-
What Is It About Benghazi?
May 15, 2013 | 165 comments
-
The Socialist Dragon Slayer
April 9, 2013 | 42 comments
-
What Did Arafat Get for Killing U.S. Diplomats?
March 1, 2013 | 50 comments
-
Al Gore’s $500 Million Trojan Horse
February 20, 2013 | 109 comments
-
Further Reflections on Benghazi
February 18, 2013 | 73 comments
The Obama Watch
The Young Pharaoh and the Hipocritic Oath
With the help of his billionaire friends, Obama wages war on the un-wealthy “rich.”
Time marches on, even for the immature. Barack Obama will turn 50 next year. Do not expect an older, wiser (or, still less, a chastened) version of the Young Pharaoh in the new year. With the help of his billionaire friends, some of whom were prancing about on public display in the White House this week, he plans to make class warfare the centerpiece of his domestic policies in the time remaining before the next general election.
Let us hope that the Republicans are able to deal with this weird combination of populism and plutocracy with the derision and contempt that it so richly deserves.
The Billionaires for ‘Bama Club includes Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Oprah Winfrey, George Soros, Matt Damon, George Clooney, Michael Bloomberg and Ted Turner. All of them pledge allegiance to the Hipocritic Oath, which states:
I swear by Osiris and Isis and all the gods and goddesses, making them and all-mighty Hypocrisy my witness, that I will fulfill this oath and covenant.
In the full and secure enjoyment of my own riches, I swear that I will do all in my power to join with the Pharaoh in the public condemnation of greed and avarice in all of its forms. I will join him in making false and misleading arguments, and in citing bogus statistics, to support the advancement of an all-powerful state that will be free to redistribute everyone’s income and wealth according to its whims and fancies.
Regardless of all that it has done for me, I will disrespect the free market and join with the Pharaoh in calling for punitive taxation of all those who aspire to make a better life for themselves and their families through hard work and initiative. Yea, in my support for punitive taxes on anyone who dares to earn more than others, I will raise the ladder on those who attempt to follow what I have done.
If I fulfill this oath and do not violate it, may it be granted to me to enjoy the goodwill and patronage of the Pharaoh, including timely bailouts of my banks and business enterprises, and may it be granted to me to parade about in front of others as a model of generosity in calling for higher taxes. May I act always to preserve the finest traditions of Humbug and Hypocrisy.
That is the holy oath, which may indeed have been penned by the so-called “Sage of Omaha.” This Sage does not cease from dispensing nuggets of wisdom to any and all who will listen to him, from the Pharaoh himself down to those who drive chariots for public transport. The Sage is famous for his homespun wit and wisdom.
Never mind that much of what he says is patently false. Take his much-quoted remarks at $4,600-a-seat Democratic fund-raiser in New York in 2007. Here Sage Buffett — the second wealthiest man in America — blasted U.S. tax system for allowing him to pay a lower rate than his secretary or cleaner.
He claimed that he was taxed at 17.7% on the $46 million that he made in 2006, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30%. Apart from the fact that any income (even $46 million) is immaterial to a person of his wealth (with an estimated net worth of $37 billion, mostly held in the untaxed form of unrealized capital gains), the first problem with this little tale is that the Sage had not consulted the tax tables regarding his secretary’s income. The highest possible tax that anyone would have paid on $60,000 in 2006 would have been 25% — not 30%. Further, as the columnist Larry Elder pointed out, with a normal set of deductions (including a home mortgage, an IRA and two children), her taxable income was likely to be less than $30,000. That would reduce her tax rate fall to just 2.4%. So much, then, for the claim that she, or the cleaner, would pay a lower rate than the indignantly under-taxed billionaire.
Speaking, as he was, to the rich and smug, the Sage got a big laugh when he went on to say that he chose to become a Democrat because the Republicans insisting upon thinking: “I’m making $80 million a year — God must have intended me to have a lower tax rate.”
That is utter nonsense. It is the same nonsense that Barack Obama is guilty of every time he opens his mouth and says, for the umpty-umpth time, that continuing the Bush tax cuts of a decade ago for the people at all income levels, including the top 2% of earners, constitutes an unreasonable benefit for “millionaires and billionaires.” Obama strongly suggests that “middle class” taxpayers are paying far too much because George W. Bush and the Republicans lowered rates on these same millionaires and billionaires. Again, that is false.
Here are the pertinent facts (from the Tax Foundation, a non-partisan tax policy think tank in Washington, D.C.):
• The top 1% of taxpayers accounted for 34% of all income tax revenues at the outset the Bush presidency, while the bottom 95% paid 42%. During the Bush presidency, the top 1% paid a greater and greater share of the tax burden, while the bottom 95% paid a smaller and smaller share. In 2007, the top 1% actually paid more in federal income tax (just over 40% of total income taxes paid) than the bottom 95% (just under 40%). Thus, the truth is the exact opposite of the story told by Obama and the progressives.
