H2O MAN
 
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2011 09:07 am
Obama wealth envy at all-time high

By Neal Boortz

Every chance he gets, Barack Obama is taking the opportunity to pander to the wealth envy crowd and demonize the achievers and the evil corporations. Over the weekend, Obama delivered his weekly address where he hammered home the idea that the wealthy aren’t sharing in the sacrifice. Here are some excerpts of what he had to say …

The truth is, you can’t solve our deficit without cutting spending. But you also can’t solve it without asking the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share – or without taking on loopholes that give special interests and big corporations tax breaks that middle-class Americans don’t get.

OK, let’s stop right there. I know that I am repeating myself when I tell you this … but would somebody PLEASE tell me what is considered to be a “fair share”? The top 1% of taxpayers in this country earn about 20% of the income, and yet they pay close to 40% of the income taxes. If that is not considered “fair” then would someone please give me an hint of what “fair share” really means?

Then there’s this asinine nonsense this hideous president is spouting about corporations getting tax breaks that middle-class Americans don’t get. Well duhhhhhh. Guess what? Middle Class Americans aren’t corporations! But hold on just a minute here. Didn’t we just have something --- some Obama idea --- called a first-time homebuyer’s tax credit? If the American people weren’t (for the most part) such government educated idiots they would see that this homebuyers tax credit is pretty much the same thing as a the accelerated depreciation those filthy rich corporate jet owners get on their business jet, or that most American businesses get when they purchase a piece of capital equipment!

The homebuyer’s tax credit was introduced to help the housing industry – to encourage people who otherwise might not be in the market to buy a home to take the plunge and buy a home --- right now --- when they might not be able to afford it but our economy needs the boost.

Well it’s pretty much the same for the corporate jet owners. Maybe they weren’t exactly in the position to splurge on a new corporate jet right now --- maybe the old turboprop King Air they had would do just fine, though it couldn’t fly as far as their growing companies might need, and it wasn’t all that fuel efficient. So Obama --- and remember, this was part of his stimulus plan --- comes up with something like a homebuyer’s tax credit for those who might want to buy a business jet. Only instead of a tax credit, the business gets to take accelerated depreciation. Either way, the first-time homebuyer and the business jet buyer get a break on taxes, more homes and airplanes are sold, and more construction and aircraft workers remain on the job.

Here’s where the difference is. Obama can’t get any class warfare bonus points for slamming homebuyers taking advantage of a tax credit. He can, though, score a few class warfare victories by slamming these evil businessmen who buy these nice expensive new jets built by my listeners in places like Savannah, Wichita and elsewhere.

Another thing --- do you notice that I’m calling these airplanes both “business jets” and “corporate jets?” Usually they’re just called business jets. There’s the NBAA – the National Business Aviation Association; not the National Corporate Aviation Association. So why does Dear Ruler consistently use the phrase “corporate jets?”



Here’s how the conversation went between Obama and his advisors.

“Mr. President, I think we can really stir up the base if we attack symbols of excess wealth during this debate and then on into the campaign next year.”

“Yeah … like yachts and mansions and business jets and stuff. Those people only have those things because they exploit people”

“Er … yes, Mr. President. But we can’t call them business jets.”

“Why not? That’s what we’ve been calling them for years? That’s what they are; business jets.”

“Yes, Mr. President, you’re right. But the American people; especially those likely to vote for you, don’t react negatively to the word ‘business.’ They look at the American dream as owning their own business. They admire successful businessmen. Most of them work for businesses. We can’t call them business jets.”

“OK, what then?”

“They’re corporate jets, Mr. President. From now on we have to call them corporate jets, and we need to attack those who own them and those who fly on them in your statements on the debt deal and in the campaign next year.

“Why is that better than business jets?”

“Because while people like businesses, Mr. President, they hate corporations. These people are dreaming of someday owning their own business, not their own corporation, Mr. President; and while they admire successful businessmen, they look at corporate officers and CEOs as generally greedy and corrupt – and making too much money. That’s why calling them corporate jets fits in so well here. Not only do these CEOs make far too much money, they jet-set around the sky in luxury while your voters have to deal with the same airport security hassle. So when you start calling for these corporate CEOs to give up their special tax breaks on those corporate jets they own, you’re preaching to the great middle class.”

“How much revenue can we get by ending this tax break for business … ahh, I mean corporate jets?”

