Saturday, July 28, 2012
Obama Promised Not to Raise Taxes on Middle Class; He Lied
By: Peter Ferrara / Townhall.com
By: Peter Ferrara / Townhall.com
When he was asking for our vote in 2008, then candidate Barack Obama
famously promised the American people, "I can make a firm pledge. Under
my plan no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of
tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your
capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."
But as the Supreme Court has now authoritatively ruled, the Obamacare individual mandate, requiring workers to purchase the health insurance the government specifies each family must buy, is a tax. And that tax applies to the middle class and working people.
CBO estimates that health insurance will cost $15,000 per year on average for families soon after Obamacare is fully implemented, rising rapidly from there. That is the individual mandate tax on the middle class and working people.
Of course, Obamacare includes a whole new entitlement program (just what we need) providing health insurance welfare for families making up to $88,000 a year to start, rising to over $100,000 a year after a few years. With that welfare, the net cost to families at different income levels is limited to 2 percent of income for people at 133 percent of poverty up to 9.8 percent of income for people at 400 percent of poverty. But that in itself is still like a new payroll tax, or income tax surcharge.
Moreover, taxpayers pay for the health insurance welfare as well. So the entire cost of the individual mandate tax is still $15,000 per year for families to start, and rising rapidly. That adds up to the largest tax increase on the middle class in world history.
On July 9, President Obama proposed to extend for one year the Bush tax cuts for the middle class, defined as singles making less than $200,000 per year, and couples making less than $250,000 per year, but to let the tax cuts for those earning above those thresholds expire now. A caller to a national radio show recently said the proposal meant Obama was looking out for the middle class. But if Obama is looking out for the middle class, why is he proposing to extend their Bush tax cuts for only one year? This is the first time Obama is implying that maybe the Bush tax cuts for the middle class may not become permanent either.
And then who passed those middle class tax cuts in the first place that Obama is proposing to extend? That would be President Bush and the then Congressional majority Republicans, with almost every Democrat opposing the relief. But Obama and his Che Guevara Democrats have been telling us for 4 years that Bush and the Republicans only cut taxes for the rich. Even according to CBO, the Bush middle class tax cuts Obama wants to extend dwarf the Bush tax cuts for "the rich" Obama does not want to extend.
Obama elaborated on July 9, "We need policies that grow and strengthen the middle class - policies that help create jobs, ...that encourage businesses to start up and create jobs right here in the United States." But the Obama policies already enacted under current law would raise the top tax rates on Jan. 1 for almost every federal tax for the nation's job creators, investors and small businesses, with the expiration of the Bush tax cuts and the Obamacare tax increases becoming effective.
As a result, the top two income tax rates would increase by nearly 20%, the capital gains tax rate would increase nearly 60%, the tax on dividends would nearly triple, the Medicare payroll tax rate would increase by 62% for these disfavored taxpayers, and the death tax rate would rise from the grave with a 57% increase in the top rate.
This would all be on top of the highest corporate income tax rate in the industrialized world at nearly 40% when state taxes are counted. That leaves American businesses uncompetitive in the global economy. Yet under Obama, there is no relief in sight. Instead he has spent the past two years barnstorming the country for still more tax increases. His proposed Buffet Rule would increase the current capital gains tax rate by 100%, leaving America saddled with the fourth highest cap gains rate in the industrialized world.
As the Wall Street Journal explained on July 10, what "Mr. Obama is demanding [are] tax increases, not tax cuts, and large increases at that." How do those tax increases strengthen the middle class, and encourage businesses to start up and create jobs right here in the United States? They do just the opposite. Obama's rhetoric is just more Calculated Deception, designed to fool the gullible.
By sharp contrast, the Republican House majority has already passed the permanent extension of the Bush tax cuts for everyone. That includes the middle class tax cuts that the Republicans originally enacted that Obama proposes to extend for only one year, as well as the Bush tax cuts for the nation's job creators, investors, and small businesses. So who is really looking out for the middle class?
