The American Spectator : Obama, Obviously

Text Size

Obama, Obviously

By R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. on 11.5.09 @ 6:08AM

Knowing what we've known all along, how could the Democrats not have been routed on election day?

WASHINGTON -- What strikes me about politics over the last couple of years is how obvious it all has been. In 2008, as the junior senator from Illinois campaigned across the country demonstrating his gifts as a motivational speaker and community organizer, all one had to do was review his recent life to know that he was about to bring down on the country -- ever so incompetently -- the most left-wing government in American history. And so he has -- with the utmost incompetence. Think of the paucity of swine flu vaccine, in large part the consequence of his government's meddling with production.

As I say, it was all so obvious. No president in modern times has come to power with less political experience and less managerial experience. On the other hand, no president has come to power with a clearer record of political extremism. Senator Barack Obama had the most left-wing voting record in the Senate, brief as his record was. Back in Illinois he had a record of associations with extremists that would have sunk any other presidential candidate. Think of his friendship with Bill Ayers, a co-founder of the Weather Underground that actually bombed public buildings in the 1960s. Think of Obama's attendance week after week at religious services where the Rev. Jeremiah Wright thundered forth with diatribes lilting with such lines as "God damn America." The radical direction of the Obama presidency was foreordained.

As for this week's electoral setbacks for Obama, they too were obviously in the cards. The economy is wobbling out of a recession that it should have been emerging from months ago. Yet how could it, with business utterly bemused by the Democrats' plans for the future? Small businesses, the source of most job expansion, are not hiring, and they are unlikely to when faced with the staggering debt that the Democrats have built up, the entrepreneurs' awareness of the entitlement crisis facing the country, and their apprehensions over how they are going to fund health insurance for their present employees once the Democrats have saddled them with the trillion-dollar healthcare monstrosity. Right now the economic future facing the country is stagnation or perhaps 1970s stagflation.

With that in mind, was it not obvious that the Democrats would be routed this election year? The loss of the governorship in Virginia was not supposed to happen, according to liberals a year ago. The Prophet Obama's campaign manager, David Plouffe, spoke of Virginia as part of a "permanent Democratic majority." In New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine with his vast fortune, elite Democratic connections, and a huge Democratic margin in the voting roll was seen as an easy win. But then the economy did what one would expect a weak economy to do when faced with unprecedented peacetime spending and onerous new taxation. It sputtered. Next came another obvious development: the electorate put the economy at the top of its list of concerns.

Solidly Democratic New Jersey and "purple" Virginia voted for Republicans. In New Jersey 89% of the citizenry were primarily worried about the economy. In Virginia the figure was 85%. Reportedly the President did not stay up to watch the returns. I can understand why. He has not a clue as to how to solve his underlying economic problems other than resort to motivational speaking and community organizing. That will not get the economy growing again -- and his dark murmurings about Wall Street will only hurt his fundraising. Something like 60% of Wall Street's political donations regularly go to the Democrats.

The enormous debt that the Democrats have burdened this economy with will not disappear over the next several years. Of late, it is nice to hear that the President is worried about that debt, but he has not a clue as to how to reduce it. His only answer is to tax the rich. Yet as the Wall Street Journal pointed out this week, "if Congress had confiscated 100% of the taxable income of people earning over $500,000 in the boom year of 2006, it would only raise $1.3 trillion." And in the years that followed, these rich people would be claiming less income and the federal debt would resume its growth. The answer to our financial problem is to cut federal spending and to cut federal taxes. That is how we got the economy going in the 1980s and it grew for a generation. The answer is growth, but when the President hears that word he thinks of government growth. That too is obvious.

About the Author

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. is the founder and editor in chief of The American Spectator. He is the author of the forthcoming The Death of Liberalism, published by Thomas Nelson Inc. His previous books include the New York Times bestseller Boy Clinton: the Political Biography; The Impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton; The Liberal Crack-Up; The Conservative Crack-Up; Public Nuisances; The Future that Doesn't Work: Social Democracy's Failure in Britain; Madame Hillary: The Dark Road to the White House; The Clinton Crack-Up; and After the Hangover: The Conservatives' Road to Recovery.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (81) | Leave a comment

Appleby| 11.5.09 @ 7:02AM

But TheKids, who know everything there is to know, are not really interested in making anything work. They are interested in looting everything they can, partying til they drop (in the White House and on board Air Force One) and elbowing their way to the head of the line as long as the free ride shall last.

That, too, is moderately obvious to anybody who paid attention to the DotCom Bubble -- where millions of TheKids squandered buckets of venture cash outfitting Campuses and decorating their offices -- and partying hearty until they found out that in order to stay in business you have to produce and sell a product.

And then they went bust and took millions of others with them who mistook surface for substance and still go on believing in the gravy train to the BigRockCandyMountain.

WRTolkas| 11.5.09 @ 7:38AM

Dear Appleby,

You have written a great editorial comparing the DotCom Bubble with the free money mentality of the Obama government. With your permission, I would like to send a copy of your above writing to my daughter to present to her left-of-center, high-school American Literature teacher.