• The overwhelming majority of people in the top 2% of taxpayers are not the millionaires and billionaires suggested by Obama and his fellow class warriors. Fully 70% of the top 2% earn more than $250,000 but less than half a million dollars a year. There are hundreds of thousands of people in this category who own and run restaurants, landscaping firms, photographic studios, dental practices and other small businesses. These are people who work extremely hard and who have taken substantial risks to achieve what seems to them (and to most of the rest of the world outside of the beltway, Hollywood and academia) a modest and well-deserved degree of material success. Only one tenth of taxpayers in the top 2% (or 0.2%) have adjusted gross incomes exceeding a million dollars.
About the Author
Andrew B. Wilson, a frequent contributor to The American Spectator, writes from St. Louis.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (98) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Andrew B. Wilson
More Articles From The Obama Watch
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/12/17/the-young-pharaoh-and-the-hipo
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Appleby| 12.17.10 @ 6:57AM
In our family we call that *prospecting for a donut mine* -- trying to find a way to make a six-figure salary for doing nothing productive. Our grandfather was notorious for perusing this dream -- and he did it, tellingly, on the backs (literally) of his 12 children and his long-suffering wife who was dead at 55. (Grandfather had hanged himself in frustration long before that day came.)
Its amazing that people still cling to their belief that when the Revolution comes, they will end up in the group that gets to keep their goodies. In truth, those people are usually the ones first in line at the guillotine.
Deborah D | 12.17.10 @ 8:38AM
Appleby -- Your observation at the end of your post is exactly what I was thinking when I began reading this column. Don't these people ever learn? Negotiating with Democrats is like negotiating with terrorists. Churchill's quote needs to be remembered here: "An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last."
George F.| 12.20.10 @ 1:09PM
I would add to your delicious comment by saying that dealing with Democrats is like dealing with that slippery one called the devil. No matter how you negotiate you always lose because they keep changing the target.
Anthony| 12.17.10 @ 11:14AM
Amen Appleby!! And the Guillotine is just the right devise to divest lefty billionaires from their billions.
Having experienced the government "steal" money from my family, due to a death late in 2009, whereas a few months later, the tax would have been zero, I am really fed up with these theiving whores in Washington. This tax is perhaps the most onerous of all. Yet Obozo's billionaires have a way to ensure their heirs will not suffer the same fate as us mere mortals.
Can I apply now for the executioner's job, and is this one of Obozo's shovel ready jobs?
KyMouse| 12.17.10 @ 12:50PM
Appleby, when the movie "Che" came out a few years ago, one the ladies in our local wealthy-woman's club wrote a glowing review of it in the club's newsletter. She wrote about what a courageous freedom-fighter he was.
I happened to read her review, and thought at the time that Che would have loved to put her head, and those of her fellow club members, on a spike.
Alan Brooks| 12.17.10 @ 2:26PM
A head wiser than all of you, John Derbyshire, wrote a couple years ago:
"But for all the bullying bluster of conservative talk-show hosts, their essential attitude is one of apology and submission—the dreary old conservative cringe. Their underlying metaphysic is the same as the liberals’: infinite human potential—Yes, we can!—if only we get society right. To the Left, getting society right involves shoveling us around like truckloads of concrete; to the Right, it means banging on about responsibility, God, and tax cuts while deficits balloon, Congress extrudes yet another social-engineering fiasco, and our armies guard the Fulda Gap."
Point is: you will elect another Bush-type someday, because one can never underestimate the ability of the GOP to shoot itself in the foot.
Alan Brooks| 12.17.10 @ 2:28PM
... That is, overestimate. You'll screw it up yet again.
George F.| 12.20.10 @ 1:17PM
Repubs may very well screw it up yet again but they, at least, aren't setting out to deliberately screw things up like Dems are with their totally rotten class warfare dictum that divides the populace into waring factions. Divide and conquer is the Dem's disgusting motto.
ironhorzmn| 12.17.10 @ 4:33PM
'Apology and submission' sounds like Obama's foreign policy.
But keep repeating that. Maybe someday you might even believe it.
'Deficits balloon'? Congress has at least tripled deficits under Reid and Pelosi.
'Social engineering fiasco'? Try forcing the military to accept openly gay members in the front lines.
Or loading up private insurers with billions in unfunded mandates with the ultimate goal of bankrupting them and instituting a nationalized series of rationed, substandard care and death panels which will bankrupt US.
That's 'social engineering'. And it's ALL Democrats' doing.
