The real Vladimir Ilyich Obama stands up
As part of his fantasy “deficit reduction” plan, Barack Obama proposed a number of new taxes. One of them was the so-called “Buffett Rule.” When it was initially proposed, it was part of the plan to reduce the deficit.
‘Buffett rule’
President Obama
“Middle-class families shouldn’t pay higher taxes than millionaires and billionaires,” he said. “It’s hard to argue against that.”
Mr Obama suggested a “Buffett rule”, which would see Americans who earn more than $1m pay the same rate of tax as those who earn less.
The proposal refers to billionaire financier Warren Buffett, who has complained that he and his wealthy peers pay relatively less tax than the people who work for them.
Many high-income Americans benefit from tax loopholes that see earnings on investment taxed at lower rates than wages.
On Sunday Republican Paul Ryan, chairman of the House budget committee and a proponent of deep cuts and no tax rises, described Mr Obama’s plans as “class warfare”.
The president referenced Mr Ryan’s criticism on Monday, justified his tax-and-cut package by saying simply: “It’s not class warfare, it’s math.”
So how much impact would the Buffett rule have on either the debt or the deficit? The White House refused to say.
But for the moment, the White House wants to keep the attention focused on Obama’s argument that it’s unfair to tax Buffett’s secretary at a higher rate than her boss.
“I’m not going to give you a schedule of how broad individual tax reform would break down and what impact it would have,” White House press secretary Jay Carney said at the Wednesday briefing. “The president simply believes that as a matter of principle that unfairness ought to be changed.”
Republican lawmakers — noting the absence of real numbers — attacked the plan as a political charade, an attempt to score points in the November election instead of a serious policy to reduce federal debt. One outside analysis by the non-partisan Tax Foundation indicates the rule would generate another $36.7 billion a year in revenue — far from enough to make a serious dent in a national debt of $15 trillion.
It’s estimated that the “Buffett Rule” would bet around $4 billion per year.
A bill designed to enact President Obama’s plan for a “Buffett rule” tax on the wealthy would rake in just $47 billion over the next 11 years, according to an estimate by Congress’ official tax analysts obtained by The Associated Press.
That figure would be a drop in the bucket of the over $7 trillion in federal budget deficits projected during that period. It is also minuscule compared to the many hundreds of billions it would cost to repeal the alternative minimum tax, which Obama’s budget last month said he would replace with the Buffett rule tax.
Obama’s proposed deficits run over a trillion dollars for as long as anyone can imagine.
Since the Buffett rule would have essentially no impact on the debt or the deficit, Obama has shifted tactics. It’s no longer about deficit reduction- now it’s all about fairness.
The Obama administration is emphasizing “fairness” over deficit reduction in its renewed pitch for the “Buffett rule” ahead of next week’s scheduled Senate vote.
Introducing a minimum 30 percent income tax on millionaires “was never our plan to bring the deficit down and get the debt under control,” Jason Furman, the principal deputy director of the White House National Economic Council, told reporters on a conference call Monday afternoon. “This is not the president’s entire tax plan. We’re not trying to say this solves all our economic problems, all our budget problems.”
So it’s not the math? It’s fairness? OK, then.
“Fairness” was Vladimir Lenin’s central campaign theme– equality of outcome. It’s what Communism is all about.
Via Wikipedia
It also led right to Josef Stalin. So how is $4 billion a year going to create “fairness”? How is it going to give everyone a “fair shot”? How does that actually work? Will the yearly $4 billion go into the “fair shot pool”? And once that doesn’t do anything, will Obama be back asking for a 90% tax so everyone can have more “fair shots”? Is the ultimate goal control of and business and everyone’s salaries so the Obamitburo can determine what’s “fair” for all of us?
The fly in the ointment? Life isn’t fair.
If life was fair, I’d have Barack Obama’s wealth. If life was fair, we could all be astronauts. If life was fair, my kids wouldn’t have lost soccer games 8-1. If life was fair, we’d all get into Harvard Law.