Regards,
WRTolkas

Appleby| 11.5.09 @ 9:57AM

Do it with my blessing. I hope the teacher absorbs the lesson.

Roy| 11.5.09 @ 8:19AM

Lol. Fair enough.

Whereas TheOld continue to imagine themselves to be entitled to endless wads of other people's money simply on the grounds of their age, and fall in line like scared lemmings anytime anybody even hints that not even they themselves, but some future retiree down the road, will get slightly less of other people's money.

Anybody who's 65 now was 25 in..1969. Uhoh.

Appleby| 11.5.09 @ 10:00AM

To what "other peoples' money" do you refer? The fifty years of cash extorted from our paycheques by Social Security under the pretext that they were saving it for us to live on (while hoping we died before we could collect) when we got old?

The pension funds to which we and our employers contributed from present cash for future benefits?

The insurance policies we bought with cash we had earned?

Please elucidate as to what exactly you mean by "other peoples' money" so we can continue this discussion on the same page.

SSN Ponzi Scheme| 11.5.09 @ 1:15PM

Appleby, no one is questioning a seniors individual property right to an earned, contractual pension from an employer or purchased insurance.

Surely, however, you do not seriously for an INSTANT think that ANY of the $ you sent to then-seniors during your working years, were EVER intended to fund YOUR retirement? C'mon, everyone has known that to be a laughable sentiment since the program was introduced! It's just the world's-largest Ponzi scheme, and with 50-million or so of potential new suckers to keep the system going for another generation killed off before birth, they're running out of newbies to extort while the "suck the system dry" side continues to expand with retirement dates still fixed at 1960s ages but retirees living for decades longer than they were "supposed to" under the assumptions of that era.

Anyway, in case that wasn't clear, YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY INCOME IS SOLEY BASED ON CURRENT TAXES ON CURRENT WAGE EARNERS. Does that explain the "other people's money" comment to you in terms you can understand?

Appleby| 11.6.09 @ 10:08AM

Contrary to the popular opinion of your generation, most of us old folks believe it is more likely that aliens will land at Road America than that we will ever get back anything like what we paid into Social Security, and we believed that back in the 1960s when we started paying in. We considered it merely one more way to extort money from us by a government we did not trust any more then than we do now. We understand that the retirement age was deliberately set to an age ten years beyond the average life expectancy of the time, in hopes we would all die before they had to pay us, and we also understand that so many freeloaders have been added to the bandwagon since FDR's day that the wagon has broken down.

NEVERTHELESS, that's what the contract says and that's what we expect to fight for. We paid our money in, under duress, and we want it back. And we, unlike you, vote.

So there you are. I hope that is clear to you. And by the way, move out of the basement because we're selling the house and moving to a retirement community that doesn't have basements or accept people your age.

SoCon| 11.6.09 @ 10:31PM

LOL! Great smack down, Appleby! I'm sick and tired of the blame game, too. Everyone is responsible for the mess we're in; not just the Boomers.

Grow up, people.

joyce| 11.5.09 @ 10:28AM

My husband and I worked and paid into Social Security for over 60 years and now you say because we are old we are somehow not entitled to collect benefits of our investment? If we had a choice we would much rather have put our money somewhere else than to pay into a forced plan but we didn't have that choice. We may have been better off by stuffing the money in a mattress. Since our leader has been elected we have been forced into a mountain of debt that you or future generations will never be from under. Do you approve of this? Well, I don't but it has been my experience that people of a certain age don't always know of what they speak. Unless you are 65 0r older, you might be one of these folks. frankly, we are going to hell in a handbasket.

Nick| 11.5.09 @ 1:00PM

Joyce,

You did not make an "investment" or a "contribution". You paid a tax. Like any tax, it got spent as fast as it came in.

Why should Ted Turner get a Socialist Security check? Why should Bill Gates' dad get free Medicare drugs? If you and your husband have an income of over $100,000 a year, why should you get any check from the taxpayers?

I don't know how old you are, but if you have collected Socialist Security checks for more than a few years, odds are you already got back what you paid into it. Now you are just on welfare.

This is from the Socialist Security cite:

"Ida May Fuller worked for three years under the Social Security program. The accumulated taxes on her salary during those three years was a total of $24.75. Her initial monthly check was $22.54. During her lifetime she collected a total of $22,888.92 in Social Security benefits."

Ida May Fuller was the first recipient of monthly S.S. checks when she retired in 1940. She lived to be 100.

She almost got paid back in full with her first check. She got 926 times more than what she paid in. That's a 92,600% return on "investment." Not bad, huh?

Nick| 11.5.09 @ 1:02PM

That should be: Socialist Security SITE.

Bob| 11.5.09 @ 2:54PM

Nick, we often do not agree. But on this, you are absolutely right. I'm a senior and I collect Social Security. If I live long enough, it was a great "investment" because I'll get back far more than I put in and it certainly is a Ponzi scheme. Fortunately, most of my retirement is in non-government investments.

The problem is this -- if we actually paid out what people paid into SS, even at at 5% compound interest rate, we'd end up with most seniors going on welfare as boomers retiring now had 401k's and not pensions. Given the state of the market, this doesn't amount to much for the 90% of wage earners who earn less than $60,000 per year. People always want something for nothing -- and if we want to be fiscally responsible, we shouldn't let them have it.

