13 March 2008

Clinton, Obama Think Anyone Making $31,850 on Up is Too Wealthy, Seeking Fatalistic Economic Policies

How else can you describe their ignorant and economy killing votes to raise taxes on everyone in the United States who makes over $31,850? How they can even defend that position in the face of their campaigning along the lines of "middle-class tax cuts" and "rollback" the tax breaks that were for the "top 1%." Utterly unbelievable. They're already breaking their campaign promises and declaring war on everyone in America. I defy you to find me someone who lives in the Megaopolis making $31,850 and is on their own and is doing very well. Just show me one.

Obama and Clinton both promise to reverse Bush's tax cuts for wealthier
taxpayers, but the Democratic budget they'll be voting for would allow
income tax rates to go up on individuals making as little as $31,850
and couples earning $63,700 or more.


That's a 12% tax increase for those in the that modest bracket. The definitions of wealthy are much more gray than the Democrats realize, or if they do, are simply lying. $50,000 in some places is a great deal of money, in others, it is not. This is the folly of the direct tax and the tax code in general. That's going to be an extremely difficult hit to swallow. Even as inflation keeps creeping up they will do even more to decrease the amount of real wages that Americans will have their disposal. Let's say for example that the inflation rate in 2010 will be 3% and work gives you a 4% raise. You're up 1%, which isn't necessarily a good thing, obviously you'd want to be much higher. Now let's say the Democrats get away with allowing our lower tax rates to revert to a higher rate and you're in that tax bracket that starts at $31,850. Well, your 1%-3% (the amount of the pay taken, not the 12% increase in actual dollars taken, which is in and of itself, insane) is now a net of LOSING 2% of your pay. This is an economic recipe for success? This is the path the Democrats seek to go down? Even worse, the subprime crisis will a blip on the radar when the investment rates skyrocket and Americans will no longer sell stocks due to an insane capital gains rate, foreign investments coming into the United States and US investors money getting great gains overseas, will drop dramatically. Protectionist policies that are tactically employed by the Democrats will provide another rib breaking punch to the economy. Also keep in mind that the Democrats are killing the efforts in Congress to put just a 1 year, not a lifetime ban as it should be, but a 1 year ban on earmarks.

Opponents of "pork barrel" projects expected to lose a late-night vote
to ban such earmarks for a year, despite the endorsement of all three
presidential candidates.


All three presidential candidates endorsed it? Really, then why is Harry Reid nearly single handedly blocking this effort and taking the insane position that somehow the Founding Fathers would have shed their blood to protect pork?

As we look back in history, the Founding Fathers would be cringing to
hear people talking about eliminating earmarks
,” Reid said, noting that
the Founders dictated in the Constitution that all spending should
originate in Congress, not the executive branch.


Got that? Understand what he's saying? The FOUNDING FATHERS WOULD HAVE DEFENDED THE ABUSE OF GOVERNMENT FUNDS IN THE FORM OF KICKBACKS AND PET PROJECTS? Is he one the biggest slime balls in America today or what? The Founding Fathers would have railed against this insanity and would NEVER have allowed this to happen in the first place.

This should also illustrate just how badly Obama and Clinton are lying. They want to be the leaders of the NATION and yet can't even get HARRY REID, A MEMBER OF THEIR OWN PARTY TO EVEN ALLOW A VOTE ON A BILL THEY SUPPOSEDLY SUPPORT? What kind of leadership is that? That type of leadership wouldn't get you elected head of work study group, let alone leader of the free world. Appeasing the base is just what the Democrats are good at, and there is plenty of Republicans who have been doing the same thing. However, John McCain, in this respect is excellent:

Obama joined with other lawmakers last year to obtain almost $100 million worth of earmarks for Illinois. Clinton worked with others to win $342 million in pet projects for New York and Pelosi obtained $94 million for California.
...
McCain is among only six members of the Senate who don't ask for pet projects.


Only six, I know one of the other members is my favorite Sen. Tom Coburn. It's sad really. So McCain wasted and swindled $0 from the tax payers, Obama wasted and swindled $100,000,000 from the tax payers, and Clinton wasted and swindled $342,000,000 from the tax payers. Unreal. The economy can not withstand the type of "leadership" that the Democrats can provide.

You may also want to read up on the debacle that is the farm bill that Democrats have crafted up and just how horrible it will be for this nation. I can't even stomach writing more on their ineptitude and economic destroying policies at this point.

-Caomhin


Technorati Tags: , , , , , ,

1 comment:

Marwick said...

I agree. I linked to you. Need to get the word out on this. People forget that the Bush tax cuts went all the way down to the lower tax brackets. In addition, millions were taken off the tax roles altogether!