Great news! White House finds new ways to soak the wealthy

posted at 1:01 pm on April 6, 2013 by Jazz Shaw

We’ve already had some chatter about President Obama’s new “blow your mind” budget proposal. As Erika pointed out, there’s still plenty of taxy goodness in it, but more details are beginning to emerge. The Hill has latched on to one of the really insulting ones which, unlike in Obamacare, we may actually read and find out about before we vote on it.

President Obama’s budget, to be released next week, will limit how much wealthy individuals – like Mitt Romney – can keep in IRAs and other retirement accounts.

The proposal would save around $9 billion over a decade, a senior administration official said, while also bringing more fairness to the tax code.

The senior administration official said that wealthy taxpayers can currently “accumulate many millions of dollars in these accounts, substantially more than is needed to fund reasonable levels of retirement saving.”

I don’t know about you, but I think this is simply fabulous. It’s got almost everything you could want in an example of liberal tax theory. You see, some people will be able to stash away as much cash toward retirement as they can manage, assuming they somehow still have a job. But not everyone. So how do you draw that line in the sand as to who gets to plan for their golden years and how much you really need for retirement? Don’t worry your pretty little head about it, sweetheart. Uncle Sam will make the call for you!

But what is the theory behind even trying a stunt like this in the first place? Apparently, the government will “save” money by not letting certain unpopular individuals defer or avoid taxes on income in retirement savings. How much? Go back and read the first quoted paragraph above. We’re talking about nine billion dollars over ten years. That’s $900M each year toward paying our bills… or less than the amount we’ll probably spend to save the lesser prairie chicken next year.

Bonus goodness: The budget will include more national taxes on tobacco. And we all know how well that works out.

The cigarette tax, the official said, would fund the universal pre-kindergarden education program Obama proposed in the State of the Union. A White House official on Friday declined to give details on the rate or extent of the new cigarette tax ahead of the official budget release.

Well played again, Mayans.


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

That’s right, Buffet, Gates, Ellison, Zuckerberg, and the late, great Jobs- all haters of the wealthy and capitalism. A group of sick, twisted Marxists who nave no respect free enterprise!

Tax rates remain near historic lows and the deficit unchecked. You’re not going to hold entitlement spending at a fixed rate over the next 20 years with a graying population. Previous generations of Americans paid far higher taxes to build out this country’s infrastructure. You are NOT a victim.

brayam on April 6, 2013 at 2:03 PM

Same old talking points and a dishonest argument at that. XBlade said it well. Brayam You’re truly simple .

CW on April 6, 2013 at 3:39 PM

@Tommy

And prove your contention about a 25% cut smart guy.

CW on April 6, 2013 at 3:21 PM

You’ve had about 24 minutes.

CW on April 6, 2013 at 3:45 PM

This is why I never rolled over to a Roth IRA. I knew, knew, knew that eventually someone would get around to taxing it twice, or taking part of it or whatever.

Why pay ANY taxes you don’t absolutely have to. They WILL find a way to take more.

Eviva on April 6, 2013 at 3:46 PM

PS Not that I’m wealthy by any stretch.

But they won’t stop with “the rich” (“any guy with an alarm clock” –Ann Coulter) , and everyone here including the trolls knows it.

Eviva on April 6, 2013 at 3:47 PM

But they won’t stop with “the rich”…
Eviva on April 6, 2013 at 3:47 PM

The looters never do.

Solaratov on April 6, 2013 at 3:49 PM

That’s right, Buffet, Gates, Ellison, Zuckerberg, and the late, great Jobs- all haters of the wealthy and capitalism. A group of sick, twisted Marxists who nave no respect free enterprise!

Tax rates remain near historic lows and the deficit unchecked. You’re not going to hold entitlement spending at a fixed rate over the next 20 years with a graying population. Previous generations of Americans paid far higher taxes to build out this country’s infrastructure. You are NOT a victim.

brayam on April 6, 2013 at 2:03 PM

Cut spending.