John II| 11.5.09 @ 3:56PM

"People always want something for nothing."

Not quite. Rather, most people usually want something for nothing if they are acculturated to that expectation. Some hardy and good people never want something for nothing, but accept it anyhow if the law requires them to.

Only a relative minority of people always want something for nothing. They're called bureaucrats, union officials, politicians, and thieves. They make up less than 20 percent of the population, yet because evil aggrandizes itself, they have this compulsion to force their degenerate ways on everyone else.

Margie| 11.8.09 @ 2:23PM

So very well put. Those same bureaucrats who have that GOLD standard of Health insurance and lifelong pay after they leave office. Ever wonder why they want to be career politicians? Of course we know!

Rmm| 11.5.09 @ 4:29PM

And to think, just two weeks ago I heard Joe Biden perpetuating the scam of the Social Security Trust Fund, as if you have a personal account. Too many still believe this rubbish. It is exactly, a government operated ponzi operation.
Back in 05 W was excoriated for floating the idea of self-directing 5% of ones SS deductions. The Libs went off on that one, because they are on our side.
Yea, right.

bill-tb| 11.5.09 @ 10:48AM

Did you ever think of educating yourself. Try it, you will find it enlightening.

Forcing people to pay into a ponzi scheme and then berating them when it doesn't work, typical libtard.

Alan Brooks| 11.5.09 @ 8:03PM

Education? Smarts? Overrated. take Bush...
It's a question that occupied a good many
minds of all political persuasions during his turbulent eight-year
presidency. The strict answer is no. Bush's IQ score is estimated to
be above 120, which suggests an intelligence in the top 10 per cent
of the population. But this, surely, does not tell the whole story.
Even those sympathetic to the former president have acknowledged
that as a thinker and decision-maker he is not all there. Even his
loyal speechwriter David Frum called him glib, incurious and "as a
result ill-informed". The political pundit and former Republican
congressman Joe Scarborough accused him of lacking intellectual
depth, claiming that compared with other US presidents whose
intellect had been questioned, Bush junior was "in a league by
himself". Bush himself has described his thinking style as "not very
analytical".

Appleby| 11.6.09 @ 10:29AM

My late Daddy taught us that yelling "You are stupid!" is not an argument.

I would add to that, yelling "George W. Bush is stupid" is not an argument either.

It is an attempt to change the subject by starting a fight.

And I agree that since I was forced to pay into Social Security even when minimum wage was $1.25 per hour, I am entitled to get my money back, and I will take it in a lump sum if you would prefer that, and invest it myself from here on in.

Louis Jenkins| 11.5.09 @ 3:29PM

My youngest child's teacher has given the class the task of writing a letter to the president. Topic was to be "Ways to improve America." Hmmmm.... She asked her parents what should she put in the letter and it took us no more than 5 seconds to make suggestions.

Reduce Mommie's and Daddy's taxes, smaller government with less regulation, reduce deficit spending and balance the budget, support the Constitution, and stay out of our lives.

Wonder how this is gonna play out since she's a minority in her class?

Alan Brooks| 11.5.09 @ 8:01PM

Intelligence isn't always a good thing; Bush might have done more damage than he did than if he were, or was, as smart as Carter or Nixon.
Was Bush stupid? It's a question that occupied a good many minds of all political persuasions during his turbulent eight-year presidency. The strict answer is no. Bush's IQ score is estimated to
be above 120, which suggests an intelligence in the top 10 per cent
of the population. But this, surely, does not tell the whole story. Even those sympathetic to the former president have acknowledged
that as a thinker and decision-maker he is not all there. Even his
loyal speechwriter David Frum called him glib, incurious and "as a
result ill-informed". The political pundit and former Republican
congressman Joe Scarborough accused him of lacking intellectual
depth, claiming that compared with other US presidents whose
intellect had been questioned, Bush junior was "in a league by
himself". Bush himself has described his thinking style as "not very
analytical".

But if you like violent change then this decade wa for you. hope you enjoyed it.

Margie| 11.6.09 @ 6:24PM

Alan Brooks,
I just have to say this. Joe Scarborough is one fry short of a Happy Meal.
Bye now.
p.s. I like GW. I despise political pundits. They are 2 fries short of a Happy Meal.

Robert Rosencrans| 11.5.09 @ 7:11AM

The last 60 years of America is highlighted by people who believe when you put something in writing that will make it happen. Millions of jobs have fled America to friendlier shores as the result of that arrogance. Now we have a new level of arrogance guiding the country to bankruptcy. It's more then Obama. Obama's presence was assured by President after President who increased the size of government without accountability or long term thought. The only thing that counted was the votes and with the dollar falling, votes will be hard to buy. The whole game plan worked off of buying your votes with your money and health care is just another version of that. Seven years ago I saw this coming and told my friends to buy gold. Those who did are very happy. If the public wises up you should see a rout of Democrats, including the disreputable Harry Reid, in 2010. That may not help much. The Treasury has been looted with very little to show for it.

