https://www.forefieldkt.com/kt/htmlnl.aspx?type=fca&id=28&mid=134251&iplf=tv&ciid=512454&emailid=c7aa898d-9722-4276-8e48-258adaf1e5be I guess the 1% starts with a married couple who earn $250,000 I put this up for your info, if you think others may be interested in this information, pass it on. I am not making a political statement here, I am just passing on information that I think other people may be interested in having.
Tag: Taxes
Wrong math?
Thank you to the commenter who corrected my math by pointing out that we pay taxes on income so that if Senator Lautenberg increased his taxes to 55 % of income then he would still be richer year after year. The writer also commented that I probably pay too much taxes. I might, but I am comfortable with taxes as they are now because I actually do feel that taxes are a requirement for living in this great and wonderful USA. However, I don’t like giving the government additional powers over my life, and taxes are one way for governments to exert power. It may not be one persons fault, Obama, because under our present understanding of government, taxes are used to employ people. These many millions in positions of government authority want job security and for them taxes on everybody so that they can be government employees may seem the right thing. This includes pensioners and Social Security and Disability recipients. But I do not think of employment as a primary objective of taxes. I think that we need to limit government’s control over the individual and that includes the wealthiest among us. Specifics? Actually, I could list mine and say that I am right. But then, you would list the opposite position and say it is right. So, there is an impasse. However, at least for now, we still have a Congress and an independent judiciary and both are benevolent. So my fears are allayed and I am secure. But I will remain vigilant to safeguard the freedoms enjoyed in the USA. And granted, nothing, even freedom, can be absolute. But any curtailment should be through vibrant and even very robust public debate with the decisions made in open meetings, (no back room politics please) and with a rule that the separation of powers be not only respected but demanded by the electorate. A long way from wrong math? Yes, but my stream of consciousness writing style took me there. And such fault, if it be a fault, is not Obama’s and not George Bush’s. It’s mine!
Senators Are Old and Wealthy
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/09/lautenberg_frelinghuysen_among.html This article points us to two facts, the Senator from New Jersey is very wealthy and 88 years old. I am not prejudice against either situation. I want to get old and be healthy as is Senator Lautenberg and I want to be a 48 millionaire like him. To his credit, the Senator made his money by hard work, entrepreneurial acumen and vision. Very good qualities indeed and ones to be held up for imitation. However, the Democrat President Obama has declared class warfare against the wealthy. In his book he speaks forcefully against the avarice and greed of white Americans. In his public statement Democrat Obama has spoken repeatedly against the wealthy saying that they must be taxed a lot more, their tax-free foundations abolished and their tax exemptions closed. But does Senator Lautenberg agree and does it matter if he does. I should think that people like the Senator are needed in the private sector to create companies like ADP and to lead job creation. That is not done by Senators voting on Gay marriage and Pro Abortion and trade bills that make America less competitive in our world. If he agrees with Obama and the so-called Buffet rule then he should voluntarily write very big checks to the US government and I would suggest, renounce his pay, perks, and pension for surely he needs none of them. But does he agree that the wealthy are to be maligned and that a federal policy of “leveling the playing field” would best benefit the nation? Well, let’s just say that as a very liberal Democrat who seems to wholeheartedly support the Obama agenda, Senator Lautenberg writes an additional 20% check to the IRS. So we take 48 million and reduce it by 9.6 million. How much is left? Let’s round it to 38 million. Can Mr. Lautenberg live on that. Yes, he can. So the next year he does it again. This time the check will be for 7.6 million bring him down to 30 million. Next year it is 6 million bring him down to 24 million. Then it is 4.8 million bring him to 19. Then it is 3.8 leaving 15 million. Then to 3 million making him a twelve millionaire. Senator Lautenberg may agree to such a reduction in his wealth but it would still be a private matter and he would end up after a mere six years as only 1/4 of what he had to start. Some readers will say,”good.”! But should that process be applied to all people with over 250 thousand dollars in wealth? Should it be applied to your bank account or stock fund or 401 K or inheritance? If it is good for one, say Senator Lautenberg, then it should be fair to apply it to everybody. So, the question is, Are you willing to be worth only 1/4 of what you are worth today. Now, philosophically, you may say “Yes.”. But remember, Senator Lautenberg still ends up with 12 million. If it is you, what do you end up with? I will not do the math for you but I will suggest that although the formula is the same, you, at 250 thousand, will end up with not enough to pay for you childs junior college in state tuition. So there is a difference.
