economic pie. He will stress redistribution and fairness instead of the promotion of real economic growth.
He will continue to vilify success and business while ignoring the untidy little statistic that financial contributions are much higher to democrats than to republicans.
His strategy relies for success on uncritical unthinking listeners and supporters and on an effective media program to cover him. I hope he fails. For if he does not, America will.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 28
This President has only one interest, get more money to borrow more money to spend more money. He will explain it ever which way he can until he gets people to accept it. He will talk about fairness, if that matter he would be more interested in those who are working and try to figure out why rather than keep giving money to those who aren't.
He will talk about jobs, if it were about jobs he would doing things that will give employers a confidence that they will have a chance at a sufficient reward for the risk they take and not be the target of ever growing govenrement control.
He will talk about the wealthy, if it were really about everyone gaining in wealth he would be looking for ways to imporve peoples learnign not about money, he would looking for ways to encourage people to invest and grow the economy rather then attecking those who have put their moneys at risk for morgages so people can borrow for new homes, for businesses, for growing the economy.
He will talk about the economy, if it were about the economy he would be looking for new ways to ecourage people to take risks to create and be rewarded for their creations.
It is about one thing money for the government so he can make it easier for people to get other peoples money, those who are working. As the number of unemployed grow the number of voters would are afraid they will lose their government subsidies will grow geometrically (for each unemployed and their extended family memebers, those worried about having to support them).
It is about money and nothing else, except for what that money will allow President Obama to do.
Surely you understand that investment income ought to be taxed at a lower rate than ordinary income for the reasons I note above (and others besides)?
I disagree that investment income should be taxed at a lower rate than ordinary income. In the end it's all income.
I believe the tax codes should be revamped. If presidential candidate Mitt Romney only pays 15% in taxes, then so should I. I actually go to work each and everyday and provide a service. What service or product does Mitt provide?
The president is playing a dangerous game of class warfare and more importantly of demeaning capital and with it the whole free-enterprise system.
Romney's income is largely from investments (he already paid taxes on the invested monies when first earned). He will pay over $6 million in federal taxes for 2010 and 2011.
Go and find a fairly recent book called "Money, Greed, and God" by Jay Richards. He does a good job of explaining a number of such economic fallacies.
I do agree that the tax system should be greatly revamped (I favor a fair tax type system). We must remove the vast number of special taxes, credits, and mechanisms whereby the Congress (via the federal tax code) can choose winners and losers, reward some, punish others, etc.
We are at a cross-roads as a nation and a change of course is required in order to maintain a free republic. Following the EU model is obviously folly as is the administration's embrace of an evermore controlling and unrestrained federal government not to mention the Obama-as-King disrespect of Congress foolishness. Thus, I am promoting that we return to constitutional principles of having the federal government stop picking winners and losers, have it establish rules/laws that apply to many rather than to few, and reassert a respect for private property. These things are more tea-party than republican.
Ken, where are you coming from with this?
Read it and refute it if you can, it's based on Obama's own words and book and provides an effective explanatory filter for the Obama administration actions, like the otherwise inexplicable Keystone pipeline cancellation.