Waging war on prosperity

[runeight]

WAGING WAR ON PROSPERITY

By RICHARD MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN

Published in the New York Post on March 3, 2009

President Lyndon Johnson's administration was known for his War on Poverty. President Obama's will become notable for his War on Prosperity.

We're speaking, of course, of Obama's plans to hike income taxes on the most wealthy 2 or 3 percent of the nation. He's not just raising the top rate to 39.6 percent; he's also disallowing about one-third of top earner's deductions, whether for state and local taxes, charitable contributions or mortgage interest. This is an effective hike in their taxes by an average of about 20 percent.

And soon the next shoe will drop - he'll announce that he's keeping yet another of his campaign promises: to apply the full payroll tax to all income over $250,000 a year. (Right now, the 15.3 percent Social Security tax only applies to the first $106,800 of income - you neither pay the tax on income above that, nor accumulate added benefit.) For many taxpayers in this bracket, this hike will raise their total taxes by about half.

Finally, he's declaring war on investors by raising the capital-gains-tax rate to 20 percent.

These increases are politically insignificant: The top 2 percent of the nation casts only about 4 percent of the votes, barely enough to attract the notice of even the most meticulous pollsters.

But they have enormous economic significance. Those who earn more than $200,000 pay almost 60 percent of America's income taxes and account for a third of its total disposable income. If these spenders and investors are hunkering down, waiting for the revenuers to beat down their doors, their confidence will be anything but robust. Their spending will drop; they'll be unlikely to invest (except in new tax shelters).

Franklin Roosevelt's presidency was marked by an emphasis on recovery in his first term and class warfare (which he called "reform") in his second. Campaigning for re-election in 1936, FDR famously declared, "I should like to have it said of my first administration that in it the forces of selfishness and of lust for power met their match. I would like to have it said of my second administration that in it these forces met their master."

Obama seems to have skipped the first-term FDR program and jumped right into the class divisions and warfare of the second.

But the president would do well to remember that Roosevelt's assault on the rich led directly to the recession of 1937-39 - when unemployment soared back up to 19 percent. (It was brought down only by World War II.)

Obama must realize that his tax hikes will dampen investment and consumer spending and prolong and deepen the economy's woes - this is presumably why he's postponing most tax hikes until 2011. But taxpayers, particularly wealthy taxpayers, are not dumb: They'll know what's coming, and look to secure the hatches in advance by sitting on their money.

But then, Obama must also realize that his stimulus package, with its massive growth of government, is going to kindle huge inflation in coming years. And he surely realizes that he can't expand government health insurance as massively as he intends introducing rationing of medical services.

He must know, but not care.

Here is a president who would rather redistribute income than create wealth. He thinks it more important to grow government than to fight inflation. He believes that it is crucial to expand health care to the young and middle aged, even if it means cutting it back for the elderly. He's more committed to effecting "broad change" in his first term than he is to winning a second one.

We have a president, in short, who will stand on his principles. Unfortunately, they're bad ones.

r8

[dadofthree]

You always seem to cheer one up. I guess it could be worse, I could be earning over $200K / yr. That doesn't even sound right does it

[Gardzilla]

Socialism: A great idea until you run out of other people's money.

[Dino]

Originally Posted by Gardzilla

Socialism: A great idea until you run out of other people's money.

You quote from the talk radio script almost as well as R8.
Posted via Mobile Device

[Gardzilla]

Socialism: A great idea until you run out of other people's money.

That's have a look shall we. In theory all the rich fatcats have got more than enough to pay for bigger government and more and more expensive social programs. Sounds great intil you consider that the very wealthy have the means available to help them avoid losing their shirt when massive tax increases come along. They can afford lawyers, accountants and financial planners to help them find loop holes in existing tax laws and ways to move companies and investments offshore so that they are not dramatically effected by new tax and spend policies.

So in a very short time the Rich position themselves so that new tax laws have very little effect on them. They do it becasue they have the money, manpower and top advice available to them.

Once much of their money is out of the equation as socialism becomes more rampant, who's going to be left to pay the bill for all of Obama's,
pelosi's and Reid's socialist new America?

Socialism will proceed on the backs of the middlesclass and as their quality of life deteriorates who's going to pay for big bloated inefficient Government then?

Socialism: A great idea until you run out of other people's money.

[PandaNin]

Let's look at this objectively. I'm fortunate enough to be in the bracket that will be impacted. Just barely mind you, but I'm in it.

