Obama uses such hate speech reflexively -- until he is forced to back off by a reference to reality:
"One need not follow Democratic politics too carefully to hear who the bad guys are. They are often singled out as a specific class, with the phrases "wealthy Americans" or "the wealthiest of Americans." This happens most frequently when Democrats, refusing to acknowledge that taxes were cut earlier this decade for all Americans (the poor and the middle class included), decry the so-called "tax-cuts for the wealthy." But the assailants are also described in other broad, collective terms and phrases, and here`s a brief list: "corporate America;" "business owners;" "big oil;" "Wall Street;" "executives," "pharmaceutical companies;" "CEO`s," "companies that outsource jobs;" and "mortgage lenders."
The most subtle, and perhaps the most damaging outcome of this rhetoric, is that ignores the human toil, risk, sacrifice, discipline, and determination that is required for a person to become a business owner, or an executive, or to operate a pharmaceutical company or be a mortgage lender or to participate in global trade. Call it "class warfare," or "the politics of envy." It is the left's most acceptable form of "hate speech," and it is turning the discontent and fearful in our society against the people and principles that enable economic opportunity for all.
And now, back to Obama. He's had enormous political success with this rhetoric, especially in front of college students and blue-collar manufacturing workers. But then he sat down for a live interview with Maria Bartiromo, Anchor at the CNBC Cable TV financial news channel, and things went quite differently. Roughly half-way into the interview, Bartiromo asked Obama about how high he might like to raise the capital gains tax above its current rate of 15%. Obama explained that he has consulted on this issue with Warren Buffet and "others," and he has been told that a cap gains tax rate of 20 - 25% would not "distort economic decision making" (whatever this means)."But it's not just the Warren Buffets of the world who own stocks" Bartiromo replied.
"Of course not" Obama responded.
"..Let's hypothetically say that.cap gains goes from 15% to 25%..you're impacting a lot of people.a hundred million Americans own stocks today."
"Absolutely" exclaimed Obama. "So it's not just the rich." "No, no no, absolutely" Obama insisted. "And that's why I think that..uh...for example..you could structure something in which people with certain incomes were exempted from this increase.."
Find the video or transcript and get the full story yourself. The point here is simple: "the politics of envy" works great on the campaign trail, but as fiscal policy it threatens to harm all Americans, and is ultimately untenable. Obama even conveyed to Bartiromo the possibility that taxes might not be raised at all, depending on what the nation's economic conditions might be next year when he hypothetically would begin his Presidency. Obama had to back-away from his own rhetoric when he was put to the test.
Source
4 comments:
Someone needs to remind these demagogues that the poor won't hire anyone because they can't afford to pay wages.
Every dollar taken from the rich is no longer available for them to spend on items that would result in employment for others, is no longer available to be spent as wages in hiring others and is no longer available to invest in companies so they'll have the money to hire more people.
Furthermore, those very rich people have the ability to raise prices to ensure they receive the amount of money they expect to receive even after they've been taxed so increasing the taxes they pay is the same as increasing the tax on the poor. ALL taxes are ALWAYS paid by those who don't have the power to avoid the consequences. The "rich" make a great target but they're never the ones who actually pay. No wonder that Warren Buffet doesn't worry about paying more taxes.
Longview
My company just paid a failed CEO 55+ million in severece and just announced he would receive a monthly salary of 84+K (He now has a position that pays him 400+K annually). In addition, I have not received a raise in years that actually beat inflation. One more thing, no raises for '08.
I consider myself an Independent but this is getting ridiculous the growing gap between the middle class and the upper class.
Obama, like so many is part of the "wealthy" and has no idea the impact of decisions made by our elected officials and CEO's on the average worker.
They talk about the rich, look at thier income... If they were so concerned about ensuring the "poor" got enough money, they would donate all their money to the "poor"
"My company just paid a failed CEO 55+ million in severece"
---I know things like that make people angry, but most folks don't realize all the hoops you have to jump to become CEO. It's extremely tough, even with an MBA there's no guarantees. So, if someday I become CEO, I will expect a huge golden parachute in case I get fired.
In the end, a company that doesn't give employees raises, bonuses and all kinds of perks will have problems retaining employees.
And let's remember something, nobody said life was fair. At my former ad agency, every time we won an account the employees got nothing. Only the two bosses where able to reap the benefits. No wonder we where pissed off, we where working nights and weekends and never got rewarded for our efforts.
Now I hear a senior art director making $65,000 a year has been fired so they can hire some creative director that's gonna make $100,000 or more a year. It's that fair? That AD killed himself for the company, sometimes he would leave work to spend time with his family and come back at 8 or 9 or 11 to continue working. Frankly, I don't care what CEO's make but every industry should have a union. Want me to work weekends? Pay me extra. Want me to work nights? Pay me. Want me to carry tables or do things not in my job description? Pay me.
Post a Comment