It is the middle class and working people that will be hurt the most by Obama's comprehensive tax rate increases already enacted into current law. Those steep rate increases will slash incentives for the capital investment essential to creating new jobs and increasing wages. If those tax rate increases push the weak economy back into recession next year, as I and many others have predicted, the unemployment rate will soar back into double digits, and wages and income will decline further. Poverty will accelerate to new all-time records. How does that strengthen the middle class?
Obama contends that his tax rate increases would only affect 3% of small businesses. While that figure is in dispute, more important is that the tax rate increases would affect two-thirds of small business income, and the jobs and wage increases that income supports.
Obama continued on July 9 with this outdated talking point, "So I'm not proposing anything radical here. I just believe that anybody making over $250,000 a year should go back to the income tax rates we were paying under Clinton...." But the capital gains tax rate Obama is proposing is 50% higher than under Clinton. The tax on corporate dividends is 10% higher. The top income tax rate is 27% higher.
As the Journal also observed on July 10, "As for the impact on growth, even Keynesian theory holds that raising taxes should be avoided in a weak economy. That's the argument that Mr. Obama used in late 2010 when he agreed with Republicans to extend the Bush tax rates through the end of 2012." But Obama displayed a lot of confusion on July 9, when he also said, "these tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans are also the tax cuts that are least likely to promote growth." That reflects his own confessed Marxist upbringing and philosophy holding that spending on consumption somehow does more to promote growth than spending on investment, when in the real world the opposite is true. That confused thinking is more generally held throughout today's Che Geuvara Democrat Party.
But Obama continued on July 9 to reflect ignorance or dishonesty in saying, "Moreover, we've tried it their way. It didn't work. At the beginning of the last decade, Congress passed trillions of dollars in tax cuts that benefited the wealthiest Americans more than anybody else. And what happened?"
We already discussed above that more revenues were lost on the tax cuts that Obama says he wants to keep than on the tax cuts for the "rich" that he doesn't. But what did happen with the tax cuts for job creators, investors and small businesses that Obama doesn't want to keep?
After those rate cuts were all fully implemented in 2003, the economy created 7.8 million new jobs over the next 4 years and the unemployment rate fell from over 6% to 4.4%. Real economic growth over the next 3 years doubled from the average for the prior 3 years, to 3.5%.
In response to the rate cuts, business investment spending, which had declined for 9 straight quarters, reversed and increased 6.7% per quarter. That is where the jobs came from. Manufacturing output soared to its highest level in 20 years. The stock market revived, creating almost $7 trillion in new shareholder wealth.
But as the Supreme Court has now authoritatively ruled, the Obamacare individual mandate, requiring workers to purchase the health insurance the government specifies each family must buy, is a tax. And that tax applies to the middle class and working people.
CBO estimates that health insurance will cost $15,000 per year on average for families soon after Obamacare is fully implemented, rising rapidly from there. That is the individual mandate tax on the middle class and working people.
Of course, Obamacare includes a whole new entitlement program (just what we need) providing health insurance welfare for families making up to $88,000 a year to start, rising to over $100,000 a year after a few years. With that welfare, the net cost to families at different income levels is limited to 2 percent of income for people at 133 percent of poverty up to 9.8 percent of income for people at 400 percent of poverty. But that in itself is still like a new payroll tax, or income tax surcharge.
Moreover, taxpayers pay for the health insurance welfare as well. So the entire cost of the individual mandate tax is still $15,000 per year for families to start, and rising rapidly. That adds up to the largest tax increase on the middle class in world history.
On July 9, President Obama proposed to extend for one year the Bush tax cuts for the middle class, defined as singles making less than $200,000 per year, and couples making less than $250,000 per year, but to let the tax cuts for those earning above those thresholds expire now. A caller to a national radio show recently said the proposal meant Obama was looking out for the middle class. But if Obama is looking out for the middle class, why is he proposing to extend their Bush tax cuts for only one year? This is the first time Obama is implying that maybe the Bush tax cuts for the middle class may not become permanent either.
And then who passed those middle class tax cuts in the first place that Obama is proposing to extend? That would be President Bush and the then Congressional majority Republicans, with almost every Democrat opposing the relief. But Obama and his Che Guevara Democrats have been telling us for 4 years that Bush and the Republicans only cut taxes for the rich. Even according to CBO, the Bush middle class tax cuts Obama wants to extend dwarf the Bush tax cuts for "the rich" Obama does not want to extend.