It can be argued that it’s a terribly unfair thing for someone to lose at the Master’s. Why is there a “champion” of the NBA each year? That’s not “fair” to the other teams. Why play the Superbowl? It’s not fair that one team has to lose. It’s even more unfair to the teams that did not make it. Why not just have every tennis match and baseball game end in a tie! That’s fair!
But then, what’s the point of playing? What’s the point of doing anything if the outcome is the same if you try as if you didn’t try?
It’s also not “fair” for only half the country to pay Federal taxes. As someone once said, we all ought to have some “skin in the game.” We all ought to pay the same tax rate.
That’s fair.
The Marxist genie is out of the bottle. Neal Boortz compared Obama’s words to those of Marx:
“Responsibility from all” = “From each according to their ability.”
“Fairness for all” = “To each according to their needs.”
Watch some future democrats’ attitudes toward redistributing their GPA
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOyaJ2UI7Ss#![/youtube]
Obama is no longer about recovery or growth. He’s all about fairness.
The ultimate result of a Obama’s fairness vision would see equal outcome for everything. No matter how hard you work, no matter the risk you take, you earn the same amount of money. No matter how hard you study you earn the same grades. Everyone owns the same house, the same car.
The good part is that everyone gets to be a doctor, lawyer or airline pilot. Without question, though, some democrats would be more equal than other democrats. That’s how it went in mother Russia too.
Somewhere, Vladimir Lenin is giddy with glee.
DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education.
DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed.
Except for liberals being foolish.
Wish I recalled where I heard this, but someone on one of the financial news networks pointed out that most millionaires already pay more than the Buffett tax requires.
This new law Obama wants will only impact fewer than 150 households in the first year.
And, as pointed out in the post, it is all about an imaginary fairy called ”fairness,” not about the reality of the spending issues in DC at all.
Just another chance to target one specific slower or weaker or smaller gazelle out of the herd.
Like with smokers.
Like with family farms.
Like with Catholic charities.
One place this “This new law Obama wants will only impact fewer than 150 households in the first year,” is found is:
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/04/10/just-a-reminder-buffett-rule-that-obama-wont-stop-talking-about-is-aimed-mainly-at-around-400-taxpayers/
One small point.
Your photo of Lenin shows Trotsky standing to our right at the side of Lenin’s lectern.
But by the time that photo hit the Soviet media Trotsky had been airbrushed out.
See the ”after” version.
Soon afterward Trotsky was hunted down in Mexico and murdered with an ax.
Which is a drop in the bucket. Hell, February and March came in at record deficits.
The entire Establishment needs to be re-booted.
Thanks for posting this! I’m glad i found your site!!
Steve
Common Cents
http://www.commoncts.blogspot.com
Vladimir says:
“If I had a son……….”
http://i979.photobucket.com/albums/ae277/RAPH6969/26-1.jpg
@Rides A Pale Horse: LOL
You like to make comparisons with Obama and communist dictators a lot. But I haven’t seen anywhere on the right where they have discussed how the Republican governor of Michigan has terminated the democratic rights for five towns in his state—presumably because the people weren’t doing it according to the wishes of the State. (Sound familiar? Kind of like Authoritarianism–whether Fascist or Communist.)
When I was young we used to demonstrate against the potential tyranny of the right-wing—which now seems to be coming to fruition. In those days, the Gadsden Flag—“Don’t Tread on Me'”—was the rallying cry of the Left, long before the Right picked up that banner.
@Liberal1 (objectivity):
The unfortunate part is that you’ve forgotten, or ignored, the tyranny from the left. Obama epitomizes how this is accomplished, by awarding “rights” to persons, or groups, and infringing upon others’ rights to do so. Tyranny comes in many flavors, Lib1, and you shouldn’t absolve your preferred political ideology from that, just because they are what you prefer. Whenever you force a person or group to engage in action, provide service, or provide product, to another person, or group, you are engaging in tyranny. The left has been doing this for going on a century now, and your ignorance of this, along with the other naive fools who follow the left, has only allowed it to happen at a faster and faster pace.