Of course, with Putin being our friend and all, we owe him our gratitude for putting pressure on Iran to cease its nuclear program in return for reneging on US promises to provide missile defense to our Eastern European allies.
Wait; you mean Putin didn't keep his promise? Well what better reason to pull US forces COMPLETELY out of Europe?
Let's make a deal; when we pull Truman's forces out of Korea and Clinton's forces out of Bosnia, then we can discuss pulling Truman's forces out of the Fulda Gap.
Christopher| 12.17.10 @ 4:38PM
Alan, who should the GOP nominate in 2012?
Alan Brooks| 12.17.10 @ 6:12PM
I guess Palin, Christopher; she would acceptable to the GOP, and placate feminists (save for far-left feminists). However Palin might very well lose, which suits me fine. I did vote GOP in the '80s (I believe I'm older than you, Chris), but never again.
So it is up to YOU who to nominate in '12, Chris-- don't f*ck it up.
Christopher| 12.17.10 @ 7:23PM
Alan, since we are confessing, my first vote was for George McGovern. That was the last Democrat i voted for. He was a decent man, but I now I know he would have been a bad president.
RacerJim| 12.18.10 @ 12:29PM
So, Alan, you voted for only the second President in history to be Impeached (Democrats both I'm obliged to note), then the first presidential nominee in history whose party and campaign employed every dirty trick in the book to prevent military absentee ballots from being counted, then the only Vietnam Veteran known to have employed the "Three Purple Hearts and You're Out" rule to get himself transfered out of Vietnam after serving only 4 months of a normal 12 month tour then committed treason under the Logan Act and desparaged all Vietnam Veterans during sworn testimony to the U.S. Senate, and finally only the second presidential candidate/nominee in history who knew he was ineligible to serve as POTUS but ran anyway and was elected because he kept evidence of his eligibility/ineligibility secret and no one with the fiduciary duty to verify his eligibility or wherewithal to expose his ineligibility did so.
Some voting record to be proud of you've got there, Alan.
Christopher| 12.18.10 @ 3:48PM
Alan will vote for Palin. He learned his lesson voting for clinton and obama. Bush 1 was no conservative. Bush 2 spent too much, especially working with Ted Kennedy on the useless education bill. Obama is making a big mistake staying in Iraq and Afghanistan,
WGMOW| 12.19.10 @ 8:45AM
Oh no, not Palin! This conservative-libertarian woman is not appreciative of Palin and her "mama grizzlies," her screechy diatribes, and homespun homilies. We need a military man as president. How about General Petraeus? How about a "Draft Stormin'/ Norman Swatzkopf" movement?
Douglas (Doug E) Brafford| 12.19.10 @ 8:06PM
Douglas E Brafford is curious ! Why can't we change groups ?
Tom Fischer| 12.17.10 @ 7:24AM
Of course mega-wealth folks like Buffett and Gates, the tax man will finally cometh for them at the date of death. OH, no ... wait... they got out of that one too ?? NO estate taxes for either guy. Both of them all planned out into tax exempt trusts.
Bob K.| 12.17.10 @ 7:58AM
These are Inheritance Taxes that their heirs will pay as Income to them. Just like they would have to pay taxes on Lottery winnings they might receive or from big winnings at the Race Track or Casinos.
All extremely wealthy people still want to control their money from the grave if they can! So they have their paid shills rail against a so called "Death Tax." These Tax Exempt Trusts are designed by their political shills. That is why families like the Rockefellers, Kennedys, Bush's, Heinz's, and you name any number of them you can think of, have money to play with into their 4th and 5th generations.
And that is also why the heirs of 1st generation job creators get hit hardest by this tax. It is because these billionaire families have bought our legislators who make these laws! And they have made it very difficult for these people who create jobs to pass down their money to their heirs whereas the extremely wealthy are protected and have always been protected. The big money is to be made in protecting this wealthy class.
Damn right it is class warfare! And from the top down too, like Mr. Wilson so aptly states!
And like that old Robber Baron Jay Gould said: "I can hire half the working class to kill the other half of the working class!" there will be people on this forum who will come out and defend these billionaires under the guise of getting rid of the so called "Death Tax."
Ryan| 12.17.10 @ 8:19AM
What right does a government have to force a family to give up its inheritance which had already been taxed as income to the earner?
Deborah D | 12.17.10 @ 8:45AM
According to Wikipedia (I know, not the most reliable) - part of the Communist Manifesto is against we peons inheriting property (wants all property owned by the state too -- that's why I worry about reverse mortgages). Here are the first three: #1 Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
#2 A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
#3 Abolition of all right of inheritance. Check out the rest here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_manifesto .... I'll leave it up to you to figure out what Obama and his ilk are up to.