Class Warfare Proven-Obama Phony Ploy
http://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-rich-taxed-less-secretaries-070642868.html
In order for US Citizens to take care of themselves, they need accurate reporting by the US Press Corp. However, it is evident that much of the News media are favorable toward President Obama and therefore they report the news with a prejudice in favor of the President’s position. Until Now. During the last month this writer observes that the News Media in USA have matured enough to be fair to the American public. This article, which exposes the faulty claims made by President Obama concerning his new tax the Rich scheme..that the facts do not support his claim. It seems that Rep. Paul Ryan’s claim that the Obama Jobs bill and recent Tax claims are nothing more than “…trying to set up a class warfare in USA in order to get himself re elected.
Romney Experienced Businessman
The key point and it was really a big one was made about Romney. He has been and is a successful businessman. Now many people want to bash the businessman. Obama wants to make them all equal to the worker and “level the playing field” plus Obama is setting up a class warfare based on money earned which is destructive of business in America. Romney has business experience, he has a good respect for and strong support among the business community. He is pro business. That means he is in favor of creating American jobs. The government’s hiring is like the Transportation Security Administration. They are “thousands standing around”…what in the world did these people do before they were hired by the taxpayer to search travelers?… actually they do not search they merely watch you…Anyway, TSA employees, citizens all, and assuredly good and fine citizens, but they do not produce anything. They provide a service, which is to watch me as I pass thru the metal detector…but they have no product…nothing is created…and what we need is business jobs that consume resources like metal and rubber and food and turn it into something else like a boat or a plane or a hot dog…Romney understands government because he was the governor of a populous Eastern State, and he understands business, and this combination of executive experience plus government service and his detailed jobs creation plan, makes him the nominee in my book
The Price of Food Skyrockets
While President Obama is playing politics with our future, the price of food at the supermarket is climbing. While Obama is playing games with our tax future by pretending to tax only the rich, he is actually increasing the amount of money out of everybody’s pocket. While Obama is taxing us 400 billion for his help the Unions job plan, the same Unions plan on spending billions of dues collected from these tax payer funded union jobs. On What will they spend the collected dues? They will spend the tax funded dues to campaign for the election of Obama to a second term. Then he can propose to tax us again to kept the union workers working while the rest of us lose our jobs, take a pay cut in the form of higher taxes. Or if he actually does get elected, and the Republicans lose control of the House of Representatives, we will see the USA enter the final death crisis of a bankrupt economy that has printed too much money, owes foreign nations too much interest and a country that has regulated and taxed its citizens into perpetual poverty.
Buffet Wants You to Pay More Taxes
http://news.yahoo.com/stop-coddling-super-rich-buffett-084140678.html He may be a billionire willing to pay more taxes. He may also want every other billionaire to pay more taxes. But by his assumption that by taxing the SUPER Rich we can solve the trillions of dollars of deficit, he forgets to tell you one very important factor. The tax code does not single out JUST the super rich. It is an across the spectrum system. Therefore, when a deduction is removed for the so called super rich, it is removed for everybody all the way down the line. And when new taxes are imposed on the so-called super rich, they are imposed on everybody down the line. A person like Buffet has to be living in the heady clouds of eighty year old super billionaires to imagine that the Federal government is merely going to target the super rich. Instead, the will use the so-called super rich as a cover up to reach into the pockets of every working American in order to fund their derelict spending. If Buffet and his ilk want to, let them send a check to the IRS as a donation to the cause. But why does he insist that a person making three hundred thousand, (note that his taxes were almost seven BILLION) – why does he insist that a person making three or even five hundred thousand must pay up and pay more? You know it is nice when your neighbor says that it is YOU who should pay more. It is really easy for the other guy to point to the fellow next to him and say, “He should pay more.” My dad, who made about two hundred fifty a week maximum, and was forced out of business at age 56 without a pension or health insurance, always was very suspicious of people like Buffet who tell the government to tax more. He told me that the super rich indeed would only pay one of two percent more and that it would not hurt them at all, but, dad would say, the Feds will also trickle down that tax until I too am paying more and the effect will be that the super rich lose a percent but I lose fifty dollars and that fifty dollars is a lot more valuable to me than the percent is to them. He would say, “Hey, friend, keep your hand out of my pocket.”
Who Pays for Air Force One?
How much does it cost the Federal Budget each time President Obama uses Air Force One to attend a political fundraiser? I do not want to be petty. I do understand that the President has every right to use Air Force One and Marine One for Government and even some personal business, like going on vacation. However, do we really need to pay for the President’s constant use of Air Force One as his personal private jet? This is especially an issue when the President criticizes all the Corporation heads who use Private Jets. At least with them such use creates jobs at American private airports, American Jet manufacturing plants like Gulfstream, and employs American mechanics, etc. But what does the President’s use of Air Force One produce when he uses it for a local metropolitan fundraiser? Gridlock and shutdown. And, of course, overtime pay for State uniformed employees, who are paid with our tax dollars!