As for MI, maybe you should take your own advice and get the other side of the story. Also, I suggest you read the USSC decision on Hunter vs. Pittsburgh, from 1907, as well as Holt Civic Club v. Tuscaloosa, from 1978. Local government is not, and has never been, considered their own sovereign entities. Local government machinations have always been the prerogative of the state in which the local government resides. For the most part, local governments have been let alone to do how they please, but when the local governments become a drain on the state, particularly a state which is in financial problems itself, the state has not only the right, but a duty, to seek extraordinary means in righting the failures.
Are there problems with the “new” law MI has enacted and engaged in? Sure there are. One of them being possibly the salary issue of the manager, of which democrats wanted it limited and republicans didn’t. But that in no way is indicative of the law itself, which, by the way, is not “new”. It is not some new totalitarian power the GOP in MI has wrangled from the people. In fact, since 1990, when the state first enacted a law acquiring the power to place unelected emergency managers in power over local municipalities, 7 (seven) local financial emergencies have been declared. And as of mid 2011, three of those emergencies are still in declaration, with the local towns, or municipalities, being managed by emergency managers. In 1990, when the original legislation was passed, Public Act 72, the state legislature was controlled by Democrats, and the bill was signed into law by Jim Blanchard, a Democrat governor. The previous governor, Granholm, a Democrat, enacted the law on several MI towns, and no outrage was seen at the time that I know of.
The only thing the “new” law does is to expand, moderately I might add, an existing power the State of MI held, in attempts to better attack the financial problems of the towns, cities and municipalities declared to be in “financial emergencies”.
Now, does that answer your charge of “not seeing anywhere on the right” a discussion about this?
So, anyone who believes that the super-wealthy should pay taxes at a higher rate than those with average income is a commie? Anyone who believes that capital gains should be taxed at the same rate as a working person’s hourly wages is a commie?
No doubt Rep. Allen West would agree, having publicly proclaimed that half of the democrats in Congress are communists.
@Liberal1 (objectivity), #7:
Exactly. The People’s Republic of Michiganistan–brought to you by the “anti-big government” republican right. I haven’t heard a single critical word about it around here.
Of course this is the same crew that can rant about individual freedoms and government intrusiveness until the cows come home, and then turn around and applaud efforts to deny women the right to choose whether they will continue a pregnancy or not, using government intrusion as their weapon of choice.
@Greg:
Capital gains tax rates are the same no matter what income you earn. They are the same for all. Fair. As I said, Lenin campaigned on fair.
Cite that for me, please. The entire and correct quote, not the NBC’ed version.
@drjohn, #10:
Both video clips are posted here. People can take their pick of the short NBC’ed version or the longer clip that was released by West’s own campaign.
Greg, Buffett pays less because of how he derives his income. He’s talking payroll tax knowing full well a higher payroll tax won’t affect him. It will however, zap his secretary.
Ummmm greg, even you should know NBC isn’t terribly credible. West said the “progressive caucus” not half the democrats in congress. You really are gullible…or dishonest…or both.
“It also led right to Josef Stalin. So how is $4 billion a year going to create “fairness”? How is it going to give everyone a “fair shot”? How does that actually work? Will the yearly $4 billion go into the “fair shot pool”? And once that doesn’t do anything, will Obama be back asking for a 90% tax so everyone can have more “fair shots”? Is the ultimate goal control of and business and everyone’s salaries so the Obamitburo can determine what’s “fair” for all of us?
THIS BEGS THE QUESTION – HOW MUCH IS ENOUGH?????!!!!!
“The fly in the ointment? Life isn’t fair.”
