Obamateurism of the Day

posted at 8:05 am on July 25, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

It’s sometimes hard for this feature to keep up with all of the material supplied by President Obama. Two or three press conferences ago — who can keep up these days? — Obama offered a revealing look at how he sees the relationship between government and personal property, emphasis Howard Portnoy’s:

And I do not want, and I will not accept, a deal in which I am asked to do nothing, in fact, I’m able to keep hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional income that I don’t need, while a parent out there who is struggling to figure out how to send their [sic] kid to college suddenly finds that they’ve got a couple thousand dollars less in grants or student loans.

Howard hits the mark:

Understand, this was a hypothetical. The president wasn’t necessarily speaking about his own “additional income (that he doesn’t need).” He was speaking about somebody else’s. And something tells me that that somebody else is not among the 47 percent of U.S. households that pay not a penny of federal income tax.

In the meantime, the notion implied in the president’s remark that American citizens are “able to keep” money that they earn is intriguing. Apparently, in the president’s world, citizens of the U.S. don’t pay tax to the government in accordance with its needs, as envisioned by the nation’s founders. Rather, the money that you earn belongs in the first place to the government, which then in its infinite wisdom decides how much you are “permitted to keep”—and how much goes to a person who is more deserving of your hard-earned money than you are (e.g., someone struggling to put his kids through college).

It’s actually worse than that. Just who is Obama to decide how much an individual earner needs to keep?  If Obama earns more than he feels he needs, then Obama can give the excess away to charity — or even donate it to the Treasury to pay down the national debt.   Nor was this some sort of misspeak; Obama has said much the same thing before, most notably when he told an audience, “I mean, I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money.”

Clearly, Obama isn’t looking for revenue for the sake of funding critical national efforts.  He wants to take away “excess” money from the people who earned it and make himself and his administration into the Ministry Of “Need.”

Got an Obamateurism of the Day? If you see a foul-up by Barack Obama, e-mail it to me at obamaisms@edmorrissey.com with the quote and the link to the Obamateurism. I’ll post the best Obamateurisms on a daily basis, depending on how many I receive. Include a link to your blog, and I’ll give some link love as well. And unlike Slate, I promise to end the feature when Barack Obama leaves office.

Illustrations by Chris Muir of Day by Day. Be sure to read the adventures of Sam, Zed, Damon, and Jan every day!

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

you’d think that, at some point, he’d made enough government.

ted c on July 25, 2011 at 8:08 AM

I think that if you spread the wealth around, everybody would be better off. /bho to joe the plumber.

ted c on July 25, 2011 at 8:09 AM

Obama is yet another Democrat who suffers from the delusion that it is YOU who is deluded into believing that it is YOUR money.

pilamaye on July 25, 2011 at 8:10 AM

Just how much is “you’ve made enough money”? He’ll never put a dollar figure on it. It’s not that the dollar figure might offend a lot of people, including his favorite donors; the problem is that after naming a figure, he can’t easily bully them for even more.

NeighborhoodCatLady on July 25, 2011 at 8:10 AM

Obama has said much the same thing before, most notably when he told an audience, “I mean, I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money.”

When I reach that point, I will let you know.

DuctTapeMyBrain on July 25, 2011 at 8:11 AM

the Acme Wealth Spreader must be running low….

ted c on July 25, 2011 at 8:12 AM

Obama simply believes that since the Government printed the money it never ceases to belong to the Government. Those in power allow us to use it.

Yoop on July 25, 2011 at 8:14 AM

Yet you don’t see him giving away those “hundreds of thousands of dollars” do you?

Typical Liberal

gophergirl on July 25, 2011 at 8:16 AM

Uncle Sugar needs some sugar to spread to the kiddies….

ted c on July 25, 2011 at 8:17 AM

Classic socialism.

ProfessorMiao on July 25, 2011 at 8:18 AM

Yeeeesh! As if I could afford having him as president already…

OmahaConservative on July 25, 2011 at 8:18 AM

while a parent out there who is struggling to figure out how to send their [sic] kid to college suddenly finds that they’ve got a couple thousand dollars less in grants or student loans.

Funny he should use the cost of college as an example to justify his redistributionism.

Obama’s greedy egghead buddies are increasing their rates faster than healthcare costs are going up and delivering a product that is of decreasing quality and has markedly less value than it used to.

forest on July 25, 2011 at 8:19 AM

ted c on July 25, 2011 at 8:08 AM

Ha! Thread winner with the first comment!