“About $3 billion over the next ten years, Mr. President. That’s about 0.17% of the budget deficit we’ll run during that time --- but that’s not the point. We’re not going to go after these corporate jet owners for the revenue, we’re going after them to rally the troops; the middle-class troops, Mr. President. Besides – the real truth here is that when this tax break goes the sale of these jets will probably suffer. But in the eyes of the dumb masses …..”

“I TOLD you never to use that phrase around me. You been listening to that racist Boortz bastard again?”

“Uh … sorry Mr. President. I meant in the eyes of the middle class you will be seen as only trying to make these huge corporations pay their fair share in taxes.”

“OK … corporate jets it is. Now, try to work that phrase into my script no less than six times every time I step up to a microphone over the next few weeks. I smell gullible voters.”

“The stench is everywhere, Mr. President.”

Someday they’re going to find that microphone I left under that chair in the Oval Office … but let’s get back to more of what our Dear Ruler had to say

It’s pretty simple. I don’t think oil companies should keep getting special tax breaks when they’re making tens of billions in profits. I don’t think hedge fund managers should pay taxes at a lower rate than their secretaries. I don’t think it’s fair to ask nothing of someone like me when the average family has seen their income decline over the past decade – and when many of you are just trying to stretch every dollar as far it it’ll go.

Let’s start with the oil companies.

First – do you have any idea how much the top three oil companies paid in federal income taxes in 2010? That would be $42.8 billion. Some tax breaks, right?

The tax breaks enjoyed by oil companies are the same tax breaks afforded to every other business in this country. According to the American Thinker: “The only tax in which the oil industry seems to get special treatment compared to other industries is intangible drilling costs. The amount of that subsidy? That would be $0.78 billion per year -- enough to fund less than two hours of federal spending in 2011, and not even half the amount we are lending a foreign-owned and state-owned oil company for drilling offshore Brazil.”

Also – now this would be fun -- would some reporter please ask Barack Obama to explain the difference between a profit and a profit margin? I have the sneaking suspicion that he could not tell us the difference. There is no doubt that oil companies take in large profits. But why should they be demonized for the amount of profit they make? They do a huge amount of business so, if they’re successful, you should expect that they will make a huge profit! Now I know that most Americans don’t understand this, what with government education and all, but it is their profit MARGINS that should really matter. CNSNews recently reported: “The API further reported that in 2010, oil and natural gas companies averaged a net profit of 5.7 cents per dollar of income. Also, an average of 49.5 cents of every dollar oil companies made in 2010 went to income taxes.” Don’t count on Obama or the ObamaMedia explaining that to the American public. The oil companies make an easy target for wealth envy. Nobody likes to fork over $75 to fill up their car.

Now about these hedge fund managers who “pay taxes at a lower rate than their secretaries.” You really have to work to think of something to say that is more dishonest than this.

What if the president said something like “Hedge fund managers pay less to fill the diesel tanks on their yachts than their secretaries.” Well --- that’s right. Their secretaries don’t have yachts.

Obama is talking about two different types of taxes, and relying on the economic ignorance of the American people to assume that he is simply talking about income taxes. This is the same trick Warren Buffett pulled when he complained that his secretary was paying a higher tax rate than he is. Here’s the deal: If you make money from your investments you pay capital gains taxes (15%). If you make money working for someone else or working for yourself that money is referred to as “earned income” and is subject to regular income tax rates. Earned income is usually wages, salaries, commissions and tips. If you’re self-employed your earnings there are also earned income. If you think it would be a good idea for people who put their money to work in investments to then pay full income tax rates on whatever they earn from those investments; then Obama is your guy. But here’s what’s going to happen. As soon as we start taxing investment income in this country at ordinary income tax rates we’re going to see that investment income going overseas. There are economies out there that are growing a lot faster than ours is. Perhaps the investors with those funds would like to explore some more tax friendly opportunities.

We shouldn’t put the burden of deficit reduction on the backs of folks who’ve already borne the brunt of the recession. It’s not reasonable and it’s not right. If we’re going to ask seniors, or students, or middle-class Americans to sacrifice, then we have to ask corporations and the wealthiest Americans to share in that sacrifice. We have to ask everyone to play their part. Because we are all part of the same country. We are all in this together.

Seniors, and students sacrificing? How, pray tell? Most of them pay absolutely no federal income taxes at all; and many of them are actually net tax consumers! That means they get more money from the government every year than they pay to the government --- and yes, that includes payroll taxes. If you want to talk about shared sacrifice --- why don’t you get these freeloaders to chip in something?