If all these plans come to fruition my effective take-home pay is now going to drop by 20 - 30%. If I take a cut in pay of $10,000/yr I'll actually have MORE take-home pay than if I don't. This just does not seem right does it? It's because the cap is artificial. Cross that line, pay alot more. These ideals are also not geographical. In Oklahoma, I'd be rich. In California, I'm very middle class. Take more of my money and you might be looking at giving me bailout money for my mortgage.

I am not rich. I do not have the money, manpower or top advice to help me with this situation. I am not a politician nor do I own my own company. I'm an average joe that happened to bust his azz for years to get where I am. I pay alot of taxes and I take very little in return compared to some. I've never be on welfare nor food stamps. I've never gotten a handout from the government. I appreciate the service our servicemen and women give and I happily pay to support them when in and out of service.

Hell yes I will stop spending money. I will move every $$$ I can to Peru for my retirement and I'll be such a scrooge it's not even funny.

[Revvv]

Originally Posted by PandaNin

Let's look at this objectively. I'm fortunate enough to be in the bracket that will be impacted. Just barely mind you, but I'm in it.

If all these plans come to fruition my effective take-home pay is now going to drop by 20 - 30%. If I take a cut in pay of $10,000/yr I'll actually have MORE take-home pay than if I don't. This just does not seem right does it? It's because the cap is artificial. Cross that line, pay alot more. These ideals are also not geographical. In Oklahoma, I'd be rich. In California, I'm very middle class. Take more of my money and you might be looking at giving me bailout money for my mortgage.

I am not rich. I do not have the money, manpower or top advice to help me with this situation. I am not a politician nor do I own my own company. I'm an average joe that happened to bust his azz for years to get where I am. I pay alot of taxes and I take very little in return compared to some. I've never be on welfare nor food stamps. I've never gotten a handout from the government. I appreciate the service our servicemen and women give and I happily pay to support them when in and out of service.

Hell yes I will stop spending money. I will move every $$$ I can to Peru for my retirement and I'll be such a scrooge it's not even funny.

I have considered building a savings account in another Country once work begins again. That may not be a bad idea.

Hmmmm, Australia seems to be a stable place these days.

[Dino]

Originally Posted by PandaNin

Let's look at this objectively. I'm fortunate enough to be in the bracket that will be impacted. Just barely mind you, but I'm in it.

If all these plans come to fruition my effective take-home pay is now going to drop by 20 - 30%. If I take a cut in pay of $10,000/yr I'll actually have MORE take-home pay than if I don't. This just does not seem right does it? It's because the cap is artificial. Cross that line, pay alot more. These ideals are also not geographical. In Oklahoma, I'd be rich. In California, I'm very middle class. Take more of my money and you might be looking at giving me bailout money for my mortgage.

I am not rich. I do not have the money, manpower or top advice to help me with this situation. I am not a politician nor do I own my own company. I'm an average joe that happened to bust his azz for years to get where I am. I pay alot of taxes and I take very little in return compared to some. I've never be on welfare nor food stamps. I've never gotten a handout from the government. I appreciate the service our servicemen and women give and I happily pay to support them when in and out of service.

Hell yes I will stop spending money. I will move every $$$ I can to Peru for my retirement and I'll be such a scrooge it's not even funny.

Now this I agree with. Our Tax system is very disfunctional for this exact reason. I have always been in favor of a flat tax rather than our overly complicated system. This however has nothing to do with socialism.

Originally Posted by Revvv

I have considered building a savings account in another Country once work begins again. That may not be a bad idea.

Hmmmm, Australia seems to be a stable place these days.

You have to declare overseas income. Unless of course you deposit it in an account in the Islands or Switzerland.

[Tufbusa]

Like everyone else who is not dependant on government to supply their daily needs, I am very concerned where this administration of "Change" is taking us.

We cannot have a country of prosperity when the ones who are willing to work are bled dry to support the ones who are not.

I was born to a share cropper and raised dirt poor. I'm not anxious to return to that lifestyle but it seems with the help of Obama, Pelosi and Reid I may be forced to?

[Dino]

Originally Posted by Tufbusa

Like everyone else who is not dependant on government to supply their daily needs, I am very concerned where this administration of "Change" is taking us.

We cannot have a country of prosperity when the ones who are willing to work are bled dry to support the ones who are not.

I was born to a share cropper and raised dirt poor. I'm not anxious to return to that lifestyle but it seems with the help of Obama, Pelosi and Reid I may be forced to?

Somehow I don't think all those that have been laid off in the past month are the ones who supposedly don't want to work.