Robanke@ptd.net| 12.17.10 @ 9:10AM
If this money is in the form of unrealized capital gains then it has not been taxed as income to the "earner." And when Warren Buffet dies how much of the money he has in his estate will have come from taxed income he made as an "earner."
ripped conservative| 12.17.10 @ 11:06AM
They already admit they want our 401kand any individual savings that has already been taxed. This is what commies do.
Tom| 12.17.10 @ 8:24AM
Bob,
Do you have an actual argument on why wealth should be taxed simply because the holder of that wealth died?
Bob K.| 12.17.10 @ 9:04AM
There is no tax on wealth in the US. There is a tax on income. That is what the government is taxing here. Income received by the heirs through Wills or by Intestacy. The government is not taxing wealth. And the government is treating it as exempt income. And that is why we are having this Class Warfare over it.
Why are you defending this anomaly?
Tom| 12.17.10 @ 9:16AM
Bob,
Estate taxes are wealth taxes, you will find no economist who will say otherwise. If I leave an estate of 50 billion dollars it will be taxed at 50 billion dollar regardless of whether any of it had been previously taxed as income. Even in a situation where my heirs do not invest ANY of the money and just live off that sum with zero investment income their estates will be taxed. Estate taxes are taxes on wealth, there is no other logical way to see them.
You did not answer my question: Why should wealth be taxed simply because the person owning that wealth has died? What about that death suddenly makes it ok for the government to garner any monies?
Bob K.| 12.17.10 @ 9:41AM
No, your $50 Billion dollar estate won't be taxed in that manner. You will have your money in Tax Exempt Trusts which are available only to the redundantly rich.
Why don't you tell me why wealth shouldn't be taxed before people die? Then we wouldn't have this argument. We would have other ones.
Refer back to my reference to Jay Gould in an earlier response to Tom Fischer's post.
Tom| 12.17.10 @ 10:27AM
Bob,
Actually I do not think it is a terrible idea to tax wealth. It might be a far better one than to tax income. The argument can be made and I'd certainly listen to it. However, to tax wealth simply because the owner has died is inefficient and economically disruptive.
Anyone can set up a tax exempt trust, the reason they do not is because there is no reason to. Furthermore, most tax exempt trusts merely delay federal tax liability not eliminate it.
Things like tax exempt trusts are good examples why taxing wealth at death is a bad idea. It does not bring in any real revenue, is economically disrupting, and makes estate planners rich.
Ramon| 12.17.10 @ 3:36PM
Try looking up the Fair Tax. It's a lot better than taxing income or wealth.
Ramon| 12.17.10 @ 6:48PM
I am well aware of the fair tax. It has its advantages, the primary ones being it taxes consumption not income and simplicity.
One of the problems with the fair tax is the whole 'prebate' mechanisim. While it is a worthy idea, not to tax consumption at a base level, it also would tie people to a montly government check. I hate the idea of montly government checks.
mzk1| 12.18.10 @ 6:31PM
Estate planners have another use. People use them to keep their wealth, so they can become charity cases (Medicaid) and have other people pay their medical bills.
Bob K.| 12.17.10 @ 9:29AM
Pardon me Tom.
In my haste to get out and earn money that is taxed, (as opposed to sitting around on my butt waiting to inherit money that I hope will not be taxed if the "death tax" is repealed), I mistated that the government is treating Inherited Money as tax exempt when it is not doing that.
Tom| 12.17.10 @ 10:18AM
Bob,
Ok, so you answered my question: You believe government has the right to tax the wealth of someone who has died because you are jealous. Thanks.
All estate taxes do is make estate planners rich. It is economically disruptive, raises little money, and is fundamentally inefficient. If you want to tax wealth then just say so. Frankly it might be more efficient than taxing income.
Bob K.| 12.17.10 @ 12:09PM
No, that is not the reason.
We live in an age of democracy and populism and the government is trying to balance these 2 movements which can be at odds with each other among different groups.
That is why the government is taxing inheritance as income and why it allows "Estate Planning" and why it has given us this utterly complex and incomprehensible tax code! It is trying to minimize this tendency that democracy and populism both have toward class hatred which goes both ways--both upwards and downwards.
It is there to neutralize these feelings of mistrust and hatred, awkward as it may be.
And Obama is playing on them-make no mistake about it.
You can see the results of his tactics being played out here in this forum.
Ray| 12.17.10 @ 12:16PM
"There is no tax on wealth in the US."
Oh, really, so that property tax I pay isn't, what, a tax? It must be rent, right?
Tom| 12.17.10 @ 12:34PM
Ray,
I saw that and figured he just meant on a national level.
chinkatta| 12.17.10 @ 11:09AM
Yeah, let's take all their money. It is about time the slave laboring corporate and elite pay their fair share instead of passing it on to make many more generations slave under their stolen wealth.
