When Barack Obama announced that he was running for president he was very clear that, if elected, he planned "not just to hold an office, but to gather with you to transform a nation". Twenty months after that statement in Springfield Illinois, we now have a much clearer view of what he means by "Change We Can Believe In". In a campaign of soaring generalizations on mostly centrist themes, Barack Obama has described the details of the transformation he would bring with almost surgical precision. What he offers may be, in substance and in spirit, a radical departure from the principles of the American Dream that has defined our nation over the last two centuries.
In the guise of a "middle-class tax cut", Senator Obama is actually adding a new tax in order to create a new welfare program that will add to the annual $400 billion that we currently spend on our welfare system. According to the Tax Policy Center, each year Barack Obama will take $70 billion from the 2% of small businesses and individuals who create over 16 million jobs and will send checks for almost $100 billion to over 40%, or approximately 60 million Americans, who pay no taxes at all. Cleverly, Senator Obama has called his transfer a "refundable tax credit" instead of "income redistribution". Indeed, to label as a "refund" a payment which the recipient has never funded is wordsmithing on steroids.
When Bill Clinton turned "welfare" into "workfare" in 1996 and created twenty two million jobs for Americans, he said, "We are taking an historic chance to make welfare what it was meant to be, a second chance, not a way of life". At the time, then State Senator Obama called this highly successful policy "disturbing". No wonder that the Chicago New Party, an affiliate of the Democratic Socialist Party, endorsed State Senator Obama in 1996 after he signed the pledge that was required in order to receive the endorsement. Now, if elected president, he will re-create a failed welfare system while calling it "tax reform". No candidate has ever been cleverer with words than Mr. Obama. But, does America want to "spread the wealth" as Mr. Obama advocates? According to the June Gallup Poll, Americans, by a margin of 84-13%, want our government to fix the economy and create jobs, not to redistribute wealth.
The fundamental problem with Senator Obama's stealth economics is that his dogma will not make America stronger or fairer. Today, the top 1% of earners contributes 40% of the nation's $2.6 trillion tax intake and the bottom 50% pay 2.9% of our nation's total needs. It has been shown that reductions in tax rates increase tax revenues because private enterprise strengthens the economy which in turn creates a larger tax base. For example, in 2003 the richest Americans paid $136 billion in taxes and after the Bush tax cut in 2006 they paid $274 billion.
During our last devastating global economic crisis, Franklin Roosevelt protected this country from the statist dictatorships that were emerging in the rest of the world. He protected capitalism by creating programs and institutions to protect innocent people but did not raise taxes and did not remove incentives for private wealth creation. In another era, with real fiscal deficits larger than we face currently, President Kennedy reduced taxes. The historical evidence is clear that nations that stifle private enterprise have less robust economies with slower growth and less innovation, opportunity and diversity.
In his book, The Audacity of Hope, Mr. Obama stated that "eking out a bare Democratic majority isn't good enough." Indeed, if the pollsters are correct and the Democrats win overwhelming majorities in the House and Senate, Senator Obama, if elected, would easily implement both his promises for $307 billion of new federal spending per year and his punitive tax policies. The truth is that with the level of spending in the Obama plan, either taxpayers between $40,000 and $250,000 per year will have to fund the massive costs for the new programs he is promising, or the promises will be abandoned.
Perhaps more sinister is Obama's reconfiguration of the American Dream. My father made an inflation adjusted income of about $50,000 per year. He never took a handout but he worked two jobs. He taught us that if we worked hard and played by the rules there was no limit to what we could become in America. Now, Barack Obama is changing that compact with America. In Barack Obama's America, there is a ceiling to the American Dream. He decides the level at which our money becomes the government's money.
There is a reason why immigrants fly to America to achieve their dream. Now, in the guise of a "middle class tax cut" Barack Obama is threatening that dream. If he succeeds, Barack Obama will bring the kind of radical transformation that this country does not need and never has. And the country will be in for a shock.
This lady actually had to work for her obscene wealth -- she married it, unlike Cindy McCain, who inherited hers.
based on my experience, taxation is definetely part of a companys considerations before making an investment. but usually they first think about qualified workforce, legal environment, political stability and logistics. at least when it comes to at least medium sophisticated products and services.
just my two kokus worth.
looseantz
Most ridiculous of all is the absurd notion that poor people's votes can be won by arguing for policies which make them even poorer.