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on July 25, 2011 at 8:20 AM

You and I earn income, through the sweat of our brows and the callouses on our hands, or sound investment practices, we earn that money, it is ours.

Obama believes that money is not ours. He believes it belongs to all of us, the people, so we have no right to decide what we will keep and what government shall redistribute. “We gotta spread the wealth around.” Remember?

If Obama wants to give all his income to charity or blow it at Atlantic City or on a little blow, he may, he can, it is a Right, a fundamental Right. Have at it.

Likewise, allow me the same Right. Allow all of us that same Right.

But the minute Obama and liberals start talking about, and acting upon, the notion that my income, our income, your income, does not belong to us…that is where we have a major problem.

Spread the wealth around?

I will spread around what I wish to spread. It is not the job of a President to make that decision for me.

coldwarrior on July 25, 2011 at 8:23 AM

I’m able to keep hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional income that I don’t need,

Have at it big guy..

Gifts to the United States
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Credit Accounting Branch
3700 East-West Highway, Room 622D
Hyattsville, MD 20782

Caper29 on July 25, 2011 at 8:23 AM

Speaking of sending kids to college, let’s remember that the President attended Princeton as an undergraduate, Haravrd as a law student, and then taught at the U. of Chicago. Those schools aren’t exactly Western Michigan or Kennesaw State. Does Obama not realize it’s mostly rich people who send their kids to the institutions he is associated with?

When another former Illinois senator, Paul Simon, left the Senate he took a teaching job. Now I’m sure they would have been delighted to have him at Princeton, Harvard, or U. of Chicago. But instead, Simon went home to downstate Illinois and taught at my alma matar, Southern Illinois. It’s the type of school working class folks send their kids to. After Harvard, Obama could have taught at SIU or some other public university. But no, he had to have the prestige the University of Chicago offered. And then he wants to jack up the taxes of anybody who can afford tuition there.

By the way… does Obama know who gave the money to get UC up and running?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_chicago

radjah shelduck on July 25, 2011 at 8:25 AM

The Left believes that: America = Government in America.

Conservatives believe that: America = the people in America.

Remember that and everything they do, even policy doomed for failure (Porkulus, Cash4Clunkers, ObamaCare, “Green Jobs,” etc.), will make sense.

visions on July 25, 2011 at 8:26 AM

Well said, coldwarrior.

Lefties that want to collectivize wealth and redistribute it also have a problem distinguishing between wants and needs.

onlineanalyst on July 25, 2011 at 8:27 AM

Classic socialism.

ProfessorMiao on July 25, 2011 at 8:18 AM

And definitely no ‘Amatuer’ socialism.

darwin-t on July 25, 2011 at 8:27 AM

If Obama earns more than he feels he needs, then Obama can give the excess away to charity — or even donate it to the Treasury to pay down the national debt.

This is what drives me bat-sh** crazy about liberals. They have to know they can opt to pay more taxes, but they expect everybody else to be coerced by the government into paying their “fair share.”

Sic.

crazy_legs on July 25, 2011 at 8:29 AM

you’d think that, at some point, he’d made enough government.

ted c on July 25, 2011 at 8:08 AM

You could think that, but you’d be wrong. In Obama’s world, the old saw becomes, “you can never be too thin, or too regulated.”

Barnestormer on July 25, 2011 at 8:29 AM

For someone who claims to be a Christian he sure has no understanding of the 10th commandment. Mr. Obama what part of Thou shalt not covet don’t you understand?

chemman on July 25, 2011 at 8:30 AM

crazy_legs on July 25, 2011 at 8:29 AM

“Oh, I hate that there are poor people. I will not give my own money on my own time to help. I will give everybody else’s money to solve the problem. I’d love to give more, but those gosh darn tax laws tell me I only have to give so much and no more. Let government solve the problem, I’ve better things to do.”

coldwarrior on July 25, 2011 at 8:33 AM

Okay I was wrong. He’s not a fooking socialist. He’s a fooking communist.

doufree on July 25, 2011 at 8:34 AM

ted c on July 25, 2011 at 8:09 AM

Clifford the Big Red Dog.

RDE2010 on July 25, 2011 at 8:35 AM

forest on July 25, 2011 at 8:19 AM

Simple economics. Government aid to students means increased demand for college which means schools can raise their prices. And that means that more aid is needed because even fewer kids can afford it on their own, which means even more demand and higher costs. Eventually government pays for all kids and the costs increase parabolically and we the taxpayers pay the bills. See the health care industry for a prior example.