Obama elaborated on July 9, "We need policies that grow and strengthen the middle class - policies that help create jobs, ...that encourage businesses to start up and create jobs right here in the United States." But the Obama policies already enacted under current law would raise the top tax rates on Jan. 1 for almost every federal tax for the nation's job creators, investors and small businesses, with the expiration of the Bush tax cuts and the Obamacare tax increases becoming effective.
As a result, the top two income tax rates would increase by nearly 20%, the capital gains tax rate would increase nearly 60%, the tax on dividends would nearly triple, the Medicare payroll tax rate would increase by 62% for these disfavored taxpayers, and the death tax rate would rise from the grave with a 57% increase in the top rate.
This would all be on top of the highest corporate income tax rate in the industrialized world at nearly 40% when state taxes are counted. That leaves American businesses uncompetitive in the global economy. Yet under Obama, there is no relief in sight. Instead he has spent the past two years barnstorming the country for still more tax increases. His proposed Buffet Rule would increase the current capital gains tax rate by 100%, leaving America saddled with the fourth highest cap gains rate in the industrialized world.
As the Wall Street Journal explained on July 10, what "Mr. Obama is demanding [are] tax increases, not tax cuts, and large increases at that." How do those tax increases strengthen the middle class, and encourage businesses to start up and create jobs right here in the United States? They do just the opposite. Obama's rhetoric is just more Calculated Deception, designed to fool the gullible.
By sharp contrast, the Republican House majority has already passed the permanent extension of the Bush tax cuts for everyone. That includes the middle class tax cuts that the Republicans originally enacted that Obama proposes to extend for only one year, as well as the Bush tax cuts for the nation's job creators, investors, and small businesses. So who is really looking out for the middle class?
It is the middle class and working people that will be hurt the most by Obama's comprehensive tax rate increases already enacted into current law. Those steep rate increases will slash incentives for the capital investment essential to creating new jobs and increasing wages. If those tax rate increases push the weak economy back into recession next year, as I and many others have predicted, the unemployment rate will soar back into double digits, and wages and income will decline further. Poverty will accelerate to new all-time records. How does that strengthen the middle class?
Obama contends that his tax rate increases would only affect 3% of small businesses. While that figure is in dispute, more important is that the tax rate increases would affect two-thirds of small business income, and the jobs and wage increases that income supports.
Obama continued on July 9 with this outdated talking point, "So I'm not proposing anything radical here. I just believe that anybody making over $250,000 a year should go back to the income tax rates we were paying under Clinton...." But the capital gains tax rate Obama is proposing is 50% higher than under Clinton. The tax on corporate dividends is 10% higher. The top income tax rate is 27% higher.
As the Journal also observed on July 10, "As for the impact on growth, even Keynesian theory holds that raising taxes should be avoided in a weak economy. That's the argument that Mr. Obama used in late 2010 when he agreed with Republicans to extend the Bush tax rates through the end of 2012." But Obama displayed a lot of confusion on July 9, when he also said, "these tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans are also the tax cuts that are least likely to promote growth." That reflects his own confessed Marxist upbringing and philosophy holding that spending on consumption somehow does more to promote growth than spending on investment, when in the real world the opposite is true. That confused thinking is more generally held throughout today's Che Geuvara Democrat Party.
But Obama continued on July 9 to reflect ignorance or dishonesty in saying, "Moreover, we've tried it their way. It didn't work. At the beginning of the last decade, Congress passed trillions of dollars in tax cuts that benefited the wealthiest Americans more than anybody else. And what happened?"
We already discussed above that more revenues were lost on the tax cuts that Obama says he wants to keep than on the tax cuts for the "rich" that he doesn't. But what did happen with the tax cuts for job creators, investors and small businesses that Obama doesn't want to keep?
After those rate cuts were all fully implemented in 2003, the economy created 7.8 million new jobs over the next 4 years and the unemployment rate fell from over 6% to 4.4%. Real economic growth over the next 3 years doubled from the average for the prior 3 years, to 3.5%.