Chuck Schick on April 6, 2013 at 3:58 PM

Previous generations of Americans paid far higher taxes to build out this country’s infrastructure.

pauline krugman on April 6, 2013 at 2:03 PM

Unfortunately for your 2 brain cells, much of America’s original infrastructure, including most of its railroads, was privately capitalized. And the Feds didn’t get into the highway business until the early 20th century, or some 125 years after the country began.

Nobel-Winning.

Del Dolemonte on April 6, 2013 at 4:06 PM

you can’t spend $6 trillion on wars and never pay for it

Paul Krugman the 3rd on April 6, 2013 at 2:12 PM

Your Party signed off on those wars. Own them.

Del Dolemonte on April 6, 2013 at 4:07 PM

Tax rates remain near historic lows and the deficit unchecked.

You’re not going to hold entitlement spending at a fixed rate over the next 20 years with a graying population. Previous generations of Americans paid far higher taxes to build out this country’s infrastructure. You are NOT a victim.

brayam on April 6, 2013 at 2:03 PM

No, no they didn’t. As a percentage of GDP, from 1944 to present, tax income has varied between 14 and 21% but with no distinct correlation of these mythical “infrastructure building” years you claim. I’m assuming you are implying the period during which the bulk of the interstate system was built since the federal government does not build local streets and bridges nor does it build powerlines or gas lines and it certainly does not build industrial facilities. Look through the total receipts column of this. Does not support your assertion. At all. Particularly that far higher taxes assertion. Oh, and if you are referring to the 90% and 75% income tax rates, those were rates rarely paid by anyone unless they were the unfortunate recipient of a windfall that they could not shelter. You see, the rich (those people in that era who were the equivalent of those you adore in your references to Buffet, Gates, Jobs, etc) had the tax code set up with means of avoiding those taxes so that only those who were up and coming and thus threats to their established empires. The numbers in the reference tell the real story of total tax revenue relative to GDP and they put the lie [again] to your assertions.

AZfederalist on April 6, 2013 at 4:11 PM

bayam on April 6, 2013

…more babbling from the braying buffoon!

KOOLAID2 on April 6, 2013 at 4:12 PM

had the tax code set up with means of avoiding those taxes so that only those who were up and coming and thus threats to their established empires were the ones having to pay at those rates. The numbers in the reference tell the real story of total tax revenue relative to GDP and they put the lie [again] to your assertions.

AZfederalist on April 6, 2013 at 4:11 PM

Fixed it for me.

AZfederalist on April 6, 2013 at 4:13 PM

And you are an unfunny liar. We’d have to be at war another 35 or so years to hit $6 trillion in war spending, and the 1983 Social Security tax hikes were supposed to pay for the aging demographics through 2050 or so.

Steve Eggleston on April 6, 2013 at 2:22 PM

No one seriously forecasted those tax increases to cover the cost of the aging population through the next several decades.

Brayam’s an idiot.

CW on April 6, 2013 at 3:19 PM

Once again, you betray your unflappable ignorance. The most recent estimates place the cost of the wars at the $4 to $6 trillion range. You can’t discount the cost of supporting and treating the tens of thousands of soldiers who suffered traumatic injuries, limb loss, and severe psychological disorders as a consequence of the war. You can’t discount the military equipment that’s reached its end of serviceable lifetime as a result of 10 years of combat operations. This is the kind of nonsense first floated by the neo-cons, a war that would “pay for itself” through Iraqi oil revenues.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/study-iraq-afghan-war-costs-to-top-4-trillion/2013/03/28/b82a5dce-97ed-11e2-814b-063623d80a60_story.html

bayam on April 6, 2013 at 4:37 PM

@Tommy

And prove your contention about a 25% cut smart guy.

CW on April 6, 2013 at 3:21 PM

You’ve had about 1 hour 27 minutes.(fixed)

CW on April 6, 2013 at 3:45 PM

Or are you pretending to be Brayam?