MJBrutus on July 25, 2011 at 8:35 AM

The Obama ideology explained:

“We’re not broke. This country is not broke. The state of Wisconsin is not broke. There’s a ton of cash in this country. . . . What’s happened is is that we’ve allowed a vast majority of that cash to be concentrated in the hands of just a few people. . . . They’re sitting on the money, they’re using it for their own – they’re putting it someplace else, they have no interest in helping you with your life, with that money. We’ve allowed them to take that. That’s not theirs, that’s a national resource, that’s ours. . . . I think we need to go back to taxing these people at the proper rates. They need to – we need to see these jobs as something that we own, that we collectively own as Americans and you can’t just steal our jobs and take them someplace else.” – Michael Moore

Trafalgar on July 25, 2011 at 8:39 AM

coldwarrior on July 25, 2011 at 8:33 AM

Yup. Pretty much.

crazy_legs on July 25, 2011 at 8:46 AM

MJBrutus on July 25, 2011 at 8:35 AM

Yeah, I love it when the government creates market distortions, then points at the unfortunate consequences of the distortions as evidence that more distortions are required. The junkie-think is dooming us. The housing market disaster is even worse than higher ed and healthcare combined.

forest on July 25, 2011 at 8:46 AM

you’d think that, at some point, he’d made enough government.

ted c on July 25, 2011 at 8:08 AM

WB, ted c.

Bam!

Fallon on July 25, 2011 at 8:48 AM

Classic socialism.

ProfessorMiao on July 25, 2011 at 8:18 AM

Liberal progressives have for decades embraced the practice of spending “other people’s money” with the idea that income re-distribution is a good thing. It is this very mechanism that has produced career politicians like Reid and Pelosi who are kept in power while they prostitute themselves preying on the desperation of the poor with the promise that the government will take care of every need, including sending their children to college. According to liberals, every need must be in the form of a government entitlement, snaring the needy into submission with cradle to grave dependency.

“Just who is Obama to decide how much an individual earner needs to keep?”

Hopefully, a single term mediocre president.

Rovin on July 25, 2011 at 8:48 AM

“Fundamental change” What else did you think it meant?

Obama’s not hankering to be another FDR, he’s trying to emulate Lenin!

OldEnglish on July 25, 2011 at 8:49 AM

Maybe we should start calling him “The Bluffer in Chief”

Vote Republican and only be called a racist one more time.

bflat879 on July 25, 2011 at 8:49 AM

This touches on such a fundamental difference in the world view of collectivism vs. individualism. Whenever I hear someone talk about how anyone (especially those evil rich people) spends their money, I slowly say the following, emphasizing every single word: “It’s – NOT – YOUR – MONEY!!!” To me, it seems like such a simple concept: the money a person earns is theirs to do with as they please. Yet, I’ve listened to people criticize others for how much they spend on their dogs when “people are starving”, or other such nonsense.

Whenever Obama or some other progressive politician on TV starts preaching this crap about “what the government allows us to keep”, I repeat, “It’s – NOT – YOUR – MONEY!!!”

Logic on July 25, 2011 at 8:50 AM

Additional income? Where is this additional income coming from? He makes it sound as if money falls off trees into evil rich people’s pockets. He’s already named a figure that he feels is enough. It’s $250K for couples and $150K for singles. You can keep up to that amount and pay your taxes on it, of course, but after that it’s that extra money for him to redistribute. Why do I have to help someone pay for their kids’ college ed or health ins? The kid can get a job and pay their own way. Just like SP did.

Kissmygrits on July 25, 2011 at 8:59 AM

If Obama really believes there’s a time when someone makes too much money, why in the heck is his wife out there spending it on $500 tennis shoes and $10,000 ugly dresses? Why aren’t they giving it away?

The answer: there’s a time when YOU’VE made enough money. Now move along peons.

katablog.com on July 25, 2011 at 9:04 AM

I can see Obama and Geither now, sitting at a table, counting the Moulah.

Obama: One for taxes, one for me. One for taxes, two for me. One for taxes, three for me. So on and so on.

capejasmine on July 25, 2011 at 9:07 AM

Hopefully, a single term mediocre president.

Rovin on July 25, 2011 at 8:48 AM

You imply that he’s better than Carter somehow.

