Sunday, August 1, 2010

Close Call

The economy is in the dumper. Unemployment is at record highs, consumer confidence at a record low, and the nation is despondent. But to extinguish any final flicker of hope, the Democrats are preparing to raise taxes.

The so-called "Bush Tax Cuts" are scheduled to expire soon...and the Democrats have been making the rounds of the chat shows (and feeding press releases to the mainstream media) suggesting that the only people who will be affected are the filthy, despicable "evil rich" who steal $250,000 a year or more from the noble proletariat.

This is, of course, a lie.

If the Bush Tax Cuts are allowed to expire, the tax rate for the lowest tier of taxpayers will be raised 50%, costing 88 million taxpayers an average increase of $503 next year. Another 31 million taxpaying families will lose half of their child care credits, and 35 million married couples will pay an average of $595 for the renewed "marriage penalty."

To avoid punishing families who are already suffering, Barack Obama has made some unconvincing noises about leaving their tax cuts in place, while putting punitive tax increases on those nasty rich people.

The problem, as economists point out, is that those "rich people" tend to do two very important things with their money: buy the goods and services that keep the economy going, and create the businesses and jobs that are our nation's lifeblood. In fact, most of the people in that $250,000 bracket aren't "evil rich" people at all...they're small business owners, already on the brink, who will be pushed into the abyss by a Democratic tax increase.

Which, as we've seen again and again, is not an unintended consequence. It is the goal of the radical left, and specifically the Obama administration, to destroy our nation's economy so that something they believe to be "better" can be built from the smoldering ruins.

Much the way there will soon be a beautiful new mosque where the capitalist's World Trade Center used to be.



Anonymous said...

Here in the 21st Century we have rapid communication, transportation and people who are independently wealthy. If you tax a wealthy business man, he can fire his work force, shut down his business, sell his home and move business and home to a country were there labor is cheap, there aren't any unions, taxes are lower, there are fewer regulations and requirements to extend benefits to employees. The problem with Socialists is they're following a theory intended for the 1800s when there was a tiny Middle Class, transportation and communications were much slower and it was really hard to have a global business. Do we really want to give businesses an even bigger incentive to move overseas and increase unemployment?

John the Econ said...

Do we really want to give businesses an even bigger incentive to move overseas and increase unemployment?

Yes, they do.

The problem with "small" business (as opposed to large "corporations", for which those who have not totally aligned themselves with Washington now are being bought up as opposed to just controlling through regulation) is that by their very nature, they are very independent, resist unionization or otherwise being co-opted and controlled by progressive government.

When progressives such as Obama talk about helping "small business", it's all hot air. They do not care the least about small business beyond the fact that we are a pain in their side. We can all move abroad or die and they do not care.

So yes, I agree that the real progressive agenda is to trash what is left of independent and free enterprise in America, as Obamacare is clearly designed to do to what is left of the free market for health care. Once that is achieved and people are desperate, then they can finally proceed to building their totalitarian Marxist utopia.

Anonymous said...

The plain and simple fact is this. Obama, the socialist democratic party and his supporters need to be eradicated from this country by any means necessary once and forever. The next conservative president upon his first day of entry needs to nullify all that the Obamanator has done and all this none U.S. citizen Muslim mole will do for the rest of his existence. We need change but it's not from Obama or his socialist party and freeloading welfare backers. The disease must be eradicated.

Pete(Detroit) said...

As far as "Freeloading welfare backers" go, it would not bother me a bit to have voter rolls compared to tax rolls - and if you don't pay taxes, you don't get a vote. The fact that nearly 50% of people pay NO federal taxes is just frightening..

The Dark Knight said...

Pete -

I've been saying that EXACT same thing for years... no stake in "the game" no vote

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

Anonymous #1 & John the Econ - Great posts that work together to make a very important point. In our opinion, when Obama spoke of "spreading the wealth" (to Joe the Plumber) the common perception was that he was hinting at a socialized America. But we've always believed that it was more than that- and that this (alleged) president who developed his world view while being raised in Muslim-dominated Indonesia actually wanted to spread America's wealth to the rest of the world.

And so his administration started with "the apology tour," so the world would know that this is not, and has not been, a good country. This followed by the oft-repeated observation that no country (hint, hint) should be superior to any other. And now, a rabidly job-killing agenda that is sending our nation's employment, wealth, and future to the countries and peoples whom Barack Obama believes to be more deserving than the "mongrel" Americans.