CW on April 6, 2013 at 4:38 PM

bayam on April 6, 2013 at 4:37 PM

Obama just signed ever 4 trillion in tax cuts over the next decade without a cent in spending proposed to pay for it.

As always, you’re a hypocritical wiener.

Chuck Schick on April 6, 2013 at 4:42 PM

But you can’t spend $6 trillion on wars and never pay for it or weather a 25 year period of aging demographics and not raise additional revenue to cover the cost.

bayam on April 6, 2013 at 2:12 PM

So why did you say six trillion?

And no we have not spent even four trillion.

Maybe you should tell Huffpo

the report estimates the final cost of all three conflicts will be between $3.7 trillion and $4.4 trillion

Regardless, Obama made clear the United States was ready to move on from a decade defined by wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, at a cost at of thousands of lives lost and more than $1 trillion spent. “We will not try to make Afghanistan a perfect place,” Obama said flatly.

And maybe you should tell Obama.

You’re so dishonest in your posts.

CW on April 6, 2013 at 4:46 PM

Look through the total receipts column of this. Does not support your assertion. At all. Particularly that far higher taxes assertion.

I commend the credible tax revenue link. But several factors are skewing the short-term GDP % number upward, primarily the great surge in capital income that’s accompanied the growth of the DOW from under 8,000 to over 14,000 during the last 5 years.

In reality, this country never reverted to the higher tax rates of the Clinton era with both individual rates and capital gains rates significantly lower.

You see, the rich (those people in that era who were the equivalent of those you adore in your references to Buffet, Gates, Jobs, etc) had the tax code set up with means of avoiding those taxes so that only those who were up and coming and thus threats to their established empires.

Hold on, there’s a huge, huge difference between the great entrepreneur capitalists and families of inherited wealth, like the Waltons. Legislatively, they’re pushing different agendas. Let’s not group the two together.

bayam on April 6, 2013 at 4:47 PM

Brayam so again tell me : Did you call on Obama to end the wars immediately? You do realize he not only supported Afghanistan but he increased our involvement. Toady. You did nothing.

CW on April 6, 2013 at 4:47 PM

The proposal would save around $9 billion over a decade

Save?

In the Orwellian USSA a new tax is now called a “savings” of some kind — the doublespeak lie of the day

And what a “savings” this new tax is! It will reduce our trillion plus dollar yearly deficits by almost 1%, maybe.

Note that government spending is now called “investment” and new taxes are “savings”. Government confiscation of some people’s money and redistributing it in some way to other people is now called saving and investing.

farsighted on April 6, 2013 at 4:52 PM

Hold on, there’s a huge, huge difference between the great entrepreneur capitalists and families of inherited wealth, like the Waltons. Legislatively, they’re pushing different agendas. Let’s not group the two together.

bayam on April 6, 2013 at 4:47 PM

Oh geez just swallow and get it over with.

CW on April 6, 2013 at 4:54 PM

Legislatively, they’re pushing different agendas. Let’s not group the two together.

bayam on April 6, 2013 at 4:47 PM

And let’s not pretend that Gates etc has the best for American in mind.

CW on April 6, 2013 at 4:57 PM

Brayam your own post claiming 6 trillion exposed you once again for the liar you are.

CW on April 6, 2013 at 4:58 PM

Obama just signed ever 4 trillion in tax cuts over the next decade without a cent in spending proposed to pay for it.

As always, you’re a hypocritical wiener.

Chuck Schick on April 6, 2013 at 4:42 PM

It was a mistake. But the GOP controls the House and through it’s Tea Party supporters has reached the conclusion that unfunded tax cuts are good for the country. What could go wrong?

bayam on April 6, 2013 at 4:58 PM

Brayam your own post claiming 6 trillion exposed you once again for the liar you are.

CW on April 6, 2013 at 4:58 PM

Let me quote.