In response to the rate cuts, business investment spending, which had declined for 9 straight quarters, reversed and increased 6.7% per quarter. That is where the jobs came from. Manufacturing output soared to its highest level in 20 years. The stock market revived, creating almost $7 trillion in new shareholder wealth.
From 2003 to 2007, the
S&P 500 almost doubled. Capital gains tax revenues had doubled by
2005, despite the 25% rate cut!
Perhaps knowing that this rationale for his position was not valid, Obama offered another justification on July 9 for his comprehensive tax rate increases, saying, "But we've got this huge deficit, and everybody agrees that we need to do something about these deficits and those debts." The problem is that his dramatic tax rate increases will do little if anything to reduce the deficit. In fact, they may well make the deficit worse.
As reflected by the Bush experience discussed above, over the last 45 years, every time the capital gains tax rate has been raised, capital gains revenues have declined rather than increased. And every time the cap gains tax rate has been cut, revenues have increased rather than declined. Obama's nearly 60% increase in cap gains tax rates will produce the same result.
Moreover, after the Bush tax rate cut for dividends, corporate dividend payouts soared, increasing rather than reducing revenues again. If the dividend tax rate is now increased by nearly 3 times, dividend payouts will collapse to their previous levels, and revenues from their taxation will decline as well.
Don't tell me about the CBO or Joint Tax Committee score of the Obama tax rate increases, because these august authorities failed to predict accurately all the prior history discussed above. In 1997, when Congress was considering a cut in the capital gains rate from 28% back down to 20%, CBO estimated that revenues would decline as a result, for a net revenue loss of $21 billion over the next 10 years. The actual numbers after the tax cut was passed showed an increase of $84 billion over the pre-tax cut projections for 1997 to 2000. Despite an almost 30% cut in the rate, capital gains revenues rose from $62 billion in 1996 to $109 billion in 1999.
When Congress considered the Bush capital gains rate cut in 2003, from 20% to 15%, CBO estimated that this would cause a revenue loss of $5.4 billion from 2003 to 2006. But after Congress passed the tax cut, capital gains revenues increased by $133 billion during those years, as compared to the pre-tax cut projections. As Dan Clifton of the American Shareholders Association said, "There is no excuse for this $138 billion error." Capital gains tax revenue doubled from 2003 to 2005 despite a 25% cut in the tax rate.
If all these comprehensive Obama tax rate increases for 2013 push the weak economy back into recession, federal revenues overall will decline rather than increase, and the deficit will rocket to new all time records over $2 trillion. Because of the Obama tax rate increases, Art Laffer and Ford Scudder write in Monday's Wall Street Journal, "it is a certainty that we face a lower level of output in 2013." Declining output means recession. Indeed, because the Obama tax increases are 50% greater as a percent of GDP than the Reagan tax cuts, Laffer and Scudder write, "Mr. Obama's tax increases will do more to harm the economy than Reagan's tax cuts helped the economy."
That is not fighting for the middle class, that is trashing the middle class.
Perhaps knowing that this rationale for his position was not valid, Obama offered another justification on July 9 for his comprehensive tax rate increases, saying, "But we've got this huge deficit, and everybody agrees that we need to do something about these deficits and those debts." The problem is that his dramatic tax rate increases will do little if anything to reduce the deficit. In fact, they may well make the deficit worse.
As reflected by the Bush experience discussed above, over the last 45 years, every time the capital gains tax rate has been raised, capital gains revenues have declined rather than increased. And every time the cap gains tax rate has been cut, revenues have increased rather than declined. Obama's nearly 60% increase in cap gains tax rates will produce the same result.
Moreover, after the Bush tax rate cut for dividends, corporate dividend payouts soared, increasing rather than reducing revenues again. If the dividend tax rate is now increased by nearly 3 times, dividend payouts will collapse to their previous levels, and revenues from their taxation will decline as well.