Timothy L. Pennell| 12.17.10 @ 11:29AM
It's not a "So-called Death Tax". It's a DEATH TAX. You pay it when you DIE. There's no SO-CALLED about it. That's just the LIB way of trying to TALK DOWN to people who believe that it's OUR MONEY.
It's OUR MONEY. And it's ALREADY been taxed. If somebody wants to hand down WHAT'S THEIRS, to their HEIRS? It's nobody's F-ing Business. It's THEIRS. Unless you you're a Marxist.
Read the 10 Planks of Marxism.
Confiscation of INHERITENCE is one of them. So is a PROGRESSIVE INCOME TAX. And RESTRICTIONS on PRIVATE PROPERTY.
A new medical research endeavor has just concluded that 20% of Americans, suffer from a MENTAL DISORDER. The same number who profess to be LIBERALS. And the same number who voted for OBAMA.
What is it about FREEDOM, and HARD WORK and PRIVATE PROPERTY and WEALTH, that you can't come to grips with?
How many times must the Human Race SUFFER, before people like Bob K. understand that GOVERNMENT COTROL over WHO gets WHAT and HOW MUCH, always ends the same? In Death and Despair and Hopelessness.
There's a REASON that we are the Greatest Country that GOD gave to Man. And it's NOT because of SOCIALISM.
jawin| 12.17.10 @ 4:42PM
After seeing that you poosted this comment more than five hours ago, with no reply, Mr. Pennel, I just had to make a comment. I'll keep it short and sweet: Amen, Brother!! Amen!
Joe| 12.19.10 @ 3:27PM
Amen to that.
Tax what needs to be taxed but once its already taxed for Pete's sake, stop. What incentive do I have to work my butt's off if when I die, Uncle Sam will take most of it, then just spend it or just live a laid back lifestyle, you will probably live longer for the body will be relaxed and stress free.
Lets work like the Spanish, 4 hours siesta...
martin j smith| 12.17.10 @ 7:53AM
I think that the new congressional leadership ( Tea Party ) should throw any Class Warfare right back into Obama's face with the mention of Bill Gates,Warren Buffette, George Soros and others as associates. The khutspu-like behavior of this crowd should be paraded along with the Big Union Leaders as well. Their picture and underneath--Millionaires and billionares for class warfare !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Tom| 12.17.10 @ 7:56AM
While I do not know what was in Buffett's mind when he made that statement the fact is he said his income was taxed at a lower rate than his secretary. He did not say her income tax rates were 30%, he said her income was taxed at 30%. It is an enormous difference. Beyond the speculation of whether she had those deducations you listed, we have no idea if she had children or a home, she paid far more in taxes than just her simple income tax bill. For all intents and purposes payroll taxes are income taxes for anyone below the income threshold. I do not think it is beyond the realm of probablility that she was paying 30 % of her income in taxes.
martin j smith| 12.17.10 @ 8:07AM
This is a warning about Obama ( but probably not needed for most bloggers here ). Obama will without doubt try to position himself in somecases ( as with this so called bi-partisan so called compromise ) as a "reasonable man". However he is a chronic liar this I suspect some such as on Wall street and other Washington Based Pundits like Charles K forget. I think they so much want to see Obama be who he is not ( a Centrist ) that the blinders will be on. Obama will do whatever it will take to win and once in for a second term KAB000000000000M!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
WISHFUL THINKERS ARE DANGEROUS --Caveats of Obama must be sqarely in mind. As long as he wants to increase our deficit in any way shape or for,continus class warfare,continues is appeasement and dangerous foreign policies, fails to improve employment levels significantly and do things that will achieve that--as long as these elements exist--he is who we know he is-- A Liar,a Marxist a race baiter etc.
Bob Miller| 12.17.10 @ 8:43AM
Obama seemed to like the rich a whole lot more when they were funding his last campaign.
Conservative Teamster| 12.17.10 @ 9:02AM
AMEN to that ! ! ! It always has amazed me that the 'little people' fall for this stuff. I was born into and raised in a lower middle income family composed of all blue collar workers.Most of them are good hard working people.I do not hate the rich. I admire anyone who works hard and makes it. That is the American dream.My relatives all want to be one of the 'rich' they hate so much. I ask them all the time why they are sending their children to college since that could lead to a successful life making them rich. Then they would have to hate their own children . . . right? It's all about envy. It is comical to me when they say the Democrats care about the 'little guy'.How can anyone think the likes of John Kerry, Teresa Heinz or Ted Kennedy actually care about them.The Democrat party could teach the Communists a thing or two about brainwashing.