A harsh opinion? Absolutely. We just wish there was any evidence to the contrary.

Bobo said...

"Throw that liberal back on the fire, we don't want it getting up, again."

Emmentaler Limburger said...

The USA has, unfortunately, reached that very dangerous tipping point at which 50% or more of the eligible voters do not pay taxes. This is the point at which any effort to thwart the welfare state is easily beaten back by those who are dependent on it. If the Obamanites are successful in their "immigration reform" plan, the number of those dependent on welfare state and resistant to its reform will skyrocket. Hope to God that something meaningful is done in November, or we can all watch everything that is America quickly slip into the dumpster.

Sorry to be so negative.

Bobo said...

How do we wake people up? The liberal media has brainwashed folks there is no way to fight back, that we must rely on our elected officials to do out bidding, but politicians are only out for our expense.

We know wrong when we see it but nobody tries to stop the bleeding and carnage.

I cannot understand the thought process of dum-o-craps and other liberals who believe we owe something to the illegals in this country...that somehow we "shorted them" and must now reimburse them, with interest.

If the bleeding hearts want to help the Mexicans, why don't they move to MX and work from that side of the border to improve their third world economics, government corruption and education and healthcare systems. Hell, they can have O'bamacare...nobody with the brain power of a Mexican Jumping Bean knows we don't want it here.

Bobo said...

Correction: Anyone with the brain power of a Mexican Jumping Bean knows we don't want O'bamacare here.

There, that's more better. Them grade school nuns learned me better grammar than that.

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

Emmentaler & Bobo- The "tipping point" is upon us, and it's damned scary. There is no conceivable benefit for the welfare-addicted to vote for fiscal responsibility...and almost no politicians who are willing to run on a platform other than giving things away for free.

It's a huge problem, and not one with an obvious solution. We read a good editorial today about a "Second American Revolution," not (hopefully) an armed battle...but a sweeping and fundamental change to save the republic. At this point, we dread such an idea...but, with all our hearts, we hope it will come to pass.

TheOldMan said...

BTW it's nit point but the "50% of eligible voters don't pay taxes" is not quite correct. The statistic is that almost 50% of the Federal tax returns show either no total tax liability or a negative tax, ie earned income tax credit. This does not take into account FICA, Medicrap, state, local, etc... taxes that these people may have paid. I would allow each eligible voter one vote but for every say $10k in federal income taxes, you get an additional vote. The same goes for state elections. The problem is how would such a plan be implemented...but those are mere details in my perfect world.

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

TheOldMan- Thanks for bringing some additional accuracy to the debate! We're not sure we'd want to apportion the number of votes by the wealth of the voter (George Soros has enough power already)...although we'll grant that wealth isn't the same as the amount of taxes you pay.

But cutting off the vote for those who don't pay taxes (with the exception of anyone who has served in the military) would suit us fine.

It's time to print the bumperstickers: "No Representation Without Taxation!"

Anonymous said...

Stilton Jarlsberg:
Thank you, for your kind comment, I'm flattered. I think the reason Obama apologized and bowed to everyone he could find has to do with "Rules for Radicals" by Saul D. Alinsky.

"As for Vietnam, I would like to see our nation be the first in the history of man to publicly say, 'We were wrong! What we did was horrible. [...] There is nothing we can ever do to make it up to the people of Indo-China — or to our own people — but we will try. We believe that our world has come of age so that it is no longer a sign of weakness or defeat to abandon a childish pride and vanity, to admit we were wrong.' Such an admission would shake up the foreign policy concepts of all nations and open the door to a new international order."

In other words, if America would just apologize, the rest of the would would stammer, "Yes, well... maybe we... exercised... questionable judgment as well. You know um... maybe we should uh... you know, reduce our military and negotiate peace with our enemies."

John the Econ said...

It's not just about 51% no longer having a net tax liability. It's about co-opting the entire middle class into the welfare state, which is effectively what ObamaCare is meant to achieve.

Once they have total control over almost everyone's health, they hope to expect almost universal allegiance to the state.

It's hardly the "hope and change" most people thought they were voting for 2 years ago.

My Dog Brewski said...

During the campaign Obama told us who he was and what he planned to do. 52% of the electorate didn't listen or only listened to the MSM sugar-coated translation. Most of the rest of us are only surprised at how deftly he has circumvented the usual checks and balances of Congress and the courts.