Don't tell me about the CBO or Joint Tax Committee score of the Obama tax rate increases, because these august authorities failed to predict accurately all the prior history discussed above. In 1997, when Congress was considering a cut in the capital gains rate from 28% back down to 20%, CBO estimated that revenues would decline as a result, for a net revenue loss of $21 billion over the next 10 years. The actual numbers after the tax cut was passed showed an increase of $84 billion over the pre-tax cut projections for 1997 to 2000. Despite an almost 30% cut in the rate, capital gains revenues rose from $62 billion in 1996 to $109 billion in 1999.
When Congress considered the Bush capital gains rate cut in 2003, from 20% to 15%, CBO estimated that this would cause a revenue loss of $5.4 billion from 2003 to 2006. But after Congress passed the tax cut, capital gains revenues increased by $133 billion during those years, as compared to the pre-tax cut projections. As Dan Clifton of the American Shareholders Association said, "There is no excuse for this $138 billion error." Capital gains tax revenue doubled from 2003 to 2005 despite a 25% cut in the tax rate.
If all these comprehensive Obama tax rate increases for 2013 push the weak economy back into recession, federal revenues overall will decline rather than increase, and the deficit will rocket to new all time records over $2 trillion. Because of the Obama tax rate increases, Art Laffer and Ford Scudder write in Monday's Wall Street Journal, "it is a certainty that we face a lower level of output in 2013." Declining output means recession. Indeed, because the Obama tax increases are 50% greater as a percent of GDP than the Reagan tax cuts, Laffer and Scudder write, "Mr. Obama's tax increases will do more to harm the economy than Reagan's tax cuts helped the economy."
That is not fighting for the middle class, that is trashing the middle class.
'You didn't build that': Anti-colonialist rage?
'Americans stole it, he has every right to use power of state to confiscate it back'
And after the Washington, D.C., screening of the film, D’Souza told WND he believes Obama’s anti-colonialist past was the driving force behind telling a crowd at Roanoke, Va., on July 13, “If you’ve got a business – you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”
In brief, D’Souza explained European colonialism as fundamentally about occupation, rule, conquest and acquiring wealth; whereas anti-colonialism is fundamentally about redistributing the wealth of the world “so that it is enjoyed equitably by everyone in the world.”
D’Souza told WND, “Anti-colonialism’s core idea is that the wealth America has now is not earned wealth, but stolen wealth. And I believe that is a very influential idea with Obama and his recent comment that business owners didn’t earn their success, they used the public school system and public roads. That is the intellectual equivalent of me saying to Obama, ‘You didn’t really win the election. You, after all, drove on the public roads to your rallies, so you don’t deserve to be president.’
“The reason Obama makes such arguments – bogus though they are – is because he’s trying to say ‘If you didn’t earn it, I have the right to take it,’” D’Souza said. “And that is an idea rooted in anti-colonialism that the rich people and rich countries don’t deserve what they have. They didn’t earn it, they stole it and he has every right to use the power of the state to confiscate it back.”
D’Souza’s unique take that Obama is an anti-colonialist stems from personal experience. After all, D’Souza emigrated from India, where his father and grandfather were anti-colonialists.
As WND reported, D’Souza moved to the United States to attend Dartmouth College and today is president of The King’s College in New York City. In “2016 Obama’s America,” he humorously explains his rise to working in the Reagan White House, becoming a bestselling author and debating against the likes of Jesse Jackson.
In Kenya, D’Souza tried to interview the president’s step-grandmother Sarah Obama. But once the family found out he had interviewed Barack’s half-brother, George Obama, they refused to talk. They also banned him from the family homestead.
As D’Souza said, George is “the black sheep of the family” because wrote a book expressing conservative ideals and disputing anti-colonialism. Moreover, George is poor but insists on earning his own living.
D’Souza also interviewed psychologist Dr. Paul Vitz about the father figures in Obama’s life. He interviewed experts on the impending crisis of our mounting national debt and examines Obama’s military/defense agenda.
And while most regular WND readers know much about Obama’s murky past, this film is likely to stun the scores Americans who haven’t looked into their president’s formative years.
“I think this is a film that, whatever your politics, you’re going to leave the theater saying, ‘I know a lot more about Obama than I did 90 minutes ago,’” said D’Souza. “And I think that makes the film a contribution to the debate.”
After the Washington screening of “2016 Obama’s America,” one journalist told WND, “It scared the h— out of me!”