The U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq will cost taxpayers $4 trillion to $6 trillion, taking into account the medical care of wounded veterans and expensive repair

Why don’t you just admit your ignorance, that you had no idea of the true cost of the wars. It’s clear that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

bayam on April 6, 2013 at 5:00 PM

You see, the rich (those people in that era who were the equivalent of those you adore in your references to Buffet, Gates, Jobs, etc) had the tax code set up with means of avoiding those taxes so that only those who were up and coming and thus threats to their established empires.

Hold on, there’s a huge, huge difference between the great entrepreneur capitalists and families of inherited wealth, like the Waltons. Legislatively, they’re pushing different agendas. Let’s not group the two together.

bayam on April 6, 2013 at 4:47 PM

So you’re agreeing . What you’re saying is that your personal friends are just not as in bed with big government as the Waltons. Good to know.

CW on April 6, 2013 at 5:01 PM

That’s $900M each year toward paying our bills… or less than the amount we’ll probably spend
on the Obamas next year

Alternatively, the Obamas could cut back on their travel and entertainment so that they were only costing us $500,000,000 per year and the taxpayer would come out just as well as under this proposal.

They could vacation at Camp David, golf on military courses, not fly separately for vacations, etc., etc.

talkingpoints on April 6, 2013 at 5:03 PM

Why don’t you just admit your ignorance, that you had no idea of the true cost of the wars. It’s clear that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

bayam on April 6, 2013 at 5:00 PM

You were busted, you claimed 6(not 4-6), and now we have not even -to this date spent 4 trillion . That is the fact.

So you lied. Why am I not surprised.

Again tell me about the time you called on Obama to end the wars.

CW on April 6, 2013 at 5:04 PM

It was a mistake. But the GOP controls the House and through it’s Tea Party supporters has reached the conclusion that unfunded tax cuts are good for the country. What could go wrong?

bayam on April 6, 2013 at 4:58 PM

There is no such thing as an unfunded tax cut you simpering mouth-breather.

tom daschle concerned on April 6, 2013 at 5:04 PM

This graph says it all. Now jog off nitwit.

tom daschle concerned on April 6, 2013 at 5:05 PM

And no we have not spent even four trillion.

Maybe you should tell Huffpo

the report estimates the final cost of all three conflicts will be between $3.7 trillion and $4.4 trillion

Regardless, Obama made clear the United States was ready to move on from a decade defined by wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, at a cost at of thousands of lives lost and more than $1 trillion spent. “We will not try to make Afghanistan a perfect place,” Obama said flatly.

And maybe you should tell Obama.

CW on April 6, 2013 at 4:46 PM

Through 2008 the combined cost of the Iraq and Afgan conflicts was about 1 trillion.

Through today, without playing games with actual costs, there is no way the cost is up to $3-4 trillion.

Those are BS numbers made up by libs and lefties that are unsupportable using normal cost accounting methodologies.

They are akin to Comrade O’s claim he is dramatically cutting spending by not planning to fight wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for the next ten years.

You can be almost certain that any number coming from a leftist or lib source is highly inaccurate — that is, when it is not an outright fabrication, falsehood or lie — and always exaggerated to support the leftist/lib agenda.

farsighted on April 6, 2013 at 5:05 PM

It’s clear that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

bayam on April 6, 2013 at 5:00 PM

Look in the mirror.

What could go wrong?

bayam on April 6, 2013 at 4:58 PM

Really? So the GOP has not argued that lower taxes ,less regulations, and economic growth would drive higher revenue.

They have argued that it is good to have less revenue.

Hmmm news to me.

You’re selling so much straw. Dishonesty is your only consistent suit.

CW on April 6, 2013 at 5:07 PM

Brayam You’re truly simple .

CW on April 6, 2013 at 3:39 PM

simpleton, trying to redirect another thread. Is all it does.

Schadenfreude on April 6, 2013 at 5:08 PM

unfunded tax cuts

bayam on April 6, 2013 at 4:58 PM

Yeh , now that is funny.