Nunya| 12.17.10 @ 1:42PM
Teamster,
Like you I was raised in a lower-middle class home, in fact my stepfather was a Teamster at one time, and drove a truck for a living. I have never hated the rich, nor have I particularly envied them, though I, like everyone else, would like to have my money worries disappear. I also respect people who have "made it"--Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, while I despise their current politics, are completely responsible for their success, and I admire that. It's inspiring for the rest of us that someone could have a good idea, andor work their butts off, and end up rich. It is the American Dream, and it's possible.
The fact that they Democrap party wants to make it impossible for the rest of us is reason enough to despise their leadership and agenda.
As to them teaching the Communists a thing or two, they ARE communists and their actions prove it.
Al Kamei| 12.17.10 @ 8:54AM
Oh, It's Pharaoh. . . well that explains it.
Because without a ratified amendment to the Constitution someone born as a British Subject in 1961 is ineligible to be President of the U.S. and I looked, there hasn't been one. . . So the judges that ruled against Cpt Larkin think "HE" is the one going to jail? They should spend there last after Christmas shopping time stocking up on all the soap-on-a-rope they can find.
RacerJim| 12.17.10 @ 12:35PM
Actually, Obama may not have been born a British subject in 1961.
Although Obama claims his father was a British subject and he inherited his father's British nationality at birth, Obama's word is not prima-facie evidence of such.
The two versions of Obama's COLB floating around the internet are so visually desparate that one of them cannot be authentic, which doesn't necessarily mean that the other one is authentic. Truth be told it doesn't matter if both of them are authentic because the Department of Hawaii Home Lands does not accept a COLB as prima-facie documentation of being a native born Hawaiian.
Lt Col Lakin's conviction was assured when Judge Lind ruled during a pre-trial hearing that Lakin's "Chain of Command" ended at the Pentagon therefore he could neither request or present any evidence pertaining to Obama's eligibility. It's not the jury's fault that the Judge denied Lakin his right to present exculpatory evidence. Lakin will get an automatic appeal to a higher military court. Judge Lind should be Courts Martialed.
Louis Jenkins| 12.17.10 @ 8:59AM
The main page picture of Obama in a head dress just about sums up the way he treats this country and its people. As Al Kamel said, "Oh, it's Pharaoh."
PaulD| 12.17.10 @ 9:10AM
Let the name of Obama be stricken from every book and tablet, stricken from all pylons and obelisks, stricken from every monument of America. Let the name of Obama be unheard and unspoken, erased from the memory of men for all time. So let it be written ... so let it be done!
RacerJim| 12.17.10 @ 12:36PM
Indeed!
Glen H| 12.17.10 @ 9:15AM
Is this "Matt Dimon" fellow supposed to be Matt Damon or Jaime Dimon?
Kidindie Krowd| 12.17.10 @ 9:29AM
Pharaoh explains how one man can be granted State protection from any feigned potential embarrassment even if it means over-ruling another man’s right to due process under the law, discovery and liberty.
Everyone say it with me, "The King Has No Clothes!"
P.S. Somehow translating from Assyrian to Ancient Greek to Latin to Italian and finally to English the proper spelling of obamanation became abomination, however it still sounds the same and has the same meaning. . .
Petronius| 12.17.10 @ 10:06AM
The biggest problem with this issue is that the average person either cannot understand or refuses to consider the fact that high taxes do not stop anyone who is rich from remaining rich. High taxes prevent the rest of us from becoming rich. Nothing puts the fear of God into a politician more than the possibility that more of the populace having financial assets and large disposable incomes than not. Those people do not need nor wish to treat with him. As to the snobs at the very tip top of the food chain, like Gates, Buffett, Turner, Soros, and the rest, they loathe average people who accumulate wealth because they don't like how that money is spent.
And it's none of their Damned business!! Let them be socialists with their checkbooks. But keep their hooks and Obama's off of Mine. And that's an even bigger burr under the saddle of every Joe 6 Pack who lives and breathes: the attitude of these despots that what is ours should be theirs to hand over to the economically illiterate bottom feeders who say likewise. The idea of social equality for the masses is an unattainable monstrosity. And it cannot be discredited and put down for the count as it is grounded in childish sentiment redolent of kindergarten. Well share and share alike never enters the mind of the politicians or the plutocrats
who's goal is to scrap the Constitution and tell us what is good for us from on high for the duration. And having achieved social supremacy they alone now will choose who will be allowed to "make it".
The Gentlemen of the Continental Congress who founded these United States did so to facilitate empire building at the personal level. Obama and his henchmen have now made that impossible, and they love it!! Sharpen your pitchforks. And bring out the tar and feathers.
