Send In The Clown
by Big Dog on Dec 10, 2010 at 19:07 Political
Barack Obama is having a hard time selling the tax rate extension bill that is being worked on because all during the campaign he promised to roll back the rates on the wealthiest Americans. He made that promise dozens of times and his base took him at his word (fools) so they are quite upset that Obama has gone back on what he promised.
Obama called in Bill Clinton to help with the hard sell on the tax rate extension. Notice I did not write tax cut because there are no tax cuts, only a tax increase. While tax rates will remain the same (not cut) the tax on estates will rise 35% which is a sin. People pay taxes on the money they earn all their lives and then when they die the government taxes the money again as it is passed to heirs. A blatant assault on people.
I would say that Obama called in the cavalry but Clinton dodged the draft and Obama never served so if they saw a bunch of men in cavalry uniforms riding on horses they would think it was a remake of Brokeback Mountain. No, Obama called in the clown.
Clinton campaigned for his wife and he opposed a lot of what Obama said he would do if elected. Clinton and his wife were opposed to many of Obama’s ideas though they both think that the tax rates for the rich should increase. Democrats like to pay for things with other people’s money. Case in point, Hillary still has unpaid campaign debt two years removed from the election. She keeps sending out pleas for donations to retire the debt. They could write a check to retire the debt and never miss the money. Or, to take the tact of the liberals, they can afford it.
Clinton told fellow Democrats that this was a good deal and he told them that cutting Social Security taxes would stimulate job growth. Why is it that Democrats discuss the benefits of tax cuts like Republicans but fail to embrace that idea on a full time basis? For what its worth, I do not think it is smart to cut Social Security taxes.
The Democrats are touting this as a tax cut but it is not. It is an extension of the current rates that were cut a decade ago. If cutting the Social Security tax by 2% will stimulate job growth imagine what cutting the tax rates lower than they are now would do. They could cut the tax rates 2% across the board and cut corporate taxes in half and, provided they were not temporary measures, the jobs would begin to be created by those who actually create them.
This deal is a bad one and I hope the Democrats kill it. I think that Republicans gave up too much in order to pass the tax rate extension and they could have done much better. Remember, this is not a tax cut. It is only an extension of the current rates. If they expire there will be further economic downturn and a double dip recession. In order to stimulate growth the current rates need to be cut.
No society EVER taxed its way to prosperity.
As for the Bill Clintons of the world who think they do not pay enough in taxes, nothing is stopping them from paying more. This link is provided for those wealthy Americans who feel they do not pay enough in taxes and that higher taxes will pay off the debt. The link goes directly to the Treasury site dedicated to taking donations to retire the debt.
So Bill Clinton, Warren Buffet and all the other wealthy folks who think they should pay more should feel free to step up and put their money where their mouth is.
Of course, Clinton won’t write a check to pay off his wife’s campaign debt so what makes anyone think he actually wants to pay more to the government?
That clown wants others to pay more and that is why he wants tax rates for the wealthy to increase. He, like all truly wealthy people, will find a way to avoid paying the taxes.
The people who are only considered wealthy in the twisted minds of those in the Democrat party will end up paying more.
Of course, government could do what one innovative town has. Steal money from people.
Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: cavalry, Clinton, help, lies, Obama, taxes
This deal is bad, and the Republicans need to kill it- it’s being larded up with pork, in order to make it more palatable to the Dems, but if the Republicans allow this, then they will lose the moral high ground.
And while I might feel sympathy for the jobless, THREE YEARS OF BENEFITS is two years too many- make your own job- go to a block of businesses and ask if, for a nominal fee, you can sweep their sidewalk, or pick up trash, or whatever- just do not sit on your butt and hope the job of your dreams will fall in your lap- it ISN’T gonna happen- and three years out of a job just means you are now three years BEHIND THE TIMES on experience, and soon you will be unemployable without more re-training.
Are you worth it? Ask yourself that.
The longer a person receives a paycheck not to work the more likely the person will not go back to work.
In some cases. Not in most. Or have you ever tried to live off unemployment alone for any length of time? Most people aren’t that happy with it.
In most cases the longer a person gets money not to work he the less likely we get them back. In worker comp cases we see this. If people are injured and we pay them but do not find another job they can actually do with their injury then we see they are unlikely to return after 6 or 8 months (the odds are greater than 50% of no return).
Keep paying people unemployment and they will keep taking it. I have not tried to live on unemployment. If I lost my job I would work at a fast food joint, or collecting garbage or anywhere that was hiring to feed my family even if I had to work 2 or 3 jobs. I don’t want a handout, I will work for myself.
“Of course, Clinton won’t write a check to pay off his wife’s campaign debt so what makes anyone think he actually wants to pay more to the government?”
We talked about this months ago and I’m not sure if anybody clarified it. I’m pretty sure they cannot by law pay off their own debts. They were able to loan the campaign their own money but isn’t there laws against it being something other than a loan? Maybe not. I could never figure out for sure.
How would people like Bloomberg, Whitman and Romney be able to spend millions of their own money on campaigns? The thing is, she owes money for expenses. There is nothing to stop her (as far as I can tell by reading through FEC rules) from paying off the debts out of her own funds. If she lends her campaign more money to do it she would have to forgive the loan and thus eat the money because she can’t get it back. It appears that she can’t get more than 250k back, actually. So pay it off, forgive the loan and it is done with.
Regardless of FEC rules, there is nothing stopping him from writing a check AS BIG AS HE WANTS to pay off the debt.
No, they are perfectly free to pay off their own debts- indeed should be encouraged to do so, but in addition to being a perpetual adulterer, Billy boy is remarkably cheap unless it clearly benefits him enough that he can recoup his losses.
Perhaps he could write a book about how hard it is to pay one’s own way (I KNOW- a foreign concept for liberals, huh?)