CW on April 6, 2013 at 5:08 PM

It was a mistake. But the GOP controls the House and through it’s Tea Party supporters has reached the conclusion that unfunded tax cuts are good for the country. What could go wrong?

bayam on April 6, 2013 at 4:58 PM

Which is why we need to cut spending back to Clinton levels now that taxes are back at Clinton levels.

Simple.

Chuck Schick on April 6, 2013 at 5:08 PM

Brayam, I suggest you search teach yourself about how our economy,taxes, and revenue are not a zero sum game.

CW on April 6, 2013 at 5:15 PM

yeh what i thought.

CW on April 6, 2013 at 5:22 PM

The cigarette tax, the official said, would fund the universal pre-kindergarden education program Obama proposed in the State of the Union.

Another worthless program, just like Head Start.

Gotta hand it to Barry…he likes backing LOSERS!

GarandFan on April 6, 2013 at 7:14 PM

bayam

This whole discussion will make more sense if you shift your understanding of income and assets from “the government is going to take so much and allow the peons to keep the rest” to “it’s my money and I will pay a small amount in taxes to the government for necessary and constitutional services.”

hopeful on April 6, 2013 at 8:22 PM

No one seriously forecasted those tax increases to cover the cost of the aging population through the next several decades.

bayam on April 6, 2013 at 4:37 PM

Actually, they did. The “Trust Fund” exhaustion date was in the 2050s (or roughly 75 years after the 1983 Social Security “fix”) throughout the 1980s, and that backslid into the 2030s around 1990.

Steve Eggleston on April 6, 2013 at 8:58 PM

CLASSIFIED AD:
For sale the American dream.
Looking for Chinese national.
Cashing out and leaving.
Please contact John Galt.

kregg on April 7, 2013 at 7:36 AM

Out of curiosity, does P.BO cut tobacco subsidies to go with his new taxes?

Count to 10 on April 7, 2013 at 10:44 AM

How can a person claim to be serious about deficit reduction, but every new revenue stream is devoted to new proposed spending?!

jeanneb on April 7, 2013 at 10:52 AM

I’m still waiting for the outrage on Sport salaries. Rumor mill said one certain NY baseball player made more than an entire professional other team combined! Yay!

Sport salaries must be capped (in the interest of ‘balance’, I mean ‘fairness’, I mean redistribution) so they can’t become those nasty millionaires and billionaires.

HopeHeFails on April 7, 2013 at 10:55 AM

Great news! White House finds new ways to soak the wealthy

BS.

These politicians go on and on about how they’re going to make the wealthy pay their “fair share”…the wealthy have their tax loopholes, tax lawyers, offshore accounts, have their money tied up in non-liquid forms including property, stocks, bonds, precious metals and probably stuff I’ve never even heard of…

…and ultimately it’s the Middle Class who get stuck. It’s always a lower percentage, and if you complain they shrug their shoulders and say, “Well, look at what a higher percentage the rich are paying!”

It’s always about wringing as much as they can out of the working taxpayer.

Both parties are in on it. The GOP is nothing more than a foil to make it appear as if someone gives a damn about us. There’s only a handful (maybe) of TEA Party/Conservative types up there not for this thievery, but there simply aren’t enough of them.

It’s a racket.

Dr. ZhivBlago on April 7, 2013 at 11:01 AM

That’s exactly why Himself and I cashed in our (extremely underfunded) IRAs the instant we got old enough, took the tax hit, then put the money in a general savings account where we stash all our little windfalls. Hopefully we will get enough notice before the government plunders all savings over what Ogabe and his minions consider a “reasonable” amount for anyone to possess to take the money out.

catsandbooks on April 6, 2013 at 1:50 PM

It won’t do you any good. Ogabe will just simply send his DHS jackboots to “repatriate” your funds. Hopefully you still have guns at that point to defend yourself against them.