And that brings me to that insipid girl at that Section 8 stampede in Dallas, Texas last week. More on her in a moment. Let’s finish this up:

Even if you took 100% of the profits amassed by the top Fortune 500 companies .. about $400 billion .. it would only be enough to keep our government running for 40 days. If we repeal the Bush tax cuts for only the wealthy, we would gain about $800 billion over the next decade (that is not accounting for any changes in economic behavior). Keep these figures in mind while you consider the fact that the only budget proposal Barack Obama has come up with in 2011 would INCREASE our federal deficit by $2.7 trillion over the next decade.
 
Gargamel
 
  4  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2011 09:34 am
@H2O MAN,
Do water softener repairmen qualify as "achievers"?
H2O MAN
 
  -4  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2011 11:15 am
@Gargamel,


Absolutely. Independent water quality quality improvement
specialists are achievers in both urban and rural settings.
Gargamel
 
  2  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2011 02:46 pm
@H2O MAN,
H2O MAN wrote:



Absolutely. Independent water quality quality improvement
specialists are achievers in both urban and rural settings.



I know they are. But it's more fun for me to pretend that it's some crummy job when I'm insulting you.
H2O MAN
 
  -4  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2011 02:55 pm
@Gargamel,


I hate to burst your little bubble, but all of you attempts to insult me have failed miserably.
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2011 09:04 pm
@H2O MAN,
With wealth goes rights, and we have the examples of many countries and times where this was true, and it is obviously true here; so try to not be ignorant... Inequality of wealth results in political inequality... The problem which is a quandry for the poor who suffer its effect that has no apparent solution... The solution when it becomes obvious to them will be attended with violence and revenge for those who have made life hell for the poor... God bless them, and God damned the rich who will then suffer every indignity including the loss of life... A political solution was built into this society, and it was for the rich to pay for their extra rights with taxation... The taxes the rich once paid have been loaded on the poor and working people and accelerated their empoverishment... No political solution is possible, so no polite solution will be forth coming... It is time to hang the rich until they can no longer afford to buy the rope...
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jul, 2011 03:51 am
@Fido,
From Wealth Income and Power by G William Domhoff.

'The Wealth Distribution
In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.7%. Table 1 and Figure 1 present further details drawn from the careful work of economist Edward N. Wolff at New York University (2010).'


So the top 20% should pay 85% of the taxes.

Fido
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jul, 2011 05:02 am
@izzythepush,
Alright... How much does the government hold; and how much does it lease on the cheap... Because; one of our earliest court rulings in this country says the people took this land and own it, and if the government has seen fit to put that wealth or any other in private hands it still has to support the population... Slaves drove the Romans from the land as sheep did in England and Ireland... The land still had to support the population, though if England is the example, then not well is the answer...In this land, the government of the rich is rufusing to tax wealth to support the needs of the people, but just as in England and Rome, they are will to waste the wealth of the poor and their lives in pointless wars because that too is a funnel of wealth to the wealthy...
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jul, 2011 07:23 am
@Fido,
It's quite clear that when you say Rome you mean the empire. What do you mean when you say England? Sorry, when do you mean? Now, C12, C18 or what?
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jul, 2011 07:30 am
@H2O MAN,
Quote:
Independent water quality quality improvement
specialists


Is that similar to a sanitation specialist?

I'm guessing sanitation specialists have more schooling based on the overinflated word use to glorify your job.
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jul, 2011 08:41 am
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:

It's quite clear that when you say Rome you mean the empire. What do you mean when you say England? Sorry, when do you mean? Now, C12, C18 or what?
Before the Empire in Rome is when slaves became so plentiful as to make free farmers unproductive... To compete with a slave one must become a slave, and that is the sort of protection our government gives to us.... Caesar rose to power on the strength of those dispossessed citizen... The Gratchi Brothers who were his relations tried in an earlier time to bring about agrarian reforms only to invite reaction... We are not so different from those people either in the form of our government or our factory farms... We are one step away from civil war or tyranny...

The period in England I refer to is the 16 and 17 hundreds, when the commons were being closed and given over to sheep to feed the looms of England...The great lesson there is that property rights have no more meaning than those who will enforce those rights give to them... England was given a moral choice and it failed... It was a matter of life or death, but instead of resisting to the death, people simply submitted as their churches would have them, because they were already slaves... Whole generation left the farms to join the service class or feed the mills with their bodies, and they never made enough in their lives to reproduce themselves, and this led Marx to conclude that what set wages was the price of keeping meat on bones...Consider, that while people had the commons they might be poor, but not destitute... Then; suddenly, poverty became an issue so wide spread that no one could ignore it...Don't think it won't happen here...
Gargamel
 
  2  
Reply Tue 19 Jul, 2011 10:16 am
@H2O MAN,
H2O MAN wrote:



I hate to burst your little bubble, but all of you attempts to insult me have failed miserably.



