Well, someone’s a chump

posted at 10:50 am on November 3, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

Barack Obama gave an interview to MTV and got challenged on his redistributionist tax policies.  In answering, Obama called his increases “chump change” to those making over $250,000 a year — a characterization that should raise eyebrows (emphases mine):

Sway: Our next question is from Matt from Iowa: “If your desire is to spread the wealth around, what incentive is there for me to try to work hard? If I am only going to get more taken away from me, the more money I make, why wouldn’t I just slide into a life of relaxation and let rich people take care of me? And a lot of people are asking similar questions, and I wanted you to specify. What does this mean exactly?”

Obama: What is amazing to me is this whole notion that somehow everybody is just looking out for themselves. I mean, the fact is, we just talked about student loans. When young people who have the drive and the skill to go to college can’t afford to go to college, how do you think we pay for scholarships or loan programs? That money doesn’t grow on trees. It’s got to come from somewhere, and the attitude that I have is that, if we want to grow our economy, the way it grows is from the bottom up. You don’t just give tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires. What you do is make sure the tax code is fair. I want to give a tax cut to 95 percent of working Americans, but in order to pay for that, I’m going to take the tax rates back to what they were in the 1990s for people who are making more than a quarter of a million dollars a year. Now for people who are making more than a quarter of a million dollars a year, if they are paying 2 or 3 percent higher in taxes, the notion that they’re somehow going to stop working, or that this young man is going to not want to be successful, that just doesn’t make any sense. Back in the 1990s, we created more millionaires, more billionaires, because the economy was growing, everything was strong, at every income bracket, people were doing well. So this idea, that somehow everybody is just on their own and shouldn’t be concerned about other people who are coming up behind them, that’s the kind of attitude that I want to end when I am president.

Sway: Just out of curiosity, for those that are being taxed that are making more than $250,000 a year, how much difference would it be from how they are being taxed today?

Obama: Well, right now, they are getting taxed at 36 percent. Under Bill Clinton in the 1990s, they were being taxed at 39.6 percent. You are talking about a 3.6 percent difference, and for the average person who is making half a million, a million dollars, now people like you Sway, that’s chump change, that’s nothing. But it could make a big difference for that young person who is trying to figure out whether they can go to college or not, if we could give them more of a break or more scholarships or grants to go to college.

At $250,000, an additional 3.6% isn’t chump change.  It’s an extra $9,000 that goes to the federal government on top of what they already take.  That money could go to the college funds for his own children, or get invested in businesses that create jobs, or just get spent and create even more jobs for others in the community.  Instead, it will go to Washington DC, get filtered through ever-growing bureaucracies, and perhaps a tenth of it will actually go to any purpose — if that.

I provided the entire answer to show that one doesn’t have to take Obama out of context to see the folly of his economics.  Wealth does not grow “from the ground up”.  It takes investment and risk by those who have capital in order to create the kind of private-sector jobs that promote economic strength and stability.  Until now, our tax policies have recognized the value of risk-taking by taxing capital gains at a lower rate, in order to encourage people to invest money in something other than savings accounts.  That is what allows the American economy to remain so resilient.

Instead, Obama thinks that we can penalize investment and still get people to take risks.  Instead, they will simply put their capital where it is most safe and stop taking risks altogether.  Businesses will not expand, and small businesses will not get created.  Research and development will stop altogether.  Without rewarding risk, risk will not get taken — and especially when government redirects capital away from private investment and sinks it into large bureaucracies instead.

Obama thinks $9,000 is “chump change”.  I’d say someone’s certainly a chump.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

I once debated a young man who told me that since the “rich” had certain lifestyle expectations. If we increased the taxes on the rich, they would just work harder, so that they could still earn enough money to meet those “lifestyle expectations”.

Nothing that anyone could say would shake him from this belief.

No doubt that this young man will be voting for Obama. On his way to his next shift at McDonalds.