Speaker Boehner is the Right Man for a Time Such as This
Share:
<!–
–>
As the
Aug. 2 debt-ceiling deadline looms, we should applaud House Speaker John Boehner
for standing firm and not being rolled over by those in the White House and
their media campaign.
Aug. 2 debt-ceiling deadline looms, we should applaud House Speaker John Boehner
for standing firm and not being rolled over by those in the White House and
their media campaign.
Boehner has not yielded to demands for new taxes
and reducing spending cuts. Nor has he acquiesced to demands that the president
be given carte blanche to raise the debt ceiling in the future.
 |
| Boehner |
Ever since the GOP
took control of the House, the president’s approach has been, at worst, one of
willful opposition to new ideas and, at best, simple indifference to fixing the
nation’s problems. Obama and his spin machine now say they need a debt ceiling
agreed to through the next election. Giving him this may not be wise. The debt
ceiling has served as a mighty lever to bring Obama to the table.
Make
no mistake about it — Obama is not Bill Clinton. Obama doesn’t believe in
compromise. When Clinton was faced with a new Republican Congress in 1995, he
did a 180-degree turn on many of his agenda items. He embraced Republican ideas
like massive welfare reform and even slashed capital gains taxes. The system of
give and take and compromise worked and propelled the nation into economic
prosperity.
Compare that to today: The president seems to want it his
way or no way.
Perhaps politics is playing a big role here. Obama is
trying to placate his liberal base, which is angry with him. He won the last
election by promising radical changes in foreign policy, especially when it came
to U.S. policy toward Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran. He defeated Hillary Clinton
largely on these issues.
Frankly, since coming to office, Obama has
gravitated to the center on foreign policy and has done a fairly good job in
that arena. He has kept seasoned veterans in key positions and his recent moves
of Gen. David Petraeus to the CIA, and Leon Panetta, former CIA director, to the
Defense Department, were brilliant.
No longer able to play the
foreign policy card as he did during the campaign, the president has been
focusing on those “evil House Republicans” to keep the liberals
happy.
One hot-button issue for his base is taxes. The president wants to
prove to his liberal base he’s going to go after the wealthy and make them pay.
The problem is that the economy cannot handle new taxes. Speaker Boehner
is to be commended for arguing three simple points: 1. The debt ceiling should
not be raised to allow the president a free ride until after the 2012 election.
2. There should be no additional “revenues” or tax increases. 3. There needs to
be serious spending cuts.
For the most part these spending cuts are not
immediate cuts to the federal budget, but are cuts to the rate of growth of
government, a sensible approach taken by both Ronald Reagan and Clinton that
dramatically improved the country’s finances during the 1980s and ’90s.
Nevertheless, Obama is dead set on new taxes. The Democrats have claimed
that such tax increases could be made by closing corporate loopholes and making
the tax system more fair for everyone.
At first glance, it seems like a
positive idea. But the net effect of this effort, advocated in the Gang of Six’s
plan, is to raise taxes over by an additional $1 trillion in new taxes. This tax
money will be taken from the private sector and moved into government accounts.
Such a move would be counterproductive. First, new taxes will only help
stall the economic recovery. Second, the economy desperately needs new stimulus,
not new taxes.
Obama and his advisers must know this. His 2009 stimulus
plan was not well planned out and only did half the job. True, it kept the
economy from falling off the cliff. At the same time his stimulus, focused on
keeping government employees at work, never gave the economy the appropriate
lift that it needed.
Republicans favor tax cuts, and I believe they
would likely do a deal for more of them.
If Obama did deal — let’s say
for a one-year holiday suspension of the FICA tax for all workers and small
businesses, it would mean more than $600 billion in additional stimulus
immediately put into the economy over the next 12 months.
This would not
only re-energize the entire U.S. economy, it would finally signal a move by
Obama to the center in a powerful way, helping to pave the way for his
re-election.
Can Obama be so bold? As the debt crisis has demonstrated,
the president is preoccupied by his party’s liberal base. The truth is they have
nowhere to go in the next election.
Instead, Obama should follow
Boehner’s path, a pragmatic approach, one that keeps the United States solvent
for now and for years to come.© Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Read more on
Newsmax.com: Boehner
Stands Firm
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama’s Re-Election? Vote Here Now!
Progressive Politics 