Green Room

Obama’s childlike belief in the money tree

posted at 11:03 am on September 23, 2012 by

There is something at once fascinating and frightening in the Obama campaign meme that the rich should be forced to “pay a little bit more.” It is featured in a current ad that contrasts this ostensibly harmless poll-tested demand with Mitt Romney’s heartless desire to give his rich buddies (and himself) a bigger tax break.

The attitude on the part of the president is nothing new. In April, long before the election season was in full swing but long after it was clear that shovel-ready didn’t necessarily mean shovel-ready, he laid out his revised deficit and debt reduction plan. He told an audience at George Washington University that “the rich can afford to give back a little bit more.” Notice that the wording is give back not give, as though tax revenues are monies that belong to the government in the first place.

Further along in the speech he elaborated on what he meant:

It’s a basic reflection of our belief that those who benefited most from our way of life can afford to give back a little bit more. Moreover, this belief hasn’t hindered the success of those at the top of the income scale. They continue to do better and better with each passing year.

Again, it is interesting that he believes that if the numbers as a whole show a widening disparity between the top earners and those at the bottom, then everyone in the highest tax brackets should receive a visit from the tax man, regardless of whether their personal wealth has increased. One could argue on his behalf that this policy of taxing rich equally, independently of outcome, shows that he really does believe in equality.

But the most intriguing aspect of his bleed-the-rich philosophy is the notion of a little more. He never quantifies this amount, which is of a piece with the equally undefined fair share. Right now, the top 10% of earners pay 71% of all taxes. How much fairer a share should they be forced to contribute?

Obama, who by most definitions is himself rich, should have a firmer grasp on the reality that wealth is finite. Yet, like a child undaunted by his parents’ argument that there are limits on what they can afford to buy, he clamors for another new toy.

It is almost as though he believes money grows on trees. He has intimated as much in his words. Here he is in July of 2011:

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. [Emphasis added]

Obama may well be in a unique position of having “additional income that he doesn’t need” but he’s not in a position to make that decision for others, regardless of how unfair he thinks the world is.

Related Articles

Follow me on Twitter or join me at Facebook. You can also reach me at howard.portnoy@gmail.com.

 

Recently in the Green Room:

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

bho is not happy if he isn’t out pitting one group of people against another! bho and mo does this on everything they bring up! Just gotta plow up snakes to see to it they keep the groups they are pandering to happy?

What really ticks me off, they lie out of both sides of their mouth as they are doing the pandering!

bho and mo sure don’t mind ‘taking’ other peoples money to do almost everything the do? I’m surprised they spend a penny of their own money on anything?
L

letget on September 23, 2012 at 11:50 AM

He..like most liberals and leftists, never grew up.

That’s why most of the people with this illness have mommy and daddy issues.

Rules and authority/military/discipline = “Daddy”

Environmentalism and “green energy” coupled with nurturing “Mother Earth” = “Mommy.

Mimzey on September 23, 2012 at 12:32 PM

The same people who are absolutely certain that adding an infinitesimal amount of carbon dioxide to the forty QUADRILLION TONS of earth’s atmosphere will somehow cause earth’s enviornment to collapse…

Also, at the very same time, believe that sucking trillions of dollars out of America’s economy won’t harm anything.

Communism is stupid. But liberalism sees that idiocy and doubles down on it.

logis on September 23, 2012 at 1:32 PM

If millionaires accept any number as their “fair share”, the Mis-negotiator-in-Chief will renege on the deal and demand more.

Besides, His Holiness presumes to tell us all what amount of tax is moral for us all to pay. And only his opinion matters. And his opinion will change soon.

rwenger43 on September 23, 2012 at 1:46 PM

Mimzey on September 23, 2012 at 12:32 PM

That’s some interesting theories there.

MelonCollie on September 23, 2012 at 3:49 PM

He..like most liberals and leftists, never grew up.

That’s why most of the people with this illness have mommy and daddy issues.

This is the real issue, here. People assume that liberals are “unserious” about tackling the debt, etc. People givem too much credit. It’s not that they’re unserious, it’s that their entire worldview is infantile. They can’t be serious because they don’t function on the same plane of ideas as the rest of the adult world does. This is the disease; everything else is a symptom thereof.

mintycrys on September 23, 2012 at 4:52 PM

Obama is childlike about money is because he has always had things for free / someone else paying his ways.

I dare bet as community organizer he did not earn much in actual salary (his tax returns those year listed 15K average / year) but certainly earned free meals at restaurants, bespoke suits from Chicago tailor (what was the name of that Obama’s tailor who filed bk?), free hair cuts, free cigarettes, so on and so on. This is how the community leaders of the third-world/victim-of-white mentality groups operate. They are no different from pimps.

vnohara on September 23, 2012 at 7:15 PM

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.

15 “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

–Matthew 7:15-20

This is how I know President Obama is not a Christian. A Christian would know exactly what to do with the excess provided him… provide for the poor, the very poor Obama panders to, mentions in his speeches, and uses to keep power. It is sad that he is so blinded to God’s will that he does not even recognize the duty required if he were truly a Christian. He looks upon God’s blessings as a burden that he is embarrassed of.

dominigan on September 24, 2012 at 8:40 AM

The only income we need to know is Obama’s, since he works for us. We’re entitled to know his income. Not even the government needs to know Romney’s income. Or yours, or mine.

J.E. Dyer on September 24, 2012 at 1:54 PM

But the most intriguing aspect of his bleed-the-rich philosophy is the notion of a little more. He never quantifies this amount, which is of a piece with the equally undefined fair share. Right now, the top 10% of earners pay 71% of all taxes. How much fairer a share should they be forced to contribute?

I’d guess that his idea of “a little bit more” is a small percentage. Like… say an additional 29% of all taxes paid.

Not much. Just a little.

crazy_legs on September 24, 2012 at 3:56 PM

Until we can get an objective meaning of “Fair” then as far as I’m concerned, the whole discussion is mute.

And we know that will never be defined. So the whole discussion is really about PBHO doing what he does best. Community organize. Which is to say, how to brow beating those who have so that those who don’t have can get what they want without actually earning it through traditional market means.

Welcome to the straw man argument delivered by a confidence man. (Other wise known as the largest con ever perpetrated.)

hoakie on September 25, 2012 at 2:12 PM