Howard| 11.5.09 @ 7:23AM

The huge budget deficits are both a function of a weak economy, and part of the Democrats long-term plans. Obviously tax collections will go down with 10% unemployment and capital losses . But the Democrats are building vast structural deficits via expansion of entitlements . This will cause an across the board tax increase to fund these new and expanded programs. So people who foolishly bought into Obama's middle class tax cut jive will instead see their taxes go up. Unfortunately, our Republican friends are so inept they may not get the benefits they would deserve.

darcy| 11.6.09 @ 11:22PM

Howard, let me rephrase this for you: Most of our Republican friends are closet Democrats.

Ally| 12.30.10 @ 6:50AM

Despite the midterm wins I don't see the Repubs getting any better, do you? Ally

Pat Spooner| 11.5.09 @ 8:04AM

All federal politicians lie to get elected. The money they can obtain (some would say steal) and the incredible benefits, particularily retirement benefits, are so great that they will do and say anything to get elected. The free trips to foreign countries for them, their families and their staff, the great feasts and plentiful drink at parties galore all on the taxpayers nickle.

Tell me again what does that really have to do with good governance of thsi great country? I say nothing, although they will all tell us that "its important to learn more about other country's, their culture, etc. to which I say hogwash!

Obama is no different, he was not wealthy until elected to the Senate. That is when he bought a million plus dollar home at a greatly reduced price from a shady business associate. This is how many modern day politicians get rich - by pushing the enevlop toward the illegal but being careful to hug but not cross the line of legal versus illegal. Someone gives them a deal (think Chris Dodd and his sweatheart, low rate mortgage, among others) which they deny knowledge of - also think of the illegal campaign donations received which somehow are always either returned to the donor or given to a charity after the election.

The personal riches associated with these elected positions, and the feeling of personal power, is why they lie!

Louis Jenkins| 11.5.09 @ 3:45PM

It's amazing ain't it? Some people work hard all their lives to build their property and personal security. Politicians don't need to labor, they just make falsifications sound like the truth (which is an artform in itself) and with enough funding from interest groups they gain voting support from those who would be fooled. And yes, they then enrich themselves at the public expense. We have allowed liars to create an oligarchy which was predicted by serious political writers in the past. It is time to demolish the golden trough were these people feed. Change needs to come for the sake of the country.

EricTheRed| 11.5.09 @ 8:06AM

Mr. Tyrrell, everything you've written *is* obvious -- except for ideologically mind-numbed liberals/Democrats. I know quite a number of them, and they are still too enamored of this failed and radical president to let any of your facts sink in.

What does one do with such (supposedly) intellectually and morally superior individuals?

http://VocalMinority.typepad.com
The Jewish Republican's Web Sanctuary

TennesseeVolunteer| 11.5.09 @ 8:10AM

Hey guys, snap out of it!
Were you not paying attention to Tuesday night? It is time to recognize the flickering flame of Liberty that is about to spread like wildfire. Quit bellyaching about the past and let's get this country and it's brave strong people to embrace the enduring concept of small government and more personal freedom.
Huge mistakes have been made but we have millions of people across this country who understand what is wrong and are going to put citizen representatives in place. We've got a long way to go, so let's get on with it. We don't need a bunch of "I told you so's". We need a bunch of people to celebrate what is right and urge our fellow citizens to do much more of it.
I've almost lost everything in my business, equity in my real estate holdings and a hard hit in our investments. BUT, I am about to start a new job, my key employees are going to keep running the business around their new jobs and we are all going to be there when freedom and prosperity return to this country.
Wake up! We've been through a tough time and it is not over. But the tide is turning. Isn't that cause for Thanksgiving?

John II| 11.5.09 @ 8:13PM

A tip of my hat to TennesseeVolunteer: "citizen representative"--what a beautiful term! I am old enough to recall a cover feature in TIME magazine (long before it flaked out totally) on Ronald Reagan when he was elected governor of CA in 1966: they called him a "citizen politician."
Of course, TIME was pretty much flaked out when he became our citizen President fourteen years later, so there was no eloquence left from that quarter. But Ron proved that the concept was still alive then.

It still is now.

SoCon| 11.6.09 @ 10:38PM

Thanks, Tennessee; we've got to stick together or we're doomed. Stop blaming each other, offer words of encouragement not criticism and take responsibility for restoring our nation. We will not survive otherwise.

Richard Baker| 11.5.09 @ 8:21AM

The Spirit of the Founding Revolutionaries lives!

Mattled| 11.5.09 @ 8:26AM

Huge fan Mr. Tyrrell since Conservative Chronicle days in the 90's.

I recently had a discussion with a moderate that Obama hates America and how it was founded. She said that he doesn't hate it anymore.

Really?

She said "how can he hate it if he is now the president and he gets all these perks"?

They just don't get it.

Jobe| 11.5.09 @ 9:12AM

What do you suppose would happen to the political landscape were Obama, Pelosi, and Reid, herein to be tagged the three stooges, to come out with a plan for a massive tax rate cut, both personal and corporate, a congressional bill to reform the tort system, and a vote of confidence in the private insurance industry? Do you think that the country would move forward, leaving the doldrums of economic paralysis? I believe that this is exactly what would happen, and there is much evidence in the recent past to support it.