“If life was fair, I’d have Barack Obama’s wealth. If life was fair, we could all be astronauts. If life was fair, my kids wouldn’t have lost soccer games 8-1. If life was fair, we’d all get into Harvard Law.”
_________________________________
My Parents used to tell me life wasn’t Fair when I whined about things…. More Parents should tell their kids that instead of trying to ‘be their friend” – it builds Character.
@Greg:
Apparently you missed my comments on it, Greg. Unsurprising, of course. But don’t let things like the truth get in the way of your narrative. We wouldn’t want the people to know exactly what is happening. At least until you liberal/progressives pull the rug out from under everyone, and then it won’t matter.
Obama epitomizes how this is accomplished, by awarding “rights” to persons, or groups, and infringing upon others’ rights to do so.
Yea, like my “right” to keep the money “I earn”.
Quite frankly I am tired of having my rights infringed upon to pay for the losers in this country…. let their families take care of them…’they’ created them – not me.
@Greg:
You are speaking of a whole different ball of wax, Greg. The purpose behind anyone’s fight on the abortion issue is NOT to prevent a woman from a “right to choose”. It’s that they believe they are fighting for the rights of the unborn child.
Way to spin the issue into something it’s not, Greg. Then again, that’s the typical liberal/progressive tactic, intended to play upon the emotions of people instead of their intelligence.
You’ve done a pretty good job at paralleling Obama with Marx and Lenin.
But when it comes to Stalin, you say that it leads you right to him, but you don’t say how.
What words did Stalin say or concepts did he preach that parallel Obama’s?
If Greg is a supporter of Abortion, than he should be thanking his Mother for blessing us with his Pressence…
@J:
Good question J.
I think that both men utilized a compliant press equally well.
Stalin had the NYTimes then and Obama has the NYTimes today.
Both Stalin and Obama claim that their agendas were based in science.
Both Stalin and Obama had fairly hazy ”plans” for the economy.
Stalin called his a ”5 year plan,” but if you read your history books you learn that he did what he wanted to do when he wanted to do it, to the detriment of businesses and investors.
Obama certainly never telegraphed ahead of time that he would ignore the law with regard investors in the auto industry, favoring his bundlers among the union leadership instead, but that’s what he did.
Obama has also destroyed bank after bank, small business after small business, the value of home ownership, the value of life savings.
Like Stalin he never gave advance warning, leaving the people in complete disarray and our lack of certainty has added to our country’s economic woes.
Stalin centralized agriculture.
I don’t think Obama will be able to do the same although he has tried to force this in sideways battles.
He tried to force all farmers to get trucking drivers licenses just to operate a tractor on their own land.
He made using your own family to farm on a family farm illegal.
He has used the EPA and other alphabet agencies as well as czars to make life miserable for small farmers.
He wants to use the death tax to break up successful family farms.
I also think there is a parallel between Stalin and Obama in their use of questionable science to justify their actions.
For Stalin it was Lisenko who was the charletan of crop growth.
For Obama it is Al Gore.
Lisenko’s theories flew in the face of what farmers even back then knew about crops so Stalin imposed L’s values on farmers.
Many billions of dollars worth of value disappeared as crops failed and land was ruined.
Obama’s EPA has already pulled back from economically and scientifically impossible standards regarding environmental purity, carbon trading and mileage.
If Obama gets his 2nd term who knows what will happen.
And Stalin didn’t just airbrush out his opponents…..as I mentioned in my 1st post on this topic; he had them assassinated.
Obama has not got the power to do either thing.
But he does step beyond the limits of his office to tell the co-equal branch of government what it will and will not do.
He also has tried to tell the media which network is and which is not a news network.
He has also tried to tell the news outlets how to properly report on his views.
I think the more you look at the two, the more similarities you see.
@Greg:
The Progressive Party members are Communists, Greg.
