There's probably more truth in your conclusion than Obama would admit. I expect that to be the case, and I understand that it will cost me. That's one reason I'm pissed at Bush & Co., which has created the very resentment and disgust that will make soaking the rich (and all who are merely relatively affluent) an acceptable and indeed expected response by the successor administration. George, Dick, & Co. simply have ignored a basic rule of the game, which is this: You never favor your supporters so blatantly that the successor has too much cause for payback. But payback it'll be, don't doubt it for a minute. If you believe Obama means increased taxes for only those who earn more than 250k, you likely are in for an unhappy surprise. The idea that the disparities of the last eight years can be righted by burdening only uber elite income brackets is nonsense. My guess is that taxes under Obama will be heavier for just about everyone above even a median income measure.
He admitted it: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/16/us/politics/16text-debate.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin
Isn't Charlie Rangle Chairman of Ways and Means. A black guy? Pretty powerful eh? No discussion of a draft? Wow, you really got me on that one. Really main stream, and really current NOT! I'm sorry, but in the trading business we have to deal with reality and stay current. c
MR. GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected? SENATOR OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness. The Obama supporters on this trading website are silent. Either they are hoping it won't be so bad or they have no capital gains ever. Deep brain psychosis. Why would any productive American support higher capital gains? Tax revenue drops, none of the poor will be helped, but it's supposed to make someone feel better knowing that someone that might make a billion will pay more in tax, although there is negative economic consequences that ends up hurting everyone even the nonproductive. SENATOR OBAMA: I also want to make sure that our tax system is fair and that we are able to finance health care for Americans who currently don't have it and that we're able to invest in our infrastructure and invest in our schools. If taxes are raised and tax revenue drops, how will health care be financed? You don't need to know the facts when you have cocky ignorance and the media behind you - Thomas Sowell, an African Real American columnist commenting on Obama.
I agree COMPLETELY! This is actually my biggest problem with Obama. His economic policies are completely retarded. He does not care! AND he would have a very liberal Congress to rubber stamp this shit. I hope they'd feel good about themselves as we bring in less tax revenue, and billions, if not trillions in investment capital flees overseas where most cap gains are very low now. Not even remotely similar to the 80's. Obama downright scares me when he says he does not care about revenue effects, just as long as its fair! Liberals will point to the absurd spending under Bush and state how thats pretty retarded economically. TRUE. Would be far worse under Obama however. BTW, the spending has been WORSE under the democratic congress. Only congress authorizes spending. Obama or Mac would spend too much, but Mac would spend less. Its a start. Lessor of 2 evils so to speak. (but they both suck).