When D’Souza was told about the reaction, he replied, “Well, I think what makes the film shocking is that much of the material was unreported by mainstream media, even though the information was not that hard for me to collect. For example, when I was down in Kenya, talking to people related to Obama and those who knew Barack Sr., I asked, ‘Who has interviewed you so far?’ And they said, ‘Nobody. Nobody’s interviewed us.’ And I was shocked. So I kind of felt like I had large areas of territory, and I think that’s why people come out of theaters saying, ‘How come I didn’t know all this?
“I wanted a film that wasn’t like a TV documentary, but was like a real movie and appealed to people both on the intellectual level and the emotional level,” D’Souza explained. “I wanted to make a film by which people could understand Obama, and by that I mean even to empathize with Obama – understand how he became the man that he is above the give and take of political squabbling. I think it’s an interesting film on a human level. The Obama story to me is a riveting story, quite apart from politics.”
The trailer for “2016 Obama’s America” can be seen below:
http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/you-didnt-build-that-anti-colonialist-rage/
“2016 Obama’s America” is currently showing in producer Gerald Molen’s home state of Montana and Houston-area theaters. Doug Sain, another producer, said distribution will expand to 300 theaters by Aug. 10 and 500 theaters by Aug. 17. Click here to see the growing list of theaters showing the film.
Op-ed:
Hey Obama...the economy still stinks
By: Diane Sori
Politics and the economy go hand in hand. Always have and
always will. And with the second quarter
GDP (Gross Domestic Product) coming in at a miserly 1.5% growth, which is even
less than the first quarter 2.0% growth, it simply means that the American
economy is not growing fast enough to create the needed number of new jobs to put Americans back to work.
So the bottom line is that the weak 1.5% growth coupled with the newest
inflation numbers for June being
-0.15% (which is
another deflationary month on top of
May's
-0.12%.), in no way is strong enough to bring down the 8.2%
unemployment rate. These numbers directly affect the political scene as they bode
very poorly for Barack Hussein Obama and his re-election bid. Little job creation and a rise in the
inflation rate means our economy is for all intents and purposes...stalled.
While this is surely bad news for Obama and good news for
Mitt Romney, these numbers are nothing to be happy about as it shows that
Americans are still hurting and hurting bad.
Consumer spending is way down, as people are saving what
little extra money they have instead of spending it, and spending is what
stimulates the economy. American consumers
just won’t spend because they’re uncertain and fearful about the direction our country
is going in, and rightly so. And with Obama’s
economic policies, like his stimulus bill and bailouts, proving to be total
failures that leaves people to wonder what their future will be if, God forbid,
Obama is re-elected or worse yet, usurps again.
And then in the middle of all this bad news, the Senate in their
misguided wisdom, as if wisdom has ever been evident with this Senate, allowed
the Bush Tax Cuts for those making over a million dollars a year to expire. Point
blank...this Senate just cut tax breaks for the very people who create the jobs
and the businesses we Americans so desperately need.
Yet even all this bad economic news, and the fact that
the Senate has screwed ‘We the People’ yet again, does NOT seem to faze
Obama at all. Formed in his mind then spewed
out his mouth, Obama still bloviates that the economy will grow 2.6% by the end
of this year choosing to totally ignoring the latest bad news about the GDP. He just doesn’t understand or refuses to understand the numbers needed
to get to the 2.6% figure. For that
to be achieved the economy would have to grow at a pace of 3% or more for the
remainder of this year, and that just is NOT going to happen.
And here’s a real kicker that Obama just doesn’t get...with
such dismal job numbers and our economic growth basically at a standstill we
could very well be headed into another recession. And no amount of federal, state, or local cuts
to government spending will help stop it.
So, with all this bad economic news and more coming down the
road I cannot understand for the life of me how roughly 44% of the American
people can still support Barack Hussein Obama and worse yet, say he is doing a
good job.
But wait...silly me, how could I forget that roughly 47% of
Americans pay NO taxes and most of those are the recipients of Obama’s handouts
and freebies, so that explains it in no uncertain terms. After
all, no one will bite, or in this case not vote for, the hand that feeds them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)