I wonder what the actual percentage is of adults in the US that are happy sitting back and collecting welfare. I would bet it is less than 1%, maybe a little higher with the recent job losses.

Where does notion that there are all these people that "don't want to work", seriously. We have got to get beyond this petty finger pointing.

[Dino]

I stand corrected. Yet not staggering numbers of people who "don't want to work".

Cash Welfare Assistance

Total US population Estimate for 2007 = 301,621,157
Total receiving cash welfare in 2007 = 4,240,443
Percent of the population = 1.4

Total US population Estimate for 2008 = 303,824,640
Total receiving cash welfare in 2008 = 4,251,131
Percent of the population = 1.39

Food Stamps:

Total US population Estimate for 2007 = 301,621,157
Total receiving food-stamps in 2007 = 26,976,719
Percent of the population = 8.9

Total US population Estimate for 2008 = 303,824,640
Total receiving cash welfare in 2008 = 30,312,109
Percent of the population = 9.9

Sources

State-by-State Welfare Assistance - Interactive Graphic - NYTimes.com

Census Bureau Home Page

[Mr Bogus]

Originally Posted by SilverSurfer

Somehow I don't think all those that have been laid off in the past month are the ones who supposedly don't want to work.

I wonder what the actual percentage is of adults in the US that are happy sitting back and collecting welfare. I would bet it is less than 1%, maybe a little higher with the recent job losses.

Where does notion that there are all these people that "don't want to work", seriously. We have got to get beyond this petty finger pointing.

you seem to think everyone that disagrees is towing some pre-spoken line of rhetoric.. I am afraid if anyone here is taking a spoon fed outlook on what is going on, it may not be your dissenters..

I have never taken a dime of govt handout money or unemployment funds in the 40+ years I have been in the workforce.. And yet I know people that have... these are the same people that have for long periods of time and repeatedly.. they are happy to live on the $20G a year you can collect for not working.. subsidized laziness IMO.. just like subsidized farming.. one group is paid to let the ground go fallow and the other let the work force go fallow..

The same people that complain about govt legislation invading their lives are the same ones that want the govt to pay for everything.. never ceases to amaze me..

while you are digging through stats, look at the demographic of the welfare recipients...

[Dino]

Originally Posted by Mr Bogus

you seem to think everyone that disagrees is towing some pre-spoken line of rhetoric.. I am afraid if anyone here is taking a spoon fed outlook on what is going on, it may not be your dissenters..

I have never taken a dime of govt handout money or unemployment funds in the 40+ years I have been in the workforce.. And yet I know people that have... these are the same people that have for long periods of time and repeatedly.. they are happy to live on the $20G a year you can collect for not working.. subsidized laziness IMO.. just like subsidized farming.. one group is paid to let the ground go fallow and the other let the work force go fallow..

The same people that complain about govt legislation invading their lives are the same ones that want the govt to pay for everything.. never ceases to amaze me..

while you are digging through stats, look at the demographic of the welfare recipients...

You have been fortunate. Not everyone can say the same and would I bet that those that have not had your good fortune are lazy or don't want to work.

My point is we are quick to criticize the administration with the same banter of wanting to tax the rich and give to those that don't want to work. Well I submit that it is just hype; that there are not hordes of individuals just sitting around doing nothing and that there are far greater numbers of good average Americans that are trying very hard and working their asses off to get by. These good hard working Americans would greatly benefit from the programs this administration is proposing. I see nothing wrong with giving them a break.

[BusaWhipped]

Originally Posted by Mr Bogus

you seem to think everyone that disagrees is towing some pre-spoken line of rhetoric.. I am afraid if anyone here is taking a spoon fed outlook on what is going on, it may not be your dissenters..

I have never taken a dime of govt handout money or unemployment funds in the 40+ years I have been in the workforce.. And yet I know people that have... these are the same people that have for long periods of time and repeatedly.. they are happy to live on the $20G a year you can collect for not working.. subsidized laziness IMO.. just like subsidized farming.. one group is paid to let the ground go fallow and the other let the work force go fallow..

The same people that complain about govt legislation invading their lives are the same ones that want the govt to pay for everything.. never ceases to amaze me..

while you are digging through stats, look at the demographic of the welfare recipients...

I can definately relate to PandaNin's situation. Randy, don't be too hard on Silver Surfer. We need people that think the way he does. I have a few that work for me. I can't seem to find any in our executive management staff though

[Dino]

Originally Posted by Mr Bogus

you seem to think everyone that disagrees is towing some pre-spoken line of rhetoric.. I am afraid if anyone here is taking a spoon fed outlook on what is going on, it may not be your dissenters..