Taking out all your money in dollars won’t save you in the end anyway. Our crisis point when it comes (and it’s coming very soon) will be the complete collapse of the dollar itself. Obama doesn’t have to directly steal your money from your bank account, he’s already doing it with trillion dollar deficits being funded mostly by Bernanke and the Fed printing over a trillion dollars a YEAR out of thin air.

When the logical consequence of THAT level of insanity occurs it won’t matter if you have $10 in your pocket, $100,000 in a bank account, or even $3,0000,000 in an IRA/401K, it won’t buy you a loaf of bread.

wildcat72 on April 7, 2013 at 11:17 AM

I’m still waiting for the outrage on Sport salaries. Rumor mill said one certain NY baseball player made more than an entire professional other team combined! Yay!

Sport salaries must be capped (in the interest of ‘balance’, I mean ‘fairness’, I mean redistribution) so they can’t become those nasty millionaires and billionaires.

HopeHeFails on April 7, 2013 at 10:55 AM

The Ogabe Regime won’t touch athletes because they adore him. And they are mostly non white. He won’t go after Hollywood either.

The only “evil” rich people are the rich people who don’t adore Dear Leader.

wildcat72 on April 7, 2013 at 11:20 AM

Anyone else notice that in the Age of Sequester, our military is being hurt, yet the DHS seems to still have unlimited funds to tie up every ammunition factory in America with orders and to buy thousands of automatic weapons and armored vehicles?

Remember when we all LAUGHED about Obama’s “civilian” defense “corpse” that was “as well funded” as the military?

It’s become a reality, folks.

DHS needs to be defunded and dismantled. The federal government has no business in law enforcement within the country (that was yet another power usurped in the 20′s and 30′s), that belongs TO THE STATES.

wildcat72 on April 7, 2013 at 11:27 AM

Hmmmmm. Maybe my uncle’s discussion at Easter about investment in bitcoins should be considered rather than dismissed as coocoo for coconuts.

txmomof6 on April 7, 2013 at 11:34 AM

Obama told us who he was when he ran in 2008. No one wanted to listen.

The goal remains to destroy private ownership of any property more than his govt deems appropriate. Hence the zero percent interest, forcing people to spend their savings, hyper regulation destroying business, high taxes, and shackling those starting out with debt so they can’t save. 2015 or 2016 will feature his proposed,forgiveness of that student loan debt so that they will be forever beholden to him and the Dems. Any Republican who complains will be vilified.

FiveG on April 7, 2013 at 11:50 AM

Hmmmmm. Maybe my uncle’s discussion at Easter about investment in bitcoins should be considered rather than dismissed as coocoo for coconuts.

txmomof6 on April 7, 2013 at 11:34 AM

Investing in Bitcoin IS foolish. It’s just another fiat currency backed by nothing. And it’s going to be shut down and seized by the government Banksters soon anyway. No international criminal organization likes competition.

Invest in gold and silver. The Fed right now is holding both artificially low right now with naked shorts (meaning they are putting in orders shorting the market but are uncovered, meaning they don’t OWN the material they are shorting) but that can’t last forever. And it’s brought both down from their highs of a couple years ago.

There is a very good reason for this. As I have stated, over 60% of our deficit isn’t being sold in bonds anymore, it’s coming STRAIGHT OFF A PRINTING PRESS. That fact alone makes the dollar worth only a fraction of what it is today. The only thing propping it up right now is that with what is going on in Europe, we don’t look as bad.