MarkTheGreat on November 3, 2008 at 11:50 AM

What is he teaching our youth by this crap?

http://www.beatcanvas.com/guvsux/guvsux_20081103.jpg

beatcanvas on November 3, 2008 at 11:50 AM

The truth about what “redistribution” means:

We have a clear idea of what Barak Obama means by “change”:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck

Redistribution is not equality. The concept of redistribution necessitates first the seizure of the subject of the redistribution by the state and second the reapportionment of that subject as the state deems fit. In effect, taking property or rights belonging to one group to grant to another at the whim of those in charge of the effort.

And when you redistribute resources, you block the creation of new resources.

The Constitution recognizes that all are created as equals, and possess inalienable rights such as life liberty and the right to pursue a way of life that brings them happiness. The duty of government is thus to insure a level playing field that allows all to pursue their dreams without government interference.

By Obama’s own admission, the Constitution remains an impediment to his dream. The Constitution, in Obama’s own words is fundamentally flawed:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11OhmY1obS4

Barack Obama complains that the Constitution is a “charter of negative liberties”. That’s because the Constitution was intended as a limiting document, to curtail the power of the federal government vis-a-vis the states and the individual. The founders intended at the time to limit the reach of the federal government, and built the Constitution accordingly. Government was structured so as not to limit the rights of the people, but to protect them.

Again, the mere hint of “redistribution” necessitates taking from one to give to another. It goes well beyond the bounds of simple socialism, and treads firmly in the territory of communism. “From each according to his abilities, and to each according to his needs”. Karl Marx.

There is no question that Obama’s remarks were in the context of advocating socialism. To lament the failure of the judicial system in not being the vehicle to effect wealth redistribution coupled with identifying the “failures” of the Constitution in this regard reveals a candidate that blows past socialism. Obama is advocating unabashed Marxism.

There is a contemporary example of wealth redistribution we can all take a look at. Zimbabwe. The seizure of property owned by “white” citizens transferred to the “black” majority has, in 8 years, led to an inflation rate of over 1 trillion percent. The system of redistribution is, in and of itself, inherently corrupt. It breeds corruption. Zimbabwe has gone form one of the most stable economies in the world with the title “the breadbasket of Africa” to a ruined country dependent on UN food aid.

Redistribution dictates the elimination of civil liberties – no more property rights. It turns the Constitution on its head; it shreds it to pieces. Rather than limiting government power, redistribution empowers government. The government no longer is an entity of the people, by the people or for the people – government becomes the omnipotent purveyor of all. Citizens become subjects of the government and exist for the benefit of the government. Independence becomes dependence. The government no longer serves the people; the people now serve the government.

So how will a President Obama pursue that agenda? In two parts, first, he will defund the military : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRGru2CPC4E

Second, he will create a civilian Security force, “just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded” as our military forces: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fO-usAlqak

With a weakened and stretched military stretched across the globe, Obama’s Civilian Security Force will be free to enforce his priorities here, in the name of “security”.

Our Country is at a critical crossroads. And we will be deciding our future fate on Tuesday. Our forefathers
also faced momentus issues during their lifetimes. It was their principled stand, their unwillingness to negotiate away their basic human rights, that gave birth to this great nation. We will decide whether we too are men and women of principle; men and women who choose not to waver in the face of distressing times or peril; men and women who believe freedom is not negotiable.

“They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.”
Benjamin Franklin

Stand by your principles. And remember the sacrifice of all those who have gone before you – the men and women who were willing to give all for the freedoms we enjoy in our United States.

UnderstandingisPower on November 3, 2008 at 11:51 AM

“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent vice of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.” Winston Churchill

LatinRed on November 3, 2008 at 11:54 AM

Too bad Chump’s true colors are only now being made clear. BHO=CHUMP CHANGE
McCain/Palin ’08 all the way!

caconsrvgma on November 3, 2008 at 11:58 AM

Look, every half dozen or so elections America needs to see for itself how dumb it is to head left. This is one of those elections. Carter brought us Reagan. Obama will bring us … Jindal? Palin? (McCotter? Hometown guy) … who knows. Of course, I’m posting this before McCain shocks us all and wins, so who knows….

e.f. on November 3, 2008 at 11:09 AM

I’m afraid the first part is true but I hope the second part is correct!