I have never taken a dime of govt handout money or unemployment funds in the 40+ years I have been in the workforce.. And yet I know people that have... these are the same people that have for long periods of time and repeatedly.. they are happy to live on the $20G a year you can collect for not working.. subsidized laziness IMO.. just like subsidized farming.. one group is paid to let the ground go fallow and the other let the work force go fallow..

The same people that complain about govt legislation invading their lives are the same ones that want the govt to pay for everything.. never ceases to amaze me..

while you are digging through stats, look at the demographic of the welfare recipients...

Originally Posted by BusaWhipped

I can definately relate to PandaNin's situation. Randy, don't be too hard on Silver Surfer. We need people that think the way he does. I have a few that work for me. I can't seem to find any in our executive management staff though

Don't get me wrong, I am with PandaNin 100%. I think the tax system if broken. I also think that it can be fixed fairly and bring in enough to help those less fortunate.

I am not sure what the demographics of welfare have to do with anything because I think that fundamentally people do want to be able to support themselves (not counting ex-wives ).

[Mr Bogus]

Originally Posted by SilverSurfer

Don't get me wrong, I am with PandaNin 100%. I think the tax system if broken. I also think that it can be fixed fairly and bring in enough to help those less fortunate.

I am not sure what the demographics of welfare have to do with anything because I think that fundamentally people do want to be able to support themselves (not counting ex-wives ).

you are wrong.. there is a class of people that have been brought up on welfare and food stamps and expect it as a way of life.. that group is growing and will continue to grow as long as the "free resource" is available.. you want free support? get off your azz and work.. Govt infrastructure projects should be manned at the lowest level of unskilled workers by people taking my tax money for food stamps, subsidized housing and free medical care..

No reason some of the fat lazy people sitting around watching their new plasma tv's at taxpayer expense should not be out picking up cigarette butts at stoplights for 8 hours a day..

[PandaNin]

Oh yeah, don't even get me started on ex-wives.

As tensions seem to flare it bears saying again: We might not share the same political or religious beliefs but that will never prevent me from doing everything in my power to help my physical and extended family.

[BusaWhipped]

When you get to the point that you stop asking the Government what it can do to help these people using other people's money, and start asking how you can help these people using your own money, then we have something to discuss.

When's the last time you bought 100 families Thanksgiving dinner out of your own pocket because a local factory shut down, provided a house to a family in need for a year at no cost to them other than the utilities when they could afford to pay them, cut substantial checks to charities to make other's lives better? These are things I have done personnally because I am a compasionalte conservative. I'm sure the other folks you disagree with have similar stories, but are more humble than I. Now you are saying I should instead give that money to Government and pay Government worker salaries with it so they can distribute what's left to people who may or may not be needy. Charity begins at home, not in Washington.

[Dino]

Originally Posted by BusaWhipped

When you get to the point that you stop asking the Government what it can do to help these people using other people's money, and start asking how you can help these people using your own money, then we have something to discuss.

When's the last time you bought 100 families Thanksgiving dinner out of your own pocket because a local factory shut down, provided a house to a family in need for a year at no cost to them other than the utilities when they could afford to pay them, cut substantial checks to charities to make other's lives better? These are things I have done personnally because I am a compasionalte conservative. I'm sure the other folks you disagree with have similar stories, but are more humble than I. Now you are saying I should instead give that money to Government and pay Government worker salaries with it so they can distribute what's left to people who may or may not be needy. Charity begins at home, not in Washington.

That is wonderful. I am not in a position to give to that extent, but I would if I could. All I am saying is that collectively we can do more than any one of us individually.

To B - Brother I agree there is a very small portion of the population that has grown up that way but I think that to be against all the good many of these programs do for so many because of small few is cutting off your nose to spite your face.

[Dino]

Originally Posted by Mr Bogus

you are wrong.. there is a class of people that have been brought up on welfare and food stamps and expect it as a way of life.. that group is growing and will continue to grow as long as the "free resource" is available.. you want free support? get off your azz and work.. Govt infrastructure projects should be manned at the lowest level of unskilled workers by people taking my tax money for food stamps, subsidized housing and free medical care..

No reason some of the fat lazy people sitting around watching their new plasma tv's at taxpayer expense should not be out picking up cigarette butts at stoplights for 8 hours a day..

I sort of agree. I have no problem with individuals receiving public assistance being asked to contribute somehow. Unless they are in school or getting some type of work training.