Update: before getting into the printed text, below, I really should mention Warren's math. Not reflected in the text, but presented at the very beginning of her recorded comments, is Warren's version of how we got in the current financial mess, and . . . . . you guessed it . . . . . it was all Bush's fault. She wants her audience to believe that her math is profoundly simple and straight forward, after all, she is an esteemed (for reals) Harvard professor.
- She mentions 1 trillion "lost" because of the Bush tax cuts on the "rich." She does not mention the $400 billion in tax cuts to the middle class (no Liberal ever does) nor does she allow for the stabilizing of revenues at 18.5% of GDP in 2007, because of these tax cuts. No mention is made (by Warren) of the Clinton recession at the end of his time in office (Bush 'inherited' this) or the recession during the entire year of 2008. She allows for nothing as the result of the destruction of the Twin Towers, a preposterous omission and never hints at 5 trillion in deficit spending under Obama. Finally, she ignores the "dot com" bubble that burst during Bush's early years with a lost of 12 million "dot com" jobs, a bubble that gave Clinton his claim of 22 million jobs created.
- She claims a 2 trillion cost for "two wars," when, in fact, the cost from 2001 until now is 1.2 trillion. Bush was responsible for .9 trillion of that total. She forgets that the "second war" is Obama's war. She forgets about the billions of dollars being spent in the four month "days not weeks" war in Libya.
- Finally, she hits on the "1 trillion" for Bush's prescription bill. Here, she becomes incoherent. It is Elizabeth Warren and her band of socialist reformers who believes that "all government spending is stimulus." Bush is often criticized for his spending. We conservatives hated it. But, with Keynesian macroeconomics in mind, Bush 43 should be one the far Left's heroes. Understand that the Keynesian crowd does not believe that we can run out of money. So you don't believe me? See what happens when you object to one of their new social programs with these words, "But we have no money." More than this, Bush prescription bill cost the taxpayers $700 to $800 , not a trillion.
Text from the above video:
“I hear all this, you know, ‘Well, this is class warfare, this is whatever. No. There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own — nobody.
“You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police-forces and fire-forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory — and hire someone to protect against this — because of the work the rest of us did.
“Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea. God bless — keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is, you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”
*********Look at that last statement and answer this question: what in the world does this raging collectivist think Big money is doing. "We' (she talks about what "we" the little people do for Big Business) take 35% of the man's income after he pays a flat rate of more than $50,000. Here in California, we take another 10%. As to his corporate profits, we make him wait a full year before he can take a profit and then, make him pay another 15% on top of the taxes he paid to accumulate his investment monies. We make him spend hundreds of thousands of dollars before he can build his
factory and, then, force him to hire a work force that demands unsustainable health and retirement benefits.Understand this, the tax rate for millionaires is 35% and 98.5% of them pay 29% or more after taking their legal deductions. They are actually paying 29% of their income just to the Feds plus excise taxes, environmental taxes, sales taxes on everything they buy. In fact, a typical new factory will be charged more than 1.5 million in fees and taxes before a shovel is used to "break ground."
Big Business pays 70% of all Federal taxes -- that is, by definition, "doing their fair share." Warren makes it sound as if Big Business forced the common man to suffer for nothing so that it, Big Business, could garner its fortunes.
In Elizabeth Warren, we have a flaming socialist who has never worked outside academia, presenting those who will listen, most of them rich, communist theory that has nothing to do with the American reality.
And she may run for the GOP seat held by Scott Brown. Never forget this:
Elizabeth Warren is Barack Obama in drag.
Just wanted to point out that there was no recession at the end or Clinton's term. The recession started in March of 2001 according to most economists. Also, if you look at most US recessions in the past 30 years they all took place at the beginning of a shift in Presidential party leadership. There was one at the beginning of Reagan's presidency, Clinton's and Bush's. The difference was that Bush started and ended his presidency with significant recessions. The only president that increased the deficit more than Bush was Reagan. Obama has thus far had the lowest increase to the national debt of any president since Reagan and the least expansion of federal government. Obama essentially has been the most fiscally conservative president since 1980.
ReplyDeleteI haven't read all of the details of the tax increases in Obama's job plan but my understanding is that the majority of the tax increase is on stock market profits that are currently taxed at 15%. Why should this income be taxed at a lower rate than income coming from a job?