Moxie on November 3, 2008 at 11:58 AM

How many people will overlook the lie is that it’s a 3.6% difference? It’s 3.6 percentage points or a 10% increase.
mr.blacksheep on November 3, 2008 at 11:42 AM

Excellent point.

Also, one of the reasons we have stayed in Georgia is because of the Hope Scholarship. It costs taxpayers nothing, and is funded by lottery ticket sales. All you have to do to qualify is have a B average. It is worth MUCH more than $4,000 a year. If Obama manages to get his community college scheme passed it will probably kill the Hope Scholarship, and my kid will be stuck with going to a community college instead of someplace like UGA or Georgia Tech.

Moreover, he wants to tie community college tuition into working for his taxpayer funded Civilian National Security Force. If you refuse to “volunteer” for you get nothing.

Buy Danish on November 3, 2008 at 12:00 PM

this chump makes my blood boil. i am in total disbelief that we are where we are today. i have been trying to shake myself all weekend and tell myself that this can’t happen. you people have been and will continue to be my sanity if this guy gets in.

sandlin71 on November 3, 2008 at 12:04 PM

Was it Kerry or Edwards who in 2004, referred to the rich as “those who had won life’s lottery”?

These guys honestly do not believe that it is hard work and talent that leads to wealth. They believe that is just luck of the draw.

MarkTheGreat on November 3, 2008 at 12:05 PM

going to a community college instead of someplace like UGA or Georgia Tech.

He’s probably better off going to a community college vs. UGA.

MarkTheGreat GeorgiaInstituteOfTechnology, 1985.

MarkTheGreat on November 3, 2008 at 12:08 PM

How come no one mentions the great .com surge as a reason for all the economic growth, in my opinion that had nothing to with Clinton, I dont get it. technology and the internet were responsible more than any of Bills policys

mucker15 on November 3, 2008 at 12:09 PM

Worse than the numbers themselves it is the bias that Obama, Reid and Pelosi are going to unleash. Extreme government intrusion and spending. While it is true that Bush and the Repubs blew a mandate of historic proportions that we will pay decades for, there was at least the hope that it would stop. With Obama even the hope is gone.

My hope, should the Repubs hold 41 Senate seats, is that they view themselves as being in the Alamo. They must at the risk of career try to stop every bill that comes before them. Sadly it has come to this. Had the Repubs, from 2000-06 contained spending and limited government expansion we would not even be having this discussion. In fact they would not have lost seats in 06.

However there is always Hope!

GreatestMovieLineEver.wmv (1101KB)

patrick neid on November 3, 2008 at 12:09 PM

That’s not the Chump I thought I knew…

Wyznowski on November 3, 2008 at 12:11 PM

The “life’s lottery” trope was Gephardt’s, I think. What’s cockeyed about this whole class warfare platform Barry’s proffering, is that it was completely at odds with his post-partisan healer myth. Pitting groups of Americans against each other on economic grounds is no less divisive and pernicious than doing it on racial grounds. McCain missed the boat on this dividing America campaign run by Barry.

sladenyv on November 3, 2008 at 12:12 PM

Socialists like Obama reject a basic principle of governmental policy. That is, if tyou want to encourage something, you subsidize it. If you want to discourage something, you tax it.

In the Great Society experiment, liberal policies subsidized unwed motherhood, personal irresponsibility, and dependency. All of those attributes exploded, doing untold long-lasting harm to the very segments iof the population that the policies were designed to “help.” Surprise!

Liberal policies also seek to punish productive people by taking away the fuits of ones’ effort in taxes. When Great Britain had effective tax rates of over 90 percent, producers simply stopped taking risks, and a large number of wealthy people actually left the country for good. Unemployment skyrocketed and the economy withered. Only after Margaret Thatcher reversed those policies did the nation begin to recover.