@J:
Lenin’s centralized government control of everything allowed the dictatorship of Stalin to take hold. It’s the same government-centered vision that Obama has now. Remember how many times he’s said he wants to “go it alone” and wishes this was a dictatorship?
It’s disturbing they want to instantly jump on Stalin while ignorning Lenin’s purges and mass killings…
Those Russians who were the most loyal to Lenin shortly after the revolution and expected to be taken care for and given everything for free were expunged from the system by rifle bullet to back of skull or death in a GULAG in hazardous work conditions. Those such as Trotsky were forced to flee from the very Communist State they envisioned in creating, because the very monster Trotsky helped make with Lenin now wanted Trotsky dead and Lenin at the helm. There never will be sharing of equal power for Communists, and what happened to the most loyal of Lenin should be the cuationary tale of why one should not blindly be faithful to an ideal or leader.
Granted Lenin’s bloodsheds were minor in contrast to Stalin’s, but it doesn’t change the fact that Lenin had already sat in stone the very policies and actions that Stalin would further expand onto that would cause the Holodorom and mass purges that left millions of Russians dead.
@Mr. Irons, #18:
Defending women’s sovereignty over their own bodies is not the same thing as advocating abortion.
Is defending the right to keep and bear arms the same thing as advocating homicide?
Hey Greg, hate to bring this up to you:
The Left was the ones bringing your little talking point up. You’re wanting to use it to deflect the issues at hand.
If a woman wants an abortion, that’s between her and her partner. You and you leftists idiots think the Woman is the only one who should have a say over an unborn child’s future? What about the Father? If a woman’s lifestyle is sexualy loaded, as you leftist morons have been making an argument for since the 1960’s with the Free Love Movement then the Abortion should carry a very heavy price on her and her lifestyle choice. If a woman was raped or was in a medical emergancy due to pregnancy (rare but possible) then the Abortion shouldn’t be questioned. Then again your weak attempt to deflect the problems of Communism and society by going to Women’s rights…
Well let’s put it this way, since you are a Socalist, Nazi Germany’s abortion policies they wanted in place would force Women of, “unpure” hertiage to abort their children and be sterlized. In the USSR and currently in China, Population control measures where in place to force abortions on Citizens if the population became too numerous than supply rations could sustain. People’s Republic of China carries an aggressive variant of this Abortion policy. Edit- And let’s not forget various Democrat/Progressive attempts within the United States of America in the acts of Eugenics in making a, “Pure” citizen loyal to party (something the Nazi’s would later adapt to their core policies.)
In contrast, The United States various State Governments have tried to encourage and protect the life of the unborn. Then again, That’s why most Leftists are deemed hypocritical. They want a sexualized society but none of the consequences of such a society.
And let me repeat, you should be thanking your mother for chosing to give birth to you. Think about it a second: If she chosed to abort you, you wouldn’t be here now trying to argue over all of this… now would you?
@Mr. Irons: Centralized government control of everything always ends badly.
@Mr. Irons, #24:
Someone was wondering why there’s a widening republican gender gap?
It’s not because of anything democrats have said or done. Social issues and women’s rights issues have been pushed into the foreground because of what republicans have been saying and doing all across the United States since the 2010 elections.
For some reason, they chose to focus their legislative attention on social and women’s reproductive issues, with an apparent intention to roll the calendar back to some time before the 1960s. That was done largely to the exclusion of economic issues, which was what they placed the most emphasis on during the 2010 campaigns.
Women–who comprise 53 percent of the electorate–have been increasingly paying attention.
What might the average woman today find wrong about the attitude those words convey?
One of the GOP’s fundamental problems with women voters is that a large percentage of its male members can’t answer the question.
Here’s a clue, in the form of another question:
Why doesn’t the GOP seem inclined to condemn the “sexually loaded” lifestyles of men? From last August:
Sean Hannity Attacks Birth Control Coverage, Defends V*agra
Widening? Greg, unless you haven’t watched there are more Women leaders within the GOP now than there even is in the Democrat party. A thesis diatribe of your opnion over something you don’t even understand is humor filled to all the readers here.