Thanks for your sense of civility. Not a common circumstance coming from the Left.
ReplyDeleteThe "Clinton recession" I refer to did, indeed, begin in March of 2001. That is some 40 plus DAYS after GW took office. Whose recession was this? All the factors leading to this recession were developed during the Clinton days and 40 days after Bush took office, a recession was officially recognized. Most definitely, this was a Clinton recession.
As to Obama debt. You simply could not be more
mistaken. And your statement, "Obama essentially has been the most fiscally conservative president since 1980" is laughable. You write as an intelligent partisan. But this comment is so far off base, that it makes me wonder as to your sincerity.
TARP was, officially, a $700 billion bill. Half of that money was reserved for the Obama Administration, by Bush. More than that, all of the 24 trillion run through the TARP authority was done on Obama's watch. His trillion dollar stimulus (Feb of 2009)was much more a series of paybacks than job related related stimulus. We know that Obama knows this, because of his apologetic tone as to "apparently 'shovel ready' was not as shovel ready as we had thought" - a clear admission of failed policy.
If what you say is true - "Obama essentially has been the most fiscally conservative president since 1980" - why not run on that claim? Heck, he would win over every Independent in the nation. Independents are not ideologues. They love fiscally effective, conservative policies.
Under this new plan, I - a 66 year old on SS and Medicaid - will have my Medicaid payments (Medicaid) and SS tax schedule increase. I will lose my federal tax deduct as regards my mortgage deduction as well as losing state tax deduction from the federal forms. Obama has cut our SS cost of living increases, ordered by law, each of the three years he has been office. Half of all my worth, a value upon which I have paid my taxes, will be taken from my children at the time of my death. Theft is not a moral alternative and that is theft.
Why should corporate taxes be 15%? Because the investment money used in corporate investments werr taxed and the 35% personal rate. If corporate profits are turned back into the corporation, the owners cannot declare a profit for a full year on those monies, increasing the risk, greatly. What looks great today, in this fast moving society, might look totally different a year from now. Corporate investment funds are comparatively high risk funds and there is a price to be paid for taking that risk. Understand that increased profits are indicative of increased business, more inventories, more jobs and a healthy economy.
Warren Buffet does not create jobs. His corporations do.
More than this, Buffet does not live off his corporation's profitability. Are you under the impression that the rich live off corporate profits and have no personal income?!! Corporate profits are effected by inventory costs, profit and loss statements, salaries and benefits paid out, etc. The 15% you complain about, is a tax on doing business, not a tax on personal income. It is a business tax. You call corporate profit "income" as if all corporate profits, after the 15% tax, goes into the pockets of the greedy business owner and income. That is not true.
Buffet draws a $100,000 a year salary and pays 35% on that wage. He did not always make that paltry sum. But he cannot regard corporate profits as personal income.
A couple of more thoughts.
ReplyDeleteFirst, many, if not most corporations are taxed at 35%, not 15%. It is Obama who talks about a 15% tax, not the tax collector.
Secondly, in addition to the 35% corporate tax they pay, there are these taxes and fees, not assessed to an individual:
property tax, payroll tax, withholding tax, excise tax, customs duties, excise taxes, value added tax, environmental taxes, contributions to union legacy programs, state, county and local taxes. Add to these the cost of legal and accounting fees and you have the most repressive tax/fee system in the entire world.
Get a life if you think that the rich are not already paying "there fair share."
I will second your thanks for your civility. I don't think there is a lot of civility coming from either the left or the right. I respect your viewpoints and believe you have a much better grasp of the tax codes than I do. I am much younger than you and do not have as large a financial stake in the tax code.
ReplyDelete2 Things I would like to say about your response:
1. I am talking simply about capital gains taxes. Short term capital gains taxes shouldn't be any lower than regular income taxes. Short term capital gains are essentially gambling winnings. Those 3 and 4.6% discounts the rich get on short term capital gains would make it a lot easier to balance the budget. And then the 5% discount that most people make on long term capital gains would make an even larger dent. No one that wasn't investing in the 90s started investing in 2003 because of the Bush discount to rich investors.
I can't seem to find a reference about the current administration trying to raise corporate taxes. The only "tax increase" proposed are to close loop holes.
