Story Of Obama

Obama's Re-election Plan: Another Take

 

Is it really all that hard figure out it's the part I highlighted in red?

It's becoming quite clear "Why",you were duped into voting for obama in the first place.

 

I was laughing until I saw the expected tax bill I will be paying if he is re-elected.

I hope Romney has the brains to make that a t.v. advertisement.
It is an instant winner.

Even the liberals I know would not offer 3 grand more a month on 250,000 income. In fact being that I do short sales for people with assets... I can tell you many of the people with 250 income have a household with at least with one govt worker. Even the teachers wont vote for that. Its frequently a govt worker at 150 and a private worker at 100.

 

The majority at that level of income up to a million or so are small/medium size businesses, lawyers, doctors, retail shops, service businesses, restaurants, and so on. They tend to have their assets tied up in their businesses and they control the unemployment rate, especially for new and lower level, less educated workers. That's the crux of the matter: O has declared war on them for his own demagoguing reasons, with very negative repercussions for the whole economy.

 

http://www.dickmorris.com/obamas-second-term-tax-plans-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/

 

Very Scary: Half Pay No Taxes & A Third Don’t Work

http://www.dickmorris.com/half-pay-no-taxes-a-third-dont-work-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/

 

American Welfare System In Shambles

I received this email today, edited it just a little bit for readability... Can't vouch for all details, but the reasoning sounds true. Both Gingrich and Romney have been talking about the same phenomenon. They propose to change welfare again, back to how it was redefined in the Chlinton years, under pressure from the Republican Congress. Welfare should be temporary, given out under extreme conditions and handled by the States who receive block grants from the federal Government. Last year, Obama switched out of that system and took us back into the morass we have today, with huge amounts of money given to people seemingly without any control. Plus, the wrong life philosophy is being embedded deep into our economic and social fabric.

This is not to say that we don't need a well crafted, strong social safety net, especially for children and the elderly. BUT, just watch out, think carefully, what another hears is often not what you meant, especially where money and work are concerned.

"An emergency room physician told me that a woman in her late 20's came to the ER today with her 8th pregnancy. She told the first doctor she saw: "My Mama told me that I am the breadwinner for the family." He asked her to explain. She said that she can make babies, and babies get money from the State for the family. It goes like this:

The Grandma calls the Department of Child & Family Services, and states that the unemployed daughter is not capable of caring for all of her kids. DCFS agrees, and tells her the children will need to go into foster care. The Grandma then volunteers to be the foster parent, and receives a check for $1500 per child each month in Illinois. Total yearly income: $144,000 tax-free and nobody has to go to work!

In fact, they get more if there is no husband/father/man in the home! Not to mention free healthcare (Medicaid), plus a monthly card entitling them to free groceries and a voucher for 250 free Obamaphone minutes each month. This does not include WIC and other welfare benefits...that they are "entitled" to. Indeed, Grandma was correct that her fertile daughter is the "breadwinner" for the family.

This is how the liberal politicians spend our tax dollars. When this generous program was invented in the '60s, the Great Society architects forgot to craft an end date... and now we are hopelessly overrun with people who vote only for those who will continue to keep them on the dole.... No wonder our country is broke!

Worse, the Muslims have been paying attention, and by mandating that each Muslim family have eleven children, they will soon replace the voting bloc above and can be running this country within 25 years. Read the above again, until it sinks in, and then ask yourself if your Children, Grandchildren, and Great Grandchildren will survive these severe changes to America!!!

Are You alarmed yet? Is anybody listening? Don't forget to pay your taxes! There are a lot of "breadwinners" depending on you!""

 

Buffett Rule's Deceitful Consequences
by Richard W. Rahn - Washington Times, April 16, 2012

Do you think it is more important to have a tax policy that raises the most revenue at the least cost in order to maximize job growth and economic opportunity or to have a tax policy like the Buffett rule, which falsely claims it would make all millionaires pay a higher tax rate than their secretaries?

President Obama released his tax return last week, showing he had an effective rate of a little more than 20 percent of his income, even though he is rich by his own definition. One of major ways the Obamas were able to reduce their tax rate was by giving away 22 percent of their income to charity, which I applaud. But their actions raise several interesting points. The president’s actions illustrate how people have the ability largely to determine their own tax rate both by the amount of money they choose to give away and the types of investments they choose to make.

When we donate money to a charity, church or some other worthy cause, we are allowed a tax deduction, which means the government gets less of our money. The president and many in his party keep telling us that the government needs more money, but if they believe this, why are they taking charitable deductions? I expect the reason is that most of us implicitly believe (for good empirical reasons) that private charities and other tax-exempt groups spend our money more wisely and carefully than the government.

Do a thought experiment. Assume rather than just being able to take a tax deduction for your contributions to qualified nonprofit organizations, you could take a tax credit. That is, you would get a dollar deduction in your income tax liability for each dollar you chose to give away. Assume you make $50,000 a year and after you calculate your tax liability you find you owe $10,000, or 20 percent. But then you have the choice of paying some or all of it to the government or some or all of it to nonprofit organizations. How much would you send to the government and how much to nongovernmental organizations? How much do you think your friends and family would send to organizations other than the government?

The federal government is spending about 24 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). Most of it goes for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other entitlement programs. The “discretionary” portion of the budget equals about 9 percent of GDP, with about half going for defense. Until 1930, the federal government normally spent less than 4 percent of GDP, except for the periods during World War I and the Civil War. The Constitution gives the federal government very few tasks for which it is required to spend money — the big item being the “common defense.” Again, up until 1930, the courts forced the federal government to live largely within the confines of the Constitution. Deducting defense spending from the federal budgets before 1930 shows that the federal government lived perfectly well on 2 percent to 3 percent of GDP for the first 140 years of the republic.