But that’s on the surface and is a painted picture, when in fact we are IN FAR WORSE shape than Europe. The Fed and the Regime can’t afford to have gold and silver shoot up in value like it was 2 years ago because that will trigger panic in the dollar. So they are being held artificially low with naked shorts. Our situation is so perilous because our economy, bad as it is, is a naked Emperor wearing no clothes. It will only take someone pointing out that the Dollar actually has no value whatsoever for that to become reality.

wildcat72 on April 7, 2013 at 11:55 AM

well now that we understand (thanks to MSNBC reporter) that our kids that we clothe, feed, train, discipline, cuddle and love are not our own, but belong to the community – it’s time to get them out of those private houses and into the government’s teaching hands as quick as possible. Kindergarten is no longer early enough. Some kids still break through and grow up conservative. Therefore, we want them in government programs a couple of years earlier for better indoctrination.

katablog.com on April 7, 2013 at 11:57 AM

well now that we understand (thanks to MSNBC reporter) that our kids that we clothe, feed, train, discipline, cuddle and love are not our own, but belong to the community – it’s time to get them out of those private houses and into the government’s teaching hands as quick as possible. Kindergarten is no longer early enough. Some kids still break through and grow up conservative. Therefore, we want them in government programs a couple of years earlier for better indoctrination.

katablog.com on April 7, 2013 at 11:57 AM

We are going to see an effort to ban home schooling and to introduce strict “government regulation” to private schools before this jackass leaves the White House.

After all, we can’t have (GASP!) PARENTS teaching children that gay marriage is an abomination before God, can we?!

wildcat72 on April 7, 2013 at 12:09 PM

But they won’t stop with “the rich”…
Eviva on April 6, 2013 at 3:47 PM

The looters never do.

Solaratov on April 6, 2013 at 3:49 PM

We just redefine the meaning of “rich” each time the government wants more money.

As to the argument going back and forth: “Figures don’t lie, but liars do figure.” The liberals have this policy that if a number is repeated at least 3 times by politicians and lame stream media – it becomes fact that everyone can repeat on blogs. Then, on the extreme liberal blogs those repeated numbers get doubled or tripled to prove a point and if no one reproves them, that becomes the new number.

Soon we will learn that Barack Hussein Obama saved the country $10 trillion, reduced the $40 trillion debt to a mere $10,000 until the Bush family secretly raised it to $16 trillion just because they are racists and wanted to make King Barack look bad. Michelle saves the US money by traveling to other countries, seeking bargains for Americans that want to pay $500 or more for their sneakers.

katablog.com on April 7, 2013 at 12:11 PM

unfunded tax cuts

bayam on April 6, 2013 at 4:58 PM

So you agree that all money is DC’s and they are good enough to let us keep some of it?

lorien1973 on April 7, 2013 at 12:35 PM

The cigarette tax, the official said, would fund the universal pre-kindergarden education program

What in the hell is a kindergarden? Do you lovingly caress your tomatoes and peas in this type of garden?

ButterflyDragon on April 7, 2013 at 1:04 PM

you can’t spend $6 trillion on wars and never pay for it

Paul Krugman the 3rd on April 6, 2013 at 2:12 PM

Where did that imaginary number come from?

At last count it was a tad bit over $1.2 trillion in direct spending. Though some folks like to inflate the numbers by adding in future support costs (medical, psychological, etc) projected for the next 40 years.

ButterflyDragon on April 7, 2013 at 1:09 PM

O/T: Hey Hot Air, where is the link to MSNBC’s statement that children don’t belong to their parents? Why aren’t you allowing us to comment on that BULLSHIT statement? Far and away above everything else on this site is the issue of the importance of the family unit, and MSNBC has just thrown a grenade into our households claiming that we don’t own our children. You should be posting this FRONT AND CENTER so that we can comment on it. Every single representative in the land, not just dems but pubs, too, should be asked at every opportunity whether they believe that children belong to their families or to the state and what should happen to elected representatives who believe that our kids belong to the state. Get it out there, Hot Air. Be part of the solution or part of the problem. Here’s your chance.

HiJack on April 7, 2013 at 1:26 PM

unfunded tax cuts

bayam on April 6, 2013 at 4:58 PM

So you agree that all money is DC’s and they are good enough to let us keep some of it?

lorien1973 on April 7, 2013 at 12:35 PM

Spend everything you want, blame others if you don’t have enough money.