"The bulk of the payment comes from nearly $400 billion from limiting the deductions on charitable contributions and other items that wealthy people can take. There's also $40 billion from closing oil and gas loopholes, $18 billion from hiking taxes on certain income made by fund managers, and $3 billion from changing the tax treatment of corporate jets."
http://www.ktvl.com/articles/obama-1201635-democrats-republicans.html
2. So you argue that the 2001 recession was Clinton's and that TARP is Obama's. This sounds pretty clearly biased. How is the current recession not directly linked to Bush's economic policies? Bush turned a budget surplus into a deep dark financial hole for most of americans while the richest of the rich got richer. Cutting taxes, a huge expansion of government and 2 wars.
You call Obama's first stimulus payback (I'm assuming to the unions) but you make no mention of Bush's payback to wall street with deregulation and tax cuts and starting the Iraqi war. The Iraqi war that is a gleaming beacon for the Bush administration's moral bankruptcy and the greatest recruiting tool for terrorists around the world.
I guess my question for you would be who of the current Republican candidates do you support and why? I am personally very disillusioned with Obama. I feel like he has failed to live up to possibilities. I do commend him for attempting to move towards the middle because that is what most of America wants ultimately.
Interested in your thoughts and enjoying a healthy, reasonable debate.
There is a lot in your reply. Good stuff, for the most part. I do have to admit that I am confusing "corporate taxes," dividend payments," and capital gains. I think I had better slow down a bit, get that part of my discussion correct.
ReplyDeleteI did not reference Bush because I am only concerned about the excesses of Obama. Should Obama lose and the GOP becomes the "party of choice" for a season, I intend this blog to completely shift emphasis. 90% of what I will write will have to with the Establishment wing of the GOP. Obama has ceased to a partisan matter for me. I see him as dangerously inadequate and I believe that many on the Left are making the same decision(s), but for different reasons.
Look, you mentioned that you are a young fellow. I have kids ranging in age from 45 to 28. They were all "taken" by Obama. I told them this: "Understand that you are about to vote for Obama for the very same reasons I voted for Jimmy Carter, and I was your age at the time. Hope the outcome is different."
Within the next few days, I will publish a listing of the Bush bailouts. It will shock a good number of this readership. There was close to a dozen such programs, maybe more . . . . maybe a lot more -- I have only spent four or five hours on the project, so far.
As to my support for a particular candidate. Well, I have no clue. My preferences are either Paul Ryan or Marco Rubio. I am a T.E.A. member, united with others in the need to balance the budget. I believe that a balanced and well managed budget is the most compassionate thing we can do for the nation as a who. I am not pro-choice but I would never vote to change the law unless and until we have, in place, a workable alternative for dealing with the influx of 1.3 million unwanted children a year. The principle of "life" is not a separate issue, for me, from "quality of life."
I am perfectly willing to war for my freedoms but, if we are no longer willing to fight a war to win that war, we need to bring our troops home and hope the bad guys do not take advantage of us ("fat chance" on that one, right?).
I would be concerned that a Chris Christy would be busy telling the rest of us what he was going to do. We already have a guy like that in office.
I am not a fan of Ron Paul. Too much the isolationist.
Trump wants to start a trade war. I am 66 and know how those things turn out . . . . we always lose.
I actually like what Michele Bachmann has to say, but the Establishment GOP is out to put her down, and they are being successful in that effort. Too bad.
If Palin came into the race, she would have to have a heck of a plan, comprehensive and well designed. If she comes into the race without such a plan, her candidacy will be dead within 20 minutes of her announcement. She actually stands for just about everything that is politically important to me, but, again, she will have 20 minutes to get it right or else. I am a big fan. Hope she sees the critical nature of talking past "sound bites."
Romney is a business man and a politician. In that regard, I believe he would be great. But, I do not doubt that he is much more "establishment" than I prefer.
Perry has few bridges left to burn.
Huntsman is a brilliant fellow. He is not on the same page as I am on several of the social issues, but, again, he is a brilliant leader.
I have to tell you, ". . . .paul," if I were a Democrat (and I was until after I voted for Carter), I would be embarrassed with Obama. I know there are thousands of Democrats who find themselves shaking their heads, each and every day, and mumbling to themselves, "Now why did he go and do that !!"
Look at the mess he made of his CBC speech and the fire storm that is developing because of that. His lack of political instinct is what is most amazing to me.
Anyway, I will keep this last response in mind, and try to deal with some of your comments in my regular daily postings.
I, too, appreciate sincere debate.