Brian Mc| 12.17.10 @ 10:35AM
First order of business, then: The repeal of every law passed in the past twenty years, for starters. One must ask, "Why not?"
Ban every "Agency" and give every Administration a very hard look...it is a revolution that cannot come about short of a complete breakdown at the federal level that leads to anarchy, Petronius. The job is too big for any congress and the monstrosity grows as we speak. What this country was and what it could have achieved, alas. My heart aches for what I thought this country was as a child and what it has become as an adult.
Gary| 12.17.10 @ 10:31AM
Martin J. Smith (above) hit the nail on the head when he said, "I think that the new congressional leadership ( Tea Party ) should throw any Class Warfare right back into Obama's face..."
Every time The Muslim talks about "the rich" Tea Party Republicans (not the other worthless Republicans) should immediately counter with an accusation of class warfare. They need to do this every single time. Everyone who works for a living needs to resist this divide-and-conquer, class warfare strategy. People of all income levels need to realize that we must unite in this fight to the death. The more we stick together, the more frustrated these evil bastards will become. Eventually, their heads will explode.
irish19| 12.18.10 @ 12:33AM
I like that strategy. It is long past time the Republicans stopped playing nice. They keep bringing pea shooters to a gun fight. They need to bring guns and bigger ones than the proggies.
Christopher| 12.17.10 @ 10:55AM
1. Buffet is a hypocrite. If he believes he did not pay enough taxes he can send a check to the U.S. Treasury to pay whatever he believes he ought to pay. He can send a check for 30% of his income or wealth and IRS will gladly cash the check. He can make similar gifts to states, counties, cities, school districts, etc.
a) He knows this but prefers to put his money in trusts, like Gates, so he can control the spending. This means he does not approve of the manner in which the government spends the money. If he and his rich friends approved of the government spending their money, then there would be no reason to put it in trust.
2. Maybe we should have an estate tax of 100% on people such as Buffet, Soros, and others who state publicly they did not pay enough taxes. So if they admit they did not pay enough, let us take it when they die,
3. Let us propose an estate tax of 100% on estates that resulted from stock market gains (Buffet, Gates) or entertainers(Hollywood) or people who inherited wealth (Kennedy, Theresea Heinz) or peple who married wealth (John Kerrey) or people who made money because of politics (Harry Reid, Charly Rangel, Joe Biden, Lyndon Johnson) with no exemptions for trust or tax dodges. We can then see how Buffet, Gates, Kennedys, and the Hollywood club. We will exempt people who actually worked, such as factories, farms, the Democrats are for working people, so they should support it.
Tom| 12.17.10 @ 11:35AM
One thing to remember about Buffett is a large portion of his wealth was made because of estate taxes. Both in buying companies which were being broken up because in order to pay inheritance taxes and in estate planning. He actually directly benefits from higher inheritance taxes.
Christopher| 12.17.10 @ 12:23PM
Good point, Tom. Look at the others who make money fromt the estate tax: insurance companies that sell policies so the heirs can pay the tax, lawyers and accoutants who draft and administer the trusts, they love this tax.
Timothy L. Pennell| 12.17.10 @ 11:30AM
It's not a "So-called Death Tax". It's a DEATH TAX. You pay it when you DIE. There's no SO-CALLED about it. That's just the LIB way of trying to TALK DOWN to people who believe that it's OUR MONEY.
It's OUR MONEY. And it's ALREADY been taxed. If somebody wants to hand down WHAT'S THEIRS, to their HEIRS? It's nobody's F-ing Business. It's THEIRS. Unless you you're a Marxist.
Read the 10 Planks of Marxism.
Confiscation of INHERITENCE is one of them. So is a PROGRESSIVE INCOME TAX. And RESTRICTIONS on PRIVATE PROPERTY.
A new medical research endeavor has just concluded that 20% of Americans, suffer from a MENTAL DISORDER. The same number who profess to be LIBERALS. And the same number who voted for OBAMA.
What is it about FREEDOM, and HARD WORK and PRIVATE PROPERTY and WEALTH, that you can't come to grips with?
How many times must the Human Race SUFFER, before people like Bob K. understand that GOVERNMENT COTROL over WHO gets WHAT and HOW MUCH, always ends the same? In Death and Despair and Hopelessness.
There's a REASON that we are the Greatest Country that GOD gave to Man. And it's NOT because of SOCIALISM.
Judy| 12.17.10 @ 12:37PM
How about we turn the conversation around and not talk about people leaving money to their heirs. What about a farmer that owns land that he has worked with his sons/daughters for decades. When he dies, he wants to leave the farm (property) to his children. However, the value of that land exeeds the "exempt" portion and the children have to sell the farm to pay the taxes. Why does the government have any right to this man's (or his children's) property? Please tell me *WHY*?