Dave| 11.5.09 @ 9:12AM

Whatever happened to "If we don't support the President then the terrorists win".

Interested Conservative| 11.5.09 @ 9:55AM

It's a different president Dave. It was in all the papers about a year ago.

Thunderbottom| 11.5.09 @ 10:00AM

What happened was we elected a President who, while maybe not supporting the terrorists, is not seriously opposing them (witness the Administration's dithering in Afghanistan, its insults to our allies in Pakistan and eastern Europe, and its concessions made to Iran and North Korea). This is a president who, when he was younger, associated with admitted domestic terrorists (Bill Ayers and his wife, Bernardine Dohrn).

Charles Martel| 11.6.09 @ 2:05AM

We didn't support the president, the terrorists did win, and now we're stuck with them for another 38 months.

You think it over the top to call him and his crew terrorists? Why do you think businesses are not hiring? They are terrorized.

What this economy needs is stability. What it needs is predictability. What it's getting is the constant threat of detrimental "change". Only an Obama-hugging fool would expand his payroll under such circumstances.

+++

Gina| 11.6.09 @ 10:39PM

Unfortunately for us, the terrorist is in the White House now.

darcy| 11.6.09 @ 11:27PM

Yes, Gina, and Alien in Chief.

JP| 11.5.09 @ 9:46AM

From AP Today:

"- A year after his historic election, President Barack Obama sought to remind Americans on Wednesday the biggest problems he is grappling with -- from the economy to the war in Afghanistan -- are the legacy of his predecessor, George W. Bush."

After 10 months in office, our President still hasn't realized that these problems are his now. If you want to play the blame game, one could blame the WOT on Bill Clinton, and the economy on Pelosi and Reid.

The voters want leadership -mature leadership, and not some person who whines. Funny how President Bush never once blamed 9/11 on Clinton and his minions. He also didn't blame the 2001 recession on his predecessor.

Kevin| 11.5.09 @ 3:31PM

I blame George Washington.

Ken (Old Texican)| 11.5.09 @ 9:49AM

Tennessee Volunteer...thank you!
Mr. Tyrrell. thank You!

Jobe, no way in hell ! Leopard's spots and all that.

...and you ain't seen nothin' yet.

...See, primarily, for healthy business, one must have above all else, a "predictable regulatory and tax environment...long term." Given that, viable businesses can cope. These communists hiding behind the curtains will keep moving the "target" ...on purpose.

This is the disconnect that many people just can't seem to bridge. ie: healthy business environment equals meaningful jobs.....and self determination, and SELF DETERMINATION IS WHAT THEY WANT TO CURTAIL.
(We old fartes call it freedom and or liberty.)

They want to reduce us all to supplicants, allowing them to stay in power indefinitely. Most folks just haven't identified the long term game plan these people have generated.
So
We at Team America( www.myteamusa.org ) are in the process of looking to the future, and figuring out the ways we can stop them.
My personal belief is that if we can't stop them at the ballot box in 2010, then our next "redoubt" becomes very painful for all of us.

Northern Rebel| 11.5.09 @ 10:08AM

We could've had Barak Hussein Obama on videotape molesting children, bombing the Capitol, and burning Synagogues, and he would stilll have been elected President by the left, probably with a higher percentage of the vote!

To paraphrase the great patriot Rev. Jeremiah Wright, not "God Damn America", God Damn Obama, and everything he stands for, and everyone who stands with him.

God bless, and protect The United States of America!

PolishKnight| 11.5.09 @ 10:23AM

One of Rush Limbaugh's favorite arguments I disagree with is when he says that taxing the wealthy will cause them to "work" less.

In Liberty magazine a while ago, I read one of their quotes from an ultra left magazine that disagreed and it was amazingly insightful. I'm not saying I agree with the morality of the statement, but I have to agree with the mechanics of it.

The super rich don't really "work" in the same way most of us do. They manage their investments and maybe even have a group of money managers do the heavy lifting. So high taxation really doesn't stop them from wanting to earn more money even if taxed at a higher rate. If you win the lottery and know that more than 50% of the check is going towards fees and taxes, do you say no?

At best, it causes the super wealthy to get their managers to move the money around to shelters or perhaps even send bribes (see the story about French corruption) and cushy jobs to politicians' relatives to become exempt. High tax rates actually bring more millionaires into league with socialists to loot the middle class.

And what about the middle class? Do you work less due to high tax rates? It's the same Sophies' choice the ultra wealthy face without the back doors. You can live in a shack and eat mac and cheese, but most just work 50 hour work weeks or send their wives out to help supplement the family income (thanks feminism!)

As we move downhill, that takes us to the working class who may realize that if their standard of living gets any worse, they may as well go on welfare and many do. Why work 60 hours a week for a lifestyle that the taxpayers in the pyramid above will supply for free? The left, though, overplayed their hand and has slowly closed off this valuable safety net to working class men and two parent families among other political exiles.

Indiana Alex| 11.5.09 @ 10:57AM

If you think people of all income levels don't react to changes in tax rates, you are entirely wrong.