People like Obama are so locked into an ideological mindset that sees some simplistic “fairness” in leveling out the income disparities in a society that they are willfuly blind to what the actual historical record has to say about these policies. That expericment has ben tried before, repeatedly, and has failed spectacularly every time.

Cicero43 on November 3, 2008 at 12:13 PM

However there is always Hope!

GreatestMovieLineEver.wmv (1101KB)

patrick neid on November 3, 2008 at 12:09 PM

Here’s link that works

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VjsomPd3ms

patrick neid on November 3, 2008 at 12:14 PM

When Clinton raised taxes, the economy was strong and growing, thanks to the Bush and Reagan era. By the time Clinton left office, the economy was staggering. So to claim that the Clinton tax increases did not hurt the economy flies in the face of history.

Let’s not forget that Clinton also had the benefit of the so called “peace dividend”, which he used as an excuse for slashing defense spending.

MarkTheGreat on November 3, 2008 at 12:23 PM

Hmm, I remember the Democrats screaming loud and long when Bush cut the tax rate on the evil rich from 39.6 to 36. Seems they didn’t consider it “chump change” back then.

MarkTheGreat on November 3, 2008 at 12:24 PM

The government will almost certainly invest it in something. Epic fail on basic econ Ed.

crr6 on November 3, 2008 at 11:24 AM

The govt doesn’t invest money. Never has, never will.

Epic fail on your part.

MarkTheGreat on November 3, 2008 at 12:25 PM

MarkTheGreat on November 3, 2008 at 12:23 PM

Yea…he had created a speculative bubble with cheap money and it all came crashing down about the time he left office. One COULD argue this was a democrat mistake…had bush not made the same mistake during his own 2 terms. Republicans are due some time in the wilderness to realize they have totally let go of fiscal conservatism and sound monetary policy. 1% interests rates never turn out well in the long run. cheap money and an overheating of speculative bubbles doomed both the clinton and bush jr. economies…lets hope no one makes that mistake again…because its obviously a mistake that transcends party affiliation

ernesto on November 3, 2008 at 12:27 PM

Well like JG Wintworth says IT’S MY MONEY AND I WANT TO USE IT WHEN I WANT TO! CHUMP
MAC CUDA RULES

driver on November 3, 2008 at 12:30 PM

Look, every half dozen or so elections America needs to see for itself how dumb it is to head left. This is one of those elections. Carter brought us Reagan. Obama will bring us … Jindal? Palin? (McCotter? Hometown guy) … who knows. Of course, I’m posting this before McCain shocks us all and wins, so who knows….

e.f. on November 3, 2008 at 11:09 AM

The problem with this philosophy is that Reagan never came close to undoing the damage done to this country by Carter.
The damage done by FDR and Johnson are still festering as well.

MarkTheGreat on November 3, 2008 at 12:34 PM

Do not forget that on top of 3%+ increase of income bracket Obama promised 15% SS tax on those making $250K. First he promised to remove SS cap completely and then he changed his mind for election season and said that it would be gap between $100K and $250K.

finallyhere on November 3, 2008 at 12:37 PM

UnderstandingisPower on November 3, 2008 at 11:51 AM

The truth about what “redistribution” means:

We have a clear idea of what Barak Obama means by “change…

GREAT POST!!!!!

Jim M. on November 3, 2008 at 12:40 PM

So if 3.6% of additional income taken away is merely chump change, is Obama saying that he merely gave chump change to charities? Why didn’t he give more? Why didn’t he throw a little of his chump change his auntie’s way? Bet his brother would enjoy a bit of his chump change too.

katablog.com on November 3, 2008 at 12:54 PM

I have enjoyed giving 10% of my income to my church for many years. We bought a house for a Katrina family and furnished it. We built a house for missionaries. We pay bills for folks who are out of work temporarily and even remodeled the bedroom of a woman who was dying of cancer.

If I have to give an extra 10% to Obama (3.6% is a 10% increase over the 36% that I already pay)I will not have the discretionary income to help those I worship with and live next to in my own community. THIS is where it will hurt…in charitable contirbutions!