Lanceman on July 25, 2011 at 9:10 AM

We have lawyers running this country, and not the smartest lawyers.

They just can’t get it through their head that the Middle Class is not the Envy Class. That’s the underclass they are constantly pandering to, the chronic poor, about 3% of the population, don’t appear to be able to manage their finances. They can give them all the our money they want – they will blow it and be poor again. The Democrats/Trail Lawyers, don’t care, they need something to shake down the money class with. The high pitch constant whine of the lawyers is grating and tiresome.

Dr Evil on July 25, 2011 at 9:11 AM

Have at it big guy..

Gifts to the United States
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Credit Accounting Branch
3700 East-West Highway, Room 622D
Hyattsville, MD 20782

Caper29 on July 25, 2011 at 8:23 AM

Hey, they rake in so many billions of dollars already.
There is no federal income problem at all. It’s a massive, gigantic, humongous spending problem.

itsnotaboutme on July 25, 2011 at 9:13 AM

forest on July 25, 2011 at 8:46 AM

Yeppers. That is why we need to kill off the home mortgage deduction along with all the other tax exceptions. We need a flat tax so that Congress has no say in who wins or loses. The home mortgage deduction, for example, is just like education assistance in pushing up prices by artificially increasing demand.

MJBrutus on July 25, 2011 at 9:14 AM

The answer: there’s a time when YOU’VE made enough money. Now move along peons.

katablog.com on July 25, 2011 at 9:04 AM

What he really meant:

And I do not want, and I will not accept, a deal in which “the rich” are asked to do nothing (that’s right, nothing), in fact, they‘re able to keep hundreds of thousands of dollars, millions, in fact, in additional income that they don’t need… I will take their money, it then becomes my money, and I will give you some, out of my stash (if you vote for me).

Fallon on July 25, 2011 at 9:18 AM

, I’m able to keep hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional income that I don’t need, while a parent out there who is struggling to figure out how to send their [sic] kid to college

And he can’t find a number of families to give his excess money to?
Isn’t that cruel, actually admitting he has excess money, and then pointing out people in dire need. I understand the person who thinks that they don’t have “enough”, when they do, but to admit they have too much, but won’t help those in need?
The mentality of a dictator…

right2bright on July 25, 2011 at 9:26 AM

Hey, I’m not worried. Apparently the point at which you’ve made too much money is less than what Soros and Oprah have, right?

/sarc

Droopy on July 25, 2011 at 9:26 AM

Sort of explains why he and the Dems can’t come up with a budget doesn’t it? He never wants any clear demarcations of of funds required and funds taken. I think more people have caught on than he thinks.

Cindy Munford on July 25, 2011 at 9:29 AM

You imply that he’s better than Carter somehow.

Lanceman on July 25, 2011 at 9:10 AM

Since you didn’t pose this as a question Lanceman, I’ll just submit that before we go to the polls next year we could all be “in the Carter gas lines” waiting for our fair share of fuel. Carter was just as much a puppet to the Democratic machine as Obama is, but on a much grander and fiscally disastrous scale. Only the Treasury’s fabricated infusion of printed money has kept inflation rates away from Carter’s level. Both of them, imo, are repeated failures of this experiment with socialism—rinse and repeat mentality run amok.

Rovin on July 25, 2011 at 9:31 AM

Americans are a stupid people. An ideology that has shown to have failed elsewhere in the world and you go right ahead try it.

Crux Australis on July 25, 2011 at 9:35 AM

Crux Australis on July 25, 2011 at 9:35 AM

And it’s still being tried all over the world. Those who implement it just think the people in the past didn’t do it right. They, on the other hand, have the secret. Stupidity isn’t limited to here.

Cindy Munford on July 25, 2011 at 9:45 AM

Crux Australis on July 25, 2011 at 9:35 AM

Unfortunately, Crux, we can’t throw stones. ::sigh::

OldEnglish on July 25, 2011 at 9:46 AM

Rovin on July 25, 2011 at 9:31 AM

Let me rephrase: mediocre is the last word I’d use to describe this sack of crap.

Americans are a stupid people.

Crux Australis on July 25, 2011 at 9:35 AM

Yep. We ain’t exactly the brightest lights on the string.

Lanceman on July 25, 2011 at 9:47 AM

I have lost my job working in a furniture warehouse. 16 other people were laid off. Fortunately I was able to pick up a day or two a week somewhere else doing data entry and accounts. Barely keeping my head above water here.