For example, next year is the last year for the Bush tax cuts. If they are not extended, watch for a HUGE jump in personal income in the fourth quarter as people exercise stock options or otherwise initiate taxable events in thier portfolios before higher tax rates kick in.

If there is a higher tax rate above a certain income level there will most certainly be people that work to keep their income just below that level.

Remember, for the super rich, income is relatively meaningless.

Gina| 11.6.09 @ 10:42PM

You're right, Indiana--I don't know what Polish is smokin'!

JP| 11.5.09 @ 3:04PM

Polish Knight,
I think you've fallen for the Left's favorite fallacy concerning the rich. If by work, you mean manual labor you might have a point. But the super wealthy like Warren Buffet, Steve Jobs, or Larry Ellison use thier brains as work. And, in the end they will most likely retain thier wealth.

Limbaugh's point is that the super wealthy will also reap profits. They can do it through tax shelters and low risk low yield bonds, which benefit few; or they can invest thier money in high risk stocks and other public offerings. The yields can be great, but so can the risk. Venture Capitalists rely on the super wealthy to risk thier capital to finance new products.

Capital gains taxes are a tax on risk capital as well as a tax on innovation. Societies which tax innovation are also societies where corruption and old boy networks reign supreme. Go to Europe, and you will see this aplenty. Wealth creation needs wealthy people to risk thier hard earned capital and wealth.

Northern Rebel| 11.5.09 @ 10:55AM

Polish Knight:

You are partially right in your assessment of the wealthy's behavior, in the face of high taxes.

Successful people will generally just work harder to overcome the obstacle of government theft of the money THEY'VE earned. They will still eat well, and still enjoy their lives because after all, they're rich!

However they won't hire you!

By overtaxing the wealthy, you undermine the middle class, because they can't get poor people to hire them.

Which is what President Anti-Christ wants to happen. He is deliberately fomenting chaos, and disorder, hoping for the complete breakdown of capitalism, so he can install a fascist system where government decides where money goes, and who it goes to. Government run health care is the perfect vehicle. You'll even have to register to vote in such a way so he can moniter if you're friend or foe. No hip replacement for you, Mr conservative!

It's all there in Obama's Bible, written by Saul Alinsky. Read it for yourself, Polish Knight, or were you quoting from it?

Mr.Reality| 11.5.09 @ 11:25AM

This current government and governments(states and municipalities) probably can't be saved. It would take management, and management=setting priorities=efficiency=productivity,all of which drives Washington insane to even contemplate. Just rewriting all the public sector union contracts and work rules would mean a violent civil war The nation can try. Grow the economy at record rates and glide path the government downward is a majority issue. They would even, the majority, live with less essential government for a time. Reforming a destructive legal system,putting common sense reforms into education, well it is quite an impossible list, add to it immigration policy that is a plus not a minus for the nation. It may be that two nations within these boundaries is the only solution. It is not enough to be 10th amendment oriented. We must break with the forefathers that Washington is the seat of American government. A new confederation of states and counties that declares its loyalty to the original meaning of the constitution may be the only way to survive. And, as Mark Levine has so ably pointed out,slavery was a crime against the Constitution.

bill carson| 11.5.09 @ 12:44PM

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I don't disagree with this article except to say that: Who is willing to bet that Obama will be booted from office in 2012? Not me! The economy will scrape along and be somewhat better in 2012. Obama will have a guaranteed 96% support from every black in the country. People will forget about how he tried to screw in 2009. He'll get better at fooling those who want to be fooled. Then we'll have him until 2016. I hope I'm completely wrong.

Oldefarte| 11.5.09 @ 1:00PM

Mr. Tyrrell's words are all TRUTH, but sadly Americans did not comprehend said truth pre 11/4/08!!!!

trailrunner| 11.5.09 @ 2:24PM

Certainly we can enjoy 30 seconds of gloating, but then we have to face the ugly reality of dysfunctional conservatism. Conservatives still haven't disowned the Bush(es) Compassionate (i.e. mega-government) Conservatism. Then there were the events in New York where the Republican leadership decided that the way forward is to position to the left of the Democrats. Conservatism is still lost in the wilderness and isn't a credible alternative.

RAMIII| 11.5.09 @ 2:34PM

Hey don't you realize that -- if they (politicians in general) cheated and lied to achieve power they will cheat and lie to maintain it!

When the INDIVIDUAL voter wonders what happened and why these people kept their power they will offer explanations through unverifyable means as to why the INDIVIDUAL voter was in the minority and by the way WRONG.

Bob| 11.5.09 @ 3:00PM

Tyrrell, you seem to conveniently forget the disastrous results in the next election after W was elected. We knew that would happen as well???? You need to stop the right wing extremist, red meat to AmSpec readers diatribe and actually do some analysis instead of the dumb spin we get from both sides.

It doesn't make any difference if a politician is a Republican or Democrat, when they get into office their highest priority is getting reelected, not doing the best for their constituents. That explains Obama's actions, not left wing ideology.

Nick| 11.5.09 @ 7:42PM

3/5 Bob,

Is this some sort of peace offering or truce so I will let up on you?