LEBA on November 3, 2008 at 12:59 PM

One thing about freedom is we can create our own heaven, and, unfortunately, our own hell. The left doesn’t seem to get this and believes that if they take more from the hard working and give to the slackers there will be parity. The US tried this with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mack, which was pushed, backed, protected and steamrolled by the Democrats, and while there was some good that came out of it the results are the financial mess we are in. The left has made political hay about the recent crisis by blaming Bush and Republicans, but, President Clinton recently chastised the Democratically controlled congress for blocking all attempts to correct it. Free enterprise does work when you keep Big Government from interfering with it. There are many financial experts in the US that say that if Obama wins we will face a world wide depression. The reason is that the Democrats don’t understand about business and believe that anyone that has a business is wealthy. They don’t understand that higher taxes equals less profits, equals job lay-offs and businesses moving to China, equals more and more people out of work that can’t afford the goods, equals a depression. Economics 101, apparently not taught in the Ivy League schools the elites send their children to.

DL13 on November 3, 2008 at 1:04 PM

The problem with this philosophy is that Reagan never came close to undoing the damage done to this country by Carter.
The damage done by FDR and Johnson are still festering as well.

MarkTheGreat on November 3, 2008 at 12:34 PM

I don’t see how voter fraud, card check, and radical education damage will ever be undone. How can you fight the graveyard vote, larger union funding of the democratic party, and generations brainwashed by Ayres’ agenda.

My son came home from school today, and said his teacher told him to tell me to vote for “Rock Obama”. “Oh yeah, Dad too”. My son is only five.

Laura in Maryland on November 3, 2008 at 1:07 PM

Red State Update “Obama’s Aunt”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-TLRM1vUTY&feature=channel

Dr Evil on November 3, 2008 at 1:12 PM

Notice he never talks about taxing the wealthy, just the ones that are moving towards wealth.
Hey Obama, how about $260 million, how about taking half of that every year. She can live on $130 million a year.
How about the top ten players of every sport, take 1/2 their salary. That’s good for about 10 mil each at least.
So we have added about 1 billion.
Now how about every movie studio coughing up 1/2 that should be another billion.
Now how about the top 2 dozen actors, sure maybe they lose one of their jets, but that could add another billion…now we get to Gates and Walton family…now we are talking about a few billion.
I think this tax plan is going to work…or you just tax the guy/gal who makes $300,000 for the first time in their life, and maybe never again.

right2bright on November 3, 2008 at 1:14 PM

Yeah, they’re just going to take the 36%, and another 3.6%, and another 12.4% for So-So security… plus the medicare cap for another 2.9%

So, you know, 36 + 3.6 + 12.4% + 2.9% = 53.9%.

So they’ll only take a bit more than half, before property taxes, and state taxes, and all the other various taxes.

State taxes come to 10.3% in California for millionaires; so 64.2% off the top if you’re living there. Add in property taxes, etc. and you’re sure to clear 65.

But hey, for every dollar you earn you’ll get to keep a shiny new quarter…

Was that the “chump change” he was referencing?

gekkobear on November 3, 2008 at 1:19 PM

THIS is where it will hurt…in charitable contirbutions!

LEBA on November 3, 2008 at 12:59 PM

Biden averaged $369 per year the last 10 years (highest 995, lowest 195).
So my guess is, they don’t care.
Obama averaged about 1% of his earnings the last 10 years.

right2bright on November 3, 2008 at 1:20 PM

There is more about The One that stinks.I don’t understand how so many people can be so foolish.

gladius on November 3, 2008 at 1:31 PM

Obama
“You are talking about a 3.6 percent difference, and for the average person who is making half a million, a million dollars, now people like you Sway, that’s chump change, that’s nothing.

“But it could make a big difference for that young person who is trying to figure out whether they can go to college or not”

So if you’re a high school graduate making half a million, a million dollars, a 3.6% increase in your taxes MIGHT affect your decision as to weather or not your going to college?
Just how many Americans are we talking about here?