Crux Australis on July 25, 2011 at 9:56 AM

Another impeachable statement.

Truly alarming should he win AGAIN!!!

golfmann on July 25, 2011 at 9:58 AM

Crux Australis on July 25, 2011 at 9:56 AM

Sorry to hear that. I am one of the “lucky” unemployed who wasn’t the main breadwinner. We are living in very odd times. How is your real estate market there?

Cindy Munford on July 25, 2011 at 10:00 AM

Sorry to hear that. I am one of the “lucky” unemployed who wasn’t the main breadwinner. We are living in very odd times. How is your real estate market there?

Cindy Munford on July 25, 2011 at 10:00 AM

I live by myself now. Family has moved out of Sydney. Am able to afford rent and utilities but no “rainy day” money now.

Real estate market is very fickle at the moment.

Crux Australis on July 25, 2011 at 10:07 AM

Crux Australis on July 25, 2011 at 9:56 AM

Not good, Crux. Unfortunately, the carbon tax, along with increases in energy costs, will ensure that things will get worse in the short term.

OldEnglish on July 25, 2011 at 10:07 AM

Crux Australis on July 25, 2011 at 10:07 AM

We’ve had to hit our saving also. It’s tough to be away from your family. Prayers and crossed fingers for better times for all of us.

Cindy Munford on July 25, 2011 at 10:11 AM

When I see Obama donate the couple of hundred thousands he doesnt need to a charity, the IRS or a college fund, then I might, and that’s a big “might”, have a little respect for him. But as it is now, i dont and i wont.

abcurtis on July 25, 2011 at 10:19 AM

It’s a feature, not a bug – and not an Obamateurism. Just isn’t.

Pablo Snooze on July 25, 2011 at 10:50 AM

Sending kids to college is a main priority for him, so his elitist professors can brainwash our children. I don’t want to pay for it & ACORN, unions, etc.

HellCat on July 25, 2011 at 11:51 AM

From each according to his abilities, to each according to his need.

Sound familiar?

RebeccaH on July 25, 2011 at 12:10 PM

Don’t know how to call this one amateurish. It’s what he truly believes, and wants everyone else to follow. The “able to keep” phrase is a dog-whistle to the Marxists that one of their own is in the Oval Office, to buck up and maintain the fight in behalf of the proletariat.

The only thing amateurish about it is not hiding the truth quite deeply enough that anyone with half a brain can’t see it for what it is.

But it is no mistake, no misspeak, no error in terms of Obama’s vision for the future.

Freelancer on July 25, 2011 at 12:32 PM

What happens to America if those that run businesses decide to agree with little Bammie that “at some point you’ve made enough money?”

What if they decide to work only forty hours a week? What if they decide not to hire any additional workers, because that would mean more product to sell, more revenue and more profit? What if they decide to not expand their businesses because that would mean more evil profit?

What if they lay off some of their sales team because gosh darn it, we’re just making too much profit?

slickwillie2001 on July 25, 2011 at 12:43 PM

All you need to know – the Obamas NEVER paid more than 1% of their income to charities.

Schadenfreude on July 25, 2011 at 2:17 PM

All you need to know – the Obamas NEVER paid more than 1% of their income to charities.

Schadenfreude on July 25, 2011 at 2:17 PM

And Joe Biden gave less than $200.00 one year to charity. They are the do as I say, not as I do dems.

In the liberal world, Obowma graciously gives us what we earned on our own and as he said “At some point, you have earned enough”. Mighty charitable of him, he gives away nothing of his own (remember, his “autobiography” was written by Bill Ayers).

dthorny on July 25, 2011 at 2:34 PM

Let’s Play: Spot the Horse-Manure

I am asked to do nothing, in fact, I’m able to keep hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional income that I don’t need

Huffington Post

Sen. Barack Obama released seven years of prior tax return documents on Tuesday. And a review of the records reveals several newsworthy, albeit minor, disclosures.

Up until recent years when their income increased sharply from book revenues and a Senate salary, Obama’s family donated a relatively minor amount of its earnings to charity. From 2000 through 2004, the senator and his wife never gave more than $3,500 a year in charitable donations — about 1 percent of their annual earnings. In 2005, however, that total jumped to $77,315 (4.7 percent of annual earnings), and to $60,307 in 2006 (6.1 percent)

First correct answer wins a two week all expense paid vacation to Obatopia

franksalterego on July 25, 2011 at 4:05 PM