For those who don't know, 3/5 Bob is writing about my response to Joyce earlier today:

"You did not make an 'investment' or a 'contribution'. You paid a tax. Like any tax, it got spent as fast as it came in.

"Why should Ted Turner get a Socialist Security check? Why should Bill Gates' dad get free Medicare drugs? If you and your husband have an income of over $100,000 a year, why should you get any check from the taxpayers?

"I don't know how old you are, but if you have collected Socialist Security checks for more than a few years, odds are you already got back what you paid into it. Now you are just on welfare.

"This is from the Socialist Security cite:

"'Ida May Fuller worked for three years under the Social Security program. The accumulated taxes on her salary during those three years was a total of $24.75. Her initial monthly check was $22.54. During her lifetime she collected a total of $22,888.92 in Social Security benefits.'

"Ida May Fuller was the first recipient of monthly S.S. checks when she retired in 1940. She lived to be 100.

"She almost got paid back in full with her first check. She got 926 times more than what she paid in. That's a 92,600% return on 'investment.' Not bad, huh?"

I'll think about it, 3/5 Bob.

Bob| 11.5.09 @ 8:27PM

1/5 Nick... Peace offering? I've been a consistent fiscal conservative throughout my postings being against the bailouts and most of the stimulus, for more competition in health care with tiered, libertarian leaning, insurance allowed with no antitrust exemption, against immigration amnesty, etc. I just also happen to fight for the truth and not your extremist right wing birthers nonsense and lies about Democrat plans (the truth is good enough for me). Look back through my postings for the past year and you'll notice all of that is true. But I continue to be a social libertarian and do not agree with your neanderthal views on abortion, gay marriage, etc. Government should be limited both on the fiscal side and the social side. Keep government (and you religious extremists), out of my life....

I've also called for fiscal responsibility and the truth about economic data like the lie that tax cuts are stimulative when none of the inflation adjusted data supports that (and no one has come up with any chart that supports that contention). That means if you want to cut taxes, you must first cut spending. If you refuse to cut spending, then you need to pay for what you spend. Debt is our enemy and our children's biggest problem.

This is not a peace offering. I would not do that to an uneducated and unknowledgeable hack like you. But we do agree on this issue.

Nick| 11.5.09 @ 8:59PM

Don't waste your time with 3/5 Bob folks.

In case you didn't know, until recently (last June), 3/5 Bob thought that blacks had 3/5 of a vote under the U.S. Constitution, as originally written.

He also doesn't know when biological HUMAN life begins because he is not sure when "ensoulment" takes place.

And I just learned he falsely claimed to have translated the Bible from the original Aramaic when he was 15.

He is a pseudointellectual, ignore him.

Angel| 11.6.09 @ 10:44PM

Nick, sorry, but I love you! Damn, you're funny.

Nick| 11.8.09 @ 12:09AM

Angel,

Thank you.
I do aim to please.

Louis Jenkins| 11.5.09 @ 3:59PM

The political ideologies have certainly changed in the last 20-30 years, and so have voting demographics. If you look at current trends in population growth you will certainly draw an abysmal conclusion that does not bode well for a sound government or economy. If every WASP voted a conservative ticket (even with moderates included), or anti-libutard, the writing is still on the wall. Crunch time is on the way, and though conservates may beat back the encroachment of libutards here and there, we're on the back of a run away horse headed for oblivion. Crunch time will not be a cake walk.

Commie Blaster| 11.5.09 @ 5:00PM

Check our “Communists in US Government” Reference Site: http://www.commieblaster.com

Facts organized all in one location. Obama, New Party, Ayers, Dunn, Jennings, Jones, Sunstein, Jarrett, Lloyd, Wright, School Indoctrinations, Soros, Cop-Killers, Cuban Spy Rings, Commie Media, Misinformation, Congress Investigation, plus details on Socialist/Communist Members of Congress like Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank and over 80 others. Listen to Soviet Spy defector explain how communist takeovers are performed and Reagan's guidance on dealing with Communists. Learn what a Socialist, Communist, Progressive is. Examine ACORN, SEIU's and Union Communist leaders. See FBI files and testimonies. Catch up on Takeover News and study a Communist Takeover Plan from the 1960's, along with how to resist. Videos, links, pdfs.

Commies can run, but they can't hide! - http://www.commieblaster.com

Ken (Old Texican)| 11.5.09 @ 6:41PM

Hi Guys
One reason I like to comment here is that one of the essayists often pick up on a theme or a germ of a thought from us and then "go to town" with it.

Quite gratifying actually, and I hope the serious people among us will keep that in the back of our minds as we post.
Economics 101:
wealth is created in only two ways:
1. person at productive work
2. dollars at productive work

Polish Knight,
JP, northern Rebel and others above have nailed it, so I am trying to make it simple enough for anyone 12 years old to understand the concept.

fully one half of the "risk capital" in our country has "gone Galt". (That means instead of putting dollars to productive work, the risk capitalists have piled up gold in their basement, hoping for freedom again.)
2. Persons at productive work...often cannot find it these days, or at least millions have not.
So
Wealth creation is sorely lacking in this once great wealth machine called America.