Here’s a clue for you:
Traditionalist Conservatives, since you’re so damn ignorant, do not condone a sexually loaded lifestyle of even men and are expected to take the brunt of their consquences from the actions they take. Apparently you never heard of, “Shotgun Weddings” before. But hey, a weak willed and minded person like you just jumps on the lumped Term bandwagon and think, “Conservaitve, Evil.” and think just because someone might be an Economics Conservative that they’re some sort of Extereme Theological enforcer?
You’re grasping for strawls over a topic that had nothing to do with Women’s rights. You’re the idiot who brought it up, and you’re the idiot trying to dance around the subject of Communism’s blight on Human History. How does the Buffet Rule and Tax Fairness even have to deal with your little piss ant rant over, “Women’s Rights?”
You’re not a Woman, I’m not a Woman, so frankly unless you get a Uterus all of a sudden your opinion and, “Expertise” in this matter of subject that’s intended to derail the Buffet Rule discussion is idioticly pointless.
And holy smokes Greg, you’re using a seriously edited video to make Sean look like he said that… Are you sersiouly this blind and stupid? You’re using intentionally edited material that’s vastly different than the raw feeds… then again I bet you’re a fan of NBC now are you?
Nan G.
HI,
THAT’S WHY , HE probably went to RUSSIA, TO REPORT ON how his
COMMUNIST AGENDA is doing, and what about the hush hush secret
about wait, I WILL BE ABLE WHEN I GET REELECTED ,
WHAT IS THE OTHER WILL REPORT TO PUTIN? IT look like an important message,
we are not suppose to know,
bye
Speaking of widening…
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/04/17/Federal-Workers-Make-Nearly-Twice-What-Private-Sector-Workers-Earn
@J, #29:
The federal government workforce has relatively few positions that the average fast food industry worker would be qualified to fill. If they think they might be, they submit an application. Honorably discharged veterans will receive preferential consideration. Disabled vets get additional points.
The Republican gender gap is part of the left’s imaginary mythology that they’ve manufactured to characterize anyone right of Karl Marx. Kind of like the “Republicans are racist” fairy tales.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/03/minorities-ride-republican-wave-historic-wins/
Uh, no. The “gender gap” refers to the fact that republican support among America’s women voters is trailing democratic support by an increasing number of percentage points.
FOX News is being transmitted from an alternate dimension.
@Greg:
I guess that would explain all the doctorates that are filling up the custodial and administrative federal positions.
Hadn’t heard that. The only federally employed PhD that I know personally is a mid-level government scientist. He works around 50 hours per week, 10 of which are off the clock, and has to travel frequently.
@Greg:
This of course is entirely incorrect. Remember, the primary expertise that leftists have is in fantasyland, so their irrational hyperventilation should always be openly dismissed.
Now, this isn’t something new.
Leftists have for a long time been reality challenged, and this is widely known amongst thinking sober adults. Understand, modern leftist ideology had its beginnings in a hazy psychedelic mind-altering drug-induced orgy at a rock concert in the late 1960s. So we know from history that American leftists are incapable of rational thought, much less capable of processing anything remotely resembling reality, as a direct result of the distorted political philosophy they inherited from their antiquated predecessors.
So when you attempt to take the appropriate criticisms that have been levied against the left for decades, and try to send them back with creative phraseology like “transmitted from an alternate dimension,” it just doesn’t even make any sense because its not really applicable.
So it’s important to make note here, that the left’s accusations in regards to the imaginary War on Women™ can’t be taken with any degree of seriousness, particularly when you have leftist detritus actually physically raping women regularly at the highly mockable Occupado sing alongs, and a Democratic administration whose secret service agents are getting secretly serviced by underage prostitutes.
@Greg:
You haven’t heard that, because that would be sarcasm.