Is this just the teen Hollywood MTV crowd?

And if your not going to college your just a chump?

DSchoen on November 3, 2008 at 1:37 PM

Obama says: “Back in the 1990s, we created more millionaires, more billionaires, because the economy was growing, everything was strong, at every income bracket, people were doing well.”

Who is “we” in this sentence? The government didn’t make these people wealthy. They made themselves wealthy because the government didn’t take as much their wealth away from them as they did before Reagan’s tax cuts. The Dow was around 8,000 in 2003. Under the Bush tax cuts, it grew to over 12,000 by the 2006 elections, and during wartime. He doesn’t have a clue why the economy grew during these periods. He thinks it’s magic or something.

Increased taxes do not create wealth but they do create a huge disincentive to do so. And wealthy people don’t look at their assets as chump change. When taxes go up, they take shelter.

Obama thinks $9,000 an additional taxes is chump change to someone making $250,000. Well, it would pay for a year of college for their own kid. And yes, people’s primary concerns are themselves and their own families, but it’s also true that Americans give more of their wealth away in voluntary charity than anyone else in the world. Certainly more than Obama.

cheeflo on November 3, 2008 at 1:43 PM

“Obama: What is amazing to me is this whole notion that somehow everybody is just looking out for themselves.”

Why is that “amazing to” Obama?
He’s been selling his tax plan on what it would do for the individual person.
“Joe the plumber” would be much better off under my plan.

DSchoen on November 3, 2008 at 1:44 PM

Lets see $600,000,000 x 3.6% = $2,160,000. = lots of jobs btw joe thats a 4 letter word chump

driver on November 3, 2008 at 1:48 PM

So, you know, 36 + 3.6 + 12.4% + 2.9% = 53.9%.

gekkobear on November 3, 2008 at 1:19 PM

Let’s not forget the 7% for his new medical care program, and the 5% for the Social Security, take two.

MarkTheGreat on November 3, 2008 at 2:05 PM

Can somebody please explain this.

How exactly does Obama’s “bottom up” economics work? Nobody seems to have questioned this throughout the campaign, yet it’s pivotal to everything Obama stands for.

Does He expect America to ask the welfare cases, the junkies, and the homeless for jobs? Does Obama expect all the mom and pop shops to double their staff for His $1000/$750/$500/$250/$…? “magic beans” handout?

Does He expect them to re-open factories while keeping below His $250k/$200k/$150k/$120k/”do not pass or my taxes will stomp you” threshold?

Does He expect big business owners (i.e. distinct from Wall St. financiers) to voluntarily keep jobs in America under his social doctrine masquerading as a “tax plan”?

Will Obama harass the homeless and those on welfare for not providing enough jobs? Should America?

How did this whole “bottom up” economics of His acquire any credibility never mind traction? The only “bottom up” economics I know of is “belly up”!

Hey America! “Here’s a few hundred for every American, maybe even a thousand. Now go and re-build the economy!”

spaceman spiff on November 3, 2008 at 2:11 PM

Me think Chump is tits up taken on water

driver on November 3, 2008 at 2:19 PM

I have a part-time seasonal job, working for a small employer who falls into this tax bracket (He’s voting for Obama. Why? I don’t know). I only keep that job for the employee discount and to break up the monotony of my office job.

A $9K reduction in my employer’s income could mean he would have to eliminate the jobs of 2-3 of his seasonal employees, assuming he intends to maintain his personal income level.

The seasonal employees whose jobs would be on the chopping block are college students who will also, stupidly, be voting for Obama. I know my job is safe because I know my stuff better than any of the college kids, and I’ve never shown up for work stoned or hung over. Can’t say the same for the pro-O chumps.

Good luck out there, Generation D’oh!

Wingo on November 3, 2008 at 2:43 PM

Chump change? Hey! He stole that line!

For one, check here, back in September.

A quote from that post:

FINALLY, THE ONE SAYS: “I want you to argue with them and get in their face.”