All of who attempts to insult you?

Anyway, you're wrong as usual. You have inspired some of my best work. My insults are usually very funny, even if they fly over the little head that sits atop your red neck.

And if I really have failed, you wouldn't so earnestly try to tell me so.

Deal with it.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jul, 2011 10:58 am
@Fido,
You're talking about the enclosure act. That's the problem with a landed gentry. There's only so much an ordinary villager can do when faced with eviction by the army. It did lead to the industrial revolution though.
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Jul, 2011 08:54 am
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:

You're talking about the enclosure act. That's the problem with a landed gentry. There's only so much an ordinary villager can do when faced with eviction by the army. It did lead to the industrial revolution though.
It fed lives into the industrial revolution and was as essential for its success as sugar and coal...

Part of the problem was that they were not often evicted, but once the commons were taken, they could not survive on what was left to them, and so they left... It was clear that they knew who was behind their suffering, but being good Christians and followers of the law, they could not strike at the very people who had hurt them, and directly.. They were not free men and women... So the exchange of one form of servitude for another was a slight issue...
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Jul, 2011 09:04 am
@Fido,
Well exactly, but far worse than any of that was Oliver Goldsmith's **** awful poem, The Deserted Village, railing against the Act.

Anyway I thought this thread was about how tax should be levied, as opposed to all the reasons why tax regimes will always favour the rich.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 20 Jul, 2011 02:16 pm
@Fido,
Fido wrote:

With wealth goes rights, and we have the examples of many countries and times where this was true, and it is obviously true here; so try to not be ignorant...


You are being ignorant if you think the greater the wealth you have the more 'rights' you have... it's the opposite, the great the wealth you have the more restrictions and roadblocks you face... you become a target for every God damned ignorant human on the planet.
izzythepush
 
  3  
Reply Wed 20 Jul, 2011 02:20 pm
@H2O MAN,
H2O MAN wrote:

[You are being ignorant if you think the greater the wealth you have the more 'rights' you have... it's the opposite, the great the wealth you have the more restrictions and roadblocks you face... you become a target for every God damned ignorant human on the planet.


So it would be better for them if they got rid of some of it, by paying more taxes. Good point. We'll make a socialist of you yet Comrade.
H2O MAN
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 20 Jul, 2011 02:43 pm
@izzythepush,


Hell no!

All Americans should be encouraged to become wealthy and they
should be rewarded with relaxed restrictions for their hard work.

Capitalism works when democrats and government get out of the way.
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jul, 2011 05:14 am
@H2O MAN,
H2O MAN wrote:

Fido wrote:

With wealth goes rights, and we have the examples of many countries and times where this was true, and it is obviously true here; so try to not be ignorant...


You are being ignorant if you think the greater the wealth you have the more 'rights' you have... it's the opposite, the great the wealth you have the more restrictions and roadblocks you face... you become a target for every God damned ignorant human on the planet.
Would you not agree that a person with property rights because he owns property has more rights than one without property rights because he has no property???
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jul, 2011 05:24 am
@H2O MAN,
H2O MAN wrote:



Hell no!

All Americans should be encouraged to become wealthy and they
should be rewarded with relaxed restrictions for their hard work.

Capitalism works when democrats and government get out of the way.
Capitalism does not work... People work to feed and produce more capital... But the trend and aim everywhere is to lower wages, or to replace workers everywhere with machines... But people without wages, and machines, do not make good consumers, so goods must be exported, and usually at the point of a gun...But who is there who wants to buy our goods, and what is it we actually sell over seas??? You see; Every Capitalist wants his own workers paid nothing and every other worker paid to the maximum; but what they get is what each really wants: Low wages seeking cheap products... They do not act in an intelligent fashion... They do not act in their best interest, or for that matter, in ours... They have exploited us to the limit, and have exported our jobs with their capital... IF Capitalism were not on life support from the government, it would not exist at all... The economy which should support the population no longer supports us, and we must support it... There is your great Capitalism... Its mask has come off, and it can be seen for what it is: Total Parasite...
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama and wealth envy
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/23/2021 at 01:16:21