There are exactly two kinds of power in this world: that based on having money and that based on a mobilized populace. When Obama wins the presidency tomorrow we'll finally be seeing that latter kind of power once again. As the pendulum swings in that direction, those who defend the idea of power-by-wealth would do well to keep their heads down.
The NeoCon Rove Repubs are always eager to send young men and women into war for our so-called "Freedom", but are the first to complain about higher taxes which improve our domestic standards.
If you want to be a patriot, put down the rifle and pull out your wallet. WE NEED better schools, new "green" technology, college for all, better standards of living for the poor and middle class, and we need to pull ourselves out of DEBT!
We owe over 4 trillion to China. That's not "Freedom". Clinton was the only Prez since Reagan to decrease our national debt. Raegan raised our debt by about a trillion to outspend Russia, Bush Sr. spent another trillion. BUT WORST OF ALL Bush Jr. has doubled our debt. He has spent what Reagan and his dad spent combined. DEBT IS OUR LOSS OF FREEDOM! NOT HAVING SCHOOLS THAT COMPETE AGAINST OTHER COUNTRIES EDUCATIONAL STANDARDS IS OUR LOSS OF FREEDOM! AND CHOOSING TO FIGHT IMMORAL WARS OVER INVESTING IN PROGRAMS FOR OUR FUTURE LIKE RENEWABLE ENERGY IS OUR LOSS OF FREEDOM!
WE NEED TO BE GREAT AGAIN! Just because people like this Rothschild woman are filthy rich, does not mean that this is a great country. Our greatness will be measured not just by the success of our Rich Elite, but also by the standards of life that the poorest and hardest working of us have. LOVE AMERICA. FEED AMERICA. NO MORE FEAR TACTICS.
OBAMA 08'
Nothing here that's necessarily new or interesting.
- Rothschild Brothers' of London communiqué to associates in New York June 25, 1863
Now let's say we hire Americans to go back to our textile mills and get paid a LIVING WAGE. Since we pay them better the shirt will cost more to make -- let's say $3. With the advent of online stores, the mill could be its own distributor which will save costs. Online buyers would pay the shipping fee.
My guess is that, once word got out that there was an American company making children's uniform shirts for the same price as what we'd pay walmart or target, sales would be strong.
Now, I have nothing at ALL against the people of China, India, Sri Lanka, Mexico or any other poor country whose people are trying to work to feed their families as well. But we need our textile workers back at work. We need our steel workers back at work. We need to put American blue collar workers back to work.
Someone please explain to me ... why isn't this idea workable?
In fact, if we all start trying to buy American, and when possible to 'buy local', we will be able to affect a change.
Obama's idea of penalizing companies that outsource jobs overseas while giving tax credits to businesses that create new jobs here in America is a good step in the right direction.
Let's be patriotic and Buy American!
You greedy fearmongers who have used 9/11 the "war on terror" to bring this country to its knees, financially and otherwise, should be afraid. Because your day is over, as of tomorrow night. So long and good riddance.
There is a reason that "trickle-down" economics is not called "pour down" economics.
Look, I'm all for academic discussions about taxes and the economy, but frankly the Bush tax cuts didn't do what they were supposed to do. If they were so good, as Clara Peller once said, "Where's the beef?" It's like we tell our quarterbacks in football, if you are throwing the ball and constantly hitting the receiver in the feet, we can argue all day about whether the receiver has good hands or not, but it's not going make any difference at all. The problem most likely lies with the quarterback.
While Lady Lynn might have all of the time in the world to contemplate economics, there are several who don't have the time anymore to "experiement" with trickle down economics; at least the way that it's been practiced by the last three Republican presidents. Maybe it does actually work, but the problem has been with the quarterbacks and right now we can't afford being two touchdowns down goign into the fourth quarter to try it again.
My personal feelings about you aside, you've got a good knack for throwing out republican numbers.
The top 1% of the nation owns 40 percent of the nation's wealth, which has gone up because over the past 8 years have gotten 50% of the monetary gains from the economy. Now you tell me, WHY SHOULDN'T THEY PAY 40 PERCENT OF TAXES WHEN THEY'RE MAKING MORE THAN 40 PERCENT OF ALL THE MONEY IN AMERICA.
In fact, that clearly shows they aren't paying their fair share. Thanks for pointing that out, Lynn.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rk1NjrSHrWE