Sure. That is just what your average sensible, law-abiding, taxpaying, patriotic American citizen wants . . . some wild-eyed or dim-witted do-nothing, a pugnacious, true-believer, nanny-state loving, demi-socialist getting “in their face” and trying to convince him or her to participate in just turning over the reins of the federal government — and the entire future of the United States of America — to an inexperienced, gutter-ball throwing, first term U.S. Senator, who spent several years agitating for “change” to no good effect in Chicago, and who is now running on an empty promise of change for the entire nation! THAT is chump change we do not need!

(my emphasis supplied)

Trochilus on November 3, 2008 at 2:44 PM

“But hey, for every dollar you earn you’ll get to keep a shiny new quarter…
Was that the “chump change” he was referencing?”
All new quarters WILL NOT BE SHINY.

They will produce using recycled biomass; they will be soft, brownish and have a “special” Olfaction counterfeiting properties.

Sorry couldn’t resist

DSchoen on November 3, 2008 at 3:09 PM

UnderstandingisPower on November 3, 2008 at 11:51 AM

Nice work. Jeez, I hope you’re wrong, though!

mr.blacksheep on November 3, 2008 at 3:39 PM

Understand one thing about why the Democrats are the way they are.

Obama, Clinton, Kerry, Gore – have they EVER worked in the private sector outside of a law firm?

Obama especially has spent his entire adult life spending money other people gave him as he sat on charitable boards or tax money extracted from the public in the Illinois State Senate and in the Senate in Washington.

George W. Bush was an oilman and sports team owner. John McCain was a naval aviator and commander. Neither one of these guys spent their adult lives spending money other people just handed to them before they entered politics.

So yeah, Obama would consider 9,000 chump change. After all, when he sat on the Annenberg Board with William Ayers, he helped spend over $110,000,000 of grant money that was simply given to them on education projects.

manofaiki on November 3, 2008 at 5:01 PM

I’d like to know how Barry thinks this is going to actually raise money to pay for his $500 and $1,000 checks.

Say you make $300k. Right now, you will pay 18,000 in taxes just on the portion above $250k. Raise the tax rate to 39.6%, that generates an additional $1,800. That’s it. Because the way the tax code works, you only pay at the rates for money made in that bracket. For instance, you pay 25% on all the income you earn between $32,550 and $78,850. Once you hit 78,851, you pay 28% on all the income from there to $164,550. So, unless Barry is going to change the way the tax code works, and make it one rate for all income, he will barely raise anything from this change.

In effect, he is making a pie in the sky promise with little income to actually redistribute.

William Teach on November 3, 2008 at 5:28 PM

Obama’s whole tax/welfare plan is ridiculous, and would never accomplish what he claims. Giving low income people a check for $500 or $1000 is going to have only a negligible impact on their lives. His program is not based on need, it does nothing to ensure people actually get some long-term benefit. It’s just a straight transfer of income, if you make less than a certain amount, you get a check from those that make over a certain amount. I would be more in favor of a program that could actually make a difference, like an education or job training program for young single mothers.

It isn’t even a needs based program, who is to say the low income person doesn’t have significant assets that don’t necessarily create income? How do you know they need the money? Anyway, giving $500 to a low income person once a year just isn’t going to have much of a positive effect, but it will have a significant negative effect on small business’s ability to create and sustain jobs. The cost benefit analysis on Obama’s plan just sucks.

mbs on November 3, 2008 at 5:53 PM

Obama thinks $9,000 is “chump change”. I’d say someone’s certainly a chump.

Tell me n one is surprised by this. During one of the debates. Obama said the 14 billion that McCain would save by vetoing earmarks was nothing. In the next sentence, he said the 4 billion in tax breaks going to Exxon etc was huge.

csdeven on November 3, 2008 at 6:10 PM

BTW, it’s nice to know that Barry is so deep into the tax code that he doesn’t even know that the rate on $250k is at 33% for 2008 and 2009.

William Teach on November 3, 2008 at 6:18 PM

Comment pages: 1 2