Obama and crew WANT you to lose faith in that wealth machine. See then you must obey them for your living.
Simple enough, finally?

Mr. Reality| 11.6.09 @ 12:18PM

If we banked that 5 per cent of soc money say back when Reagan first raised the issue and put it in untouchable private acounts and it provided just 10-20 percent of the pay out to boomers for 10 years or so it would have been to our fiscal situation. Placing all 100 per cent on future tax payers is doom for us. I say gain it is over break up the USA into 2-3-4 countries. That is our future.

John Blake| 11.6.09 @ 10:13PM

Extradite Soetoro!

Klabautermann| 11.8.09 @ 11:37AM

Obamau Akbar! Arguments that we are impoverishing our grandchildren through government spending carry no weight with pathological narcissists. If

you are one, I have news for you Quinosabe. Our Great Leader will demonstrate to you that you are someone's grandchild. The fraud, waste, and abuse

that we know as government bureaucracy has been increasing dramatically for decades. Even under Ronald Reagan it expanded dramatically. George

Bush sent millions of dollars to ACORN, and they are just a small fraction of this diseased institution. Finally, a Savior has come. Obamau Akbar. He

will defund the useless Department of Education and all the other agencies, departments, and bureaus that eat away at the marrow of the American

economy. He will do this by following the economic policies of that little know economics genius, Gideon Gono, Financial wizzard of Zimbabwe. This

was illustrated by a woman on YouTube who was decrying the cuts in the budgets for state parks in California. Who needs parks when bread costs a

thousand dollars a loaf. By 2011 average Americans will be on their way to becomming millionaires. Well over the 250,000 dollar tax level.

Ronny Diaz| 1.7.10 @ 2:12PM

Wow, this was a really quality post. In theory I'd like to write like this too - taking time and real effort to make a good article... but what can I say... I procrastinate a lot and never seem to get something done.

mma pound for pound popular and complete fighter rankings ratings list.

Kim| 3.22.10 @ 11:10AM

SSL Certificate

Kim| 3.22.10 @ 11:11AM

SSL

zarina| 3.24.10 @ 2:38PM

The various well written articles makes your sites very informative and enjoyable to come back and read the new posts.You are probably spending lots of time and effort on your blog.
Sports Supplements

laponi| 4.7.10 @ 7:54PM

Obama, Obviously is good article thanks you very much for your information

Poptropica
Poptropica

jeniffer| 4.22.10 @ 9:35AM

Cheap SSL Certificates
True Business SSL

Stop Procrastinating| 6.26.10 @ 12:01PM

Mr. Tyrell is not giving us the overview of Barack Obama infamous biography but he is giving the real top story of who is he really. With no sufficient managerial and political background of experience, he is now facing my thoughts and opinion about his position and his platform as the President of the United State of America. After he won as the Head of state of America, I was expecting more of him together with a new government that he would give to the country. I am deeply upset and disappointed on how he is leading our country now. Let me discuss to you the disappointments I am talking about.

1.)As the Oil Spill Crisis is still continuing to destroy the Gulf and killing the animals, he was seen that he went to his ranch. This means he went to his ranch to get out of the issue----how upsetting it is. Rather of taking a vacation, he should first look for a solution to the Oil Spill Crisis before it is too late.

2.)Universal Health Care has been giving second thoughts to the businessmen. Why? One thing for sure, they don’t like to help their employee and other reason is, why does one citizen would pay a healthcare to someone if that certain person is not valuing his/her life---such as people who are obese and drug addicts.

Even Michelle Obama is promoting gardening youth program, how could a child plant if he/she is dying. Our country must be saved.

Chris Jackson| 10.14.10 @ 1:16AM

@Jane - That just really bothers me. How can someone have a view like that?

Stay in Luxembourg| 4.7.11 @ 2:21PM

I think you have produced several truly fascinating points. Not too many others would really think about this the way you just did. I am very impressed that there is so much about this subject that has been revealed and you made it so nicely, with so considerably class. Brilliant one, man! Very special things right here.

Gentech| 6.26.11 @ 11:32PM

Gentech is your business friend. When you have difficulties and get no way out. Come to us; Gentech, and you have nothing to worry.

Game| 6.26.11 @ 11:32PM

Do you think a game for kids is really harmful? It’s up to parents. There are good games for kids, which support their academic learning. Also a sport game is created to motivate children to do some sport activities. Don’t judge things without trying. Playing a game can be helpful.

Cheap Flight to Bangkok| 6.26.11 @ 11:43PM

Widen your Asian experience by selecting our cheap flight to Bangkok. Bangkok, the center of travelling attractions is the place worth to go once in your life time. With our cheap flight to Bangkok, Bangkok will not far away from you. Arrive there safely and timely by choosing our service. Have a good time.

Wii| 6.26.11 @ 11:43PM

Expand your imagination with the real action. Wii, the most fantastic game ever will let you leave your boring time aside. Join our Wii community and surf the unbelievable entertainment.

IBCBET| 8.1.11 @ 1:02AM

Of late, it is nice to hear that the President is worried about that debt, but he has not a clue as to how to reduce it. ibcbet-th IBCBET ibcbet online