What all of this means is that approximately three-quarters of all federal government spending is not required by — and often is contrary to — the Constitution. So we should be asking ourselves: Are there any better and less damaging ways to accomplish what government is claiming to do for us? The answer, of course, is yes. Think tanks and others have produced many serious documents and books about how the private sector can do almost everything better than the public sector.

All of which gets us back to the Buffett millionaires’ surtax. Even the official government scorekeeper, the Congressional Budget Office, says the tax would only bring in a minuscule amount of revenue. Also, private tax economists, using dynamic models rather than government models that fail to account for all the changes in behavior, find the tax would be a big revenue loser. So the president and his allies have largely switched their argument to one of “fairness” and reducing the disparity in income distribution. They are never willing to define why 30 percent or any other number is “fair,” nor are they able to explain why people who work harder and contribute more should be taxed at a higher rate.

Even if the Buffett tax ever passes, it was crafted by members of Congress to hit few of their own. Very rich members of Congress, such as Sens. John F. Kerry and John D. Rockefeller IV, receive much of their income from tax-exempt state and local bonds and from trust funds, which largely avoid the tax. Members of Congress generally are restricted from entrepreneurial activities. So, of course, they have decided to increase the tax on entrepreneurs — the capital gains tax — which is a tax on becoming rich, not a tax on being rich.

Most people, such as students, are relatively poor by government methodology when they are young but rise through the income ranks as they become more productive and experienced and then fall in relative income as they near and enter retirement, even though they may have considerable net wealth. By increasing the tax on capital gains and marginal rates, the government makes it more difficult to move into higher income brackets, thus actually reducing income-class mobility.

Those who support the Buffett millionaires’ surtax as written reveal themselves either to be economically ignorant or to believe the voters are fools who will not see through their destructive games.

 

Obama Launches More Realistic 'I Have Big Ideas But We'll See How It Goes' Campaign Slogan
www.theonion.com April 18, 2012

Obama lays out his bold immigration policy, and then lays out the shell of a compromised immigration plan he’ll get if he’s lucky.

CHICAGO—After coming to terms with the limited scope of what he can realistically expect to accomplish as president, Barack Obama announced Wednesday a new, more practical campaign slogan that will serve as the cornerstone for his 2012 reelection bid: "I Have Big Ideas But We'll See How It Goes."

"My fellow citizens, I stand here today to tell you that, if given a second term, I have very big plans for our nation's future," Obama said during a rally at Chicago's Navy Pier. "Ambitious, forward-thinking plans I will have to drastically scale down based on opinion polls, budget considerations, and political roadblocks, but, you know, I'll see what I can do. No promises, though."

"More than likely I'll have to placate political rivals until my bold agenda is a shell of what it once was." Obama added. "And that's what the 'We'll See' campaign is all about. Now let us go boldly forth and compromise our ideals."

Saying he intends to give certain initiatives a shot but that it's not looking very good, Obama cited lasting bipartisanship cooperation in Congress, birth-control coverage for all women, and an affordable college education for every citizen as concrete examples of ridiculous ideas that Americans need to put out of their minds, because, according to the president, "We're not living in a fantasyland here."

Instead, Obama said he hopes to rally voters behind causes like holding teachers accountable for student performances "while remembering tenure provisions that protect terrible educators from getting fired," imposing a surtax on millionaires "unless of course Republicans fight me really hard, which, in that case, what are you going to do," and an economic stimulus bill to fund new infrastructure that "doesn't have a chance in hell of passing but sure would be nice."

"Think of the America within our reach: a nation of entrepreneurs and innovators and dreamers capable of making big plans that will eventually be crushed by acrimonious gridlock," Obama said to smattering applause. "That's the future I see for America, because, let's be honest, that's just how it's always going to be."

"Then again, you never know," Obama continued, "If 50 or 60 key people die, there's a chance some of my policy ideas might at least make it past various Senate and House committees. Fingers crossed."

According to top campaign strategist David Axelrod, the new slogan's message may sideline older themes like hope and change, but it allows Obama to portray himself as the sensible candidate who can think big, back off that thought because it has no chance of actually happening, and then settle for something nowhere near as exciting.

Axelrod said the slogan was chosen after a brainstorming session that saw the coining of such phrases as "Change We Can Believe In If We Critically Redefine The Term," "Hope Within The Boundaries Of Common Sense And Lowered Expectations," and "Look, Any Guy You Vote Into Office Is Going To Face The Same Bullshit Problems Every President—Democrat Or Republican—Has Faced For Decades, So It Might As Well Be Me: Obama 2012."

"'Yes We Can' really resonated with citizens because they needed hope," said Axelrod, who was wearing a 'We'll See' button that depicts a subdued President Obama weighing two options, both of which, Axelrod confirmed, are less than ideal. "'I Have Big Ideas But We'll See How It Goes' resonates because people have been beaten down and know they shouldn't get their hopes up in terms of the country improving."

Many pundits have already condemned the new slogan, saying that while its language may capture the spirit of the political moment, its rhetoric is too optimistic.

"On the one hand, the slogan works because it avoids using overly presumptive words like 'win,' 'tomorrow,' 'future,' or 'better,'" Politico's chief White House correspondent Mike Allen said. "But using a phrase like 'We'll See' is also misleading, because it implies there is a slight possibility that something could happen. Unfortunately, voters need to realize that, at this point, nothing they could ever envision for the future—and I seriously mean nothing—has any chance of ever becoming a reality."