I thought budgets worked differently; but I guess not in Bayam’s world.

gekkobear on April 7, 2013 at 6:41 PM

President Obama’s budget, to be released next week, will limit how much wealthy individuals – like Mitt Romney – can keep in IRAs and other retirement accounts.

‘can keep’?

If this is true, then many many people beyond Romney will be impacted. Since this is still a ‘leak’, maybe the wording is a bit off and they meant to say ‘contribute’ instead of ‘keep’.

Clearly, if everyone with 3 million in total retirement assets woudl suddenly be forced to take withdraw their money and pay taxes on it then far more than 9 billion will be collected in the first year.

I wonder how they will decide to handle government employee pensions that are paid on an annual basis? For example, the country of Alameda is going to pay more than 400k a year in retirement benefits to their current city manager. Such payments could NOT be made from a 3 million retirement fund for very long. Since this is a proposal by the government for the government, I have no doubt that they will find a way to take care of themselves and their labor union chronies.

Freddy on April 7, 2013 at 7:15 PM

I have been socking away money in the Federal Government Employees Thrift Savings Plan for the last twenty-three years. I plan to continue to do so for the next fifteen. By the time I withdraw that money, I will have accumulated several million dollars in that account, substantially more than is needed to fund reasonable levels of retirement saving.

Now, what are the chances the Federal Government is going to abide by their promises and cut me a big-ol multi-milion-dollar lump sum check the day I cash out, like they always promised they would?

I am beginning to think that saving, in any form, is a sucker bet.

Haiku Guy on April 7, 2013 at 8:33 PM

HiJack on April 7, 2013 at 1:26 PM

Get lost and start your own blog, threadjacking whinoid troll.

MelonCollie on April 7, 2013 at 9:54 PM

Hmmmmm. Maybe my uncle’s discussion at Easter about investment in bitcoins should be considered rather than dismissed as coocoo for coconuts.

txmomof6 on April 7, 2013 at 11:34 AM

Bitcoin is only good for short-term anonymity and trading. If you have enough bitcoins you can literally get anything up to an obsolete but fully operational tank. So help me God, I’m not kidding.

But long-term? It’s just another fiat currency, which is a fancy term for “monopoly money that grown-ups feel is worth something.” It’s also dependent on a fairly free Internet, which it is not at all certain to be in another 40 years.

Gold/silver and lead. Try to keep the two groups balanced if you can.

MelonCollie on April 7, 2013 at 9:59 PM

I want to see a law first that soaks the book royalties of people who publish multiple ghostwritten AUTOBIOGRAPHIES about themselves before age 50.

By the rate of 90%.

wildcat72 on April 7, 2013 at 10:03 PM

Barack Obama, summarized: “At some point I think you’ve saved enough money.”

BKennedy on April 8, 2013 at 4:43 AM

Notice the phrase “will save” in the administrations thugs comment?
Money is displaced, stolen really, for more government bribery and power, and it’s “saved”. Just another example of the thug mentality of leftist predators.

arand on April 8, 2013 at 10:18 AM

What a crock. The dollar is going down fast, and these thugs in the administration are at the helm. It’s all part of their plan to get out of the entitlements that they know they won’t be able to meet in the next few years. You all better pull your heads out and start stocking up on silver while it’s still affordable, because as soon as it starts to skyrocket that will be the beginning of the end. Don’t believe me? Start googling. Your finances, your wealth, your property and your family is at stake. This is all part of the sham, and our “leaders” are busy looting the treasury before it all comes down. Bottom line: there won’t be any 401k’s to worry about.

HiJack on April 8, 2013 at 11:10 AM

I am beginning to think that saving, in any form, is a sucker bet.

Haiku Guy on April 7, 2013 at 8:33 PM

Sucker! Anybody who has any money being held by someone else is going to lose it. Time to convert if at all possible to something you can hold in your hand.

HiJack on April 8, 2013 at 11:12 AM

Comment pages: 1 2