Again, President Obama says one thing while his policies result in another.
As we saw in Obamacare , we will now see in his so called American Jobs Act, which he calls a deficit reduction plan, but half of which amounts to new tax revenue and not just for the wealthy.
Obama policies always contain hidden taxes.
His grand plan is to pick a fight again with Republicans, and make sure this Act plays into his 2012 reelection campaign strategy.
Arrogance, brashness and hypocrisy prevail in all of Obama’s rhetoric, but what is woefully missing is any sign of leadership.
And it wasn’t any different today as he used the White House as a venue for another 2012 political speech.
It doesn’t take an economist to realize that you can’t ask for $1.5 trillion in new tax revenue from the private sector without getting fewer jobs, less investment and yes, a smaller tax base.
Anyone making more than $250,000 will be taxed at higher rate and this will impact small business, a sector of the economy that produces more jobs than any other.
Those making more than $250,000 are not billionaire Warren Buffett, nor anywhere near millionaires.
Now the numbers cited could not be heard nor found in the campaign speech Obama just delivered, but they can be found in the American Jobs Act along with another $248 billion in Medicare cuts on top of the $500 billion taken in the Budget Control Act.
We have duly noted that upon completion of the president’s speech today, the Dow was down 212 points; however, most market analysts believe this was due to the economic situation in Greece and not the political rhetoric.
The hypocrisy, however, was present when he cited Warren Buffett, pointing out that it isn’t right that his secretary should be paying more income tax than Buffett himself.
Although Obama has widely cited Buffett’s op-ed piece “Raise My Taxes” he mentions nothing about Buffett’s company Berkshire Hathaway which has been fighting with the IRS for almost a decade over $1 billion in past due taxes.
Also left unsaid by the president was the more than a-half-billion Obama wasted on Green job Company Solyndra, who recently went bankrupt losing thousands of jobs, something the administration was aware of about the company before it made the loan.
There was also no mention of the planned cuts in the military budget affecting the health and retirement benefits for those that fight our wars.
The speech was a clear set up for a fight with the Republicans, all with the usual threats that Obama would veto any bill that comes to his desk without tax increases, especially for the ‘wealthy.’
The speech was a clear demonstration of ‘class warfare’ a theme you will hear from now until the elections as Obama tries to rouse his political base.




3 users commented in " Obama Tax Plan To Drive Down Economy, Create Fewer Jobs "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackAbout Buffett. His remarks concerning the ultra wealthy paying a higher tax rate was said as a private citizen representing his true beliefs. The tax reviews being undertaken by the IRS regarding Berkshire Hathaway’s tax position is being done to a public company with tens of thousands of employees, directors and tens of thousands of stockholders. Remember, the purpose of any profit oriented company is to maximize those profits. If there were no legitimate tax issues involved and Berkshire Hathaway didn’t challenge the IRS they would be violating their fiduciary duties to protect their stockholders and would be subject to very severe penalties. No hypocrisy involved.
Warren Buffett, the second richest man in the U.S., is a legendary investor who thrives on creating wealth. He understands that wealth redistribution that has occurred in recent years has been from the middles class to the super wealthy. He never mentioned a $250,000 income figure.
About your objection to additional revenue to help reduce the deficit, there is no possible way to do so with only cuts in spending. Besides, when it comes to actual program cuts, whose favorite programs would you include?
I do understand your point, and do not disagree; however, you must admit there is a bit of hypocrisy here and political nuance — but what else is new?
I do understand your point and do not disagree; however, you must admit there is a bit of hypocrisy here and political nuance – but what else is new?
Leave A Reply