Tom| 12.17.10 @ 1:36PM
Because we are a foolish people that all too often elect foolish politicians. It is real easy to use envy to drive resentment. And pissed off people vote.
Clint| 12.17.10 @ 2:57PM
Obama wants to stick it to The HENRYs ( High Earners Not Rich Yet ): Families earning between $250,000 and $500,000, but not having much left after taxes, schooling, housing and family costs - not to mention saving for an affluent retirement.
Oldefarte| 12.17.10 @ 3:37PM
This is simply socialism, communism, etc as PRACTICED BY DEMOCRATS; or as some might call it, QUID-PRO-QUOISM! They obtain political power and use same to grant governmental welfare benefits to their indigent constituents in return for these indigents' payback in the form of voting for DEMOCRATS!!!!!!!!!
martin j smith| 12.17.10 @ 4:35PM
In Obama's remar5ks ( also Biden as well ) with his signing of the "tax compromise the term "middle class" must have been used twenty times and maybe more. This in less than ten minutes. I wonder if anyone listening is asking : just who the heck are they talking about ?. Then there is the " Barak's magic pen effect". Meaning thru the"magic pen" Obama did this or that or the other thing. Well of course it was "his party" this presentation ceremony" that is. If he were not facing opposition from the American People do you think this "magic pen" would have even thought about this for a nano second ? No, I do not. Oe other poit I wish to add on Obama and perception: Neal Cavuto of Fox seems to be getting very friendly with Obama. Anyone out there notice. Have the screws been put on Fox ? On Cavuto ? Or, have they had a bit too much of the magic potion ?
Oldefarte| 12.17.10 @ 7:27PM
In El Chosen One's language, the term 'middle class' means ANYONE WHO DOES NOT WORK AND DEPENDS FOR THE FINANCIAL SURVIVAL ON GOVERNMENTAL WELFARE. His constituency class is [and which all of his wealth redistributive political efforts/legislation] directed toward the benefit of the INDIGENT CLASS [and not the middle class]!!!!
Bob K.| 12.18.10 @ 8:55AM
The problem is with the tax code. The people we elect to congress have never seen fit to correct this inequity. For whatever their reasons they would like to see the electorate argue about whether or not there should or should not be taxes on inherited wealth.
Land can be wealth. But it it usually can not readily be converted into the cash needed to pay this tax. The fact that the tax code requires this tax to be paid in one lump sum puts landowners at a disadvantage over people who inherit wealth from deceased people who have their wealth in invested in stocks and bonds and such and who can readily sell part of these assets to pay the tax.
This is grossly unfair!
Have you considered that in the midwest Big Agriculture may actually like this! They can add more acreage to their already huge Agribusinesses as it it sold to pay the tax.
And in the suburbs near large cities developers may also be in favor of this because it opens up land for more development as it is sold to pay the tax?
We tend to confuse capitalism with conservatism and they are not by any means at all times in tune with each other.
Big capitalists will always play ball with government where profits are concerned and that is the subject of the article Andrew Wilson wrote here.
This raises another question: Should the heirs of the people who made Billions of dollars in this current crash of our economy because they had inside information from congress be allowed to inherit these ill gotten gains without having to pay a tax on them?
Oldefarte| 12.18.10 @ 1:34PM
Again, the money belongs rightfully to the taxpayers, NOT TO THE GOVERNMENT. Our constitution allows the government to tax INCOME EARNERS in order to pay for/fund the government's operations. The problem is that government has grown larger and larger over the years, mainly due to its providing more and more forms of WELFARE to the indigents [who keep producing more and more children that they themselves cannot financially support and therefore rely upon the government for same]within our population, and therefore the government must raise taxes higher and higher for same. If income is earned illegally/corruptly by individuals, it is not the responsibility of the IRS to either increase/decrease tax payments to remedy this illegality; but rather is the responsibility of the legal entities [ie Justice/FBI,etc] to investigate, arrest, convict, jail etc such individuals. The government should not compensate for their lack of law enforcement regarding illbegotten wealth by confiscation of same by the IRS through tax payments. The issue of this editorial is the theory of whether income earned by individuals belongs to that individual or to the government, and the answer is obviously the former. These socialists, Marxists, communists etc now running our government believe it to be the latter, and that they/government has the right under law to confiscate whatever they so desire of others' income in taxes. Since this country is a CAPITALISTIC one and not a SOCIALISTIC one, they/government does not have an unlimited right to said income. They only should have a right to the very minimum amount necessary to fund the basic services that they supply to the people [ie infrastructure construction, military expenses,etc]. Their expansion into providing more and more governmental welfare shifts this country from a capitalistic one into a socialistic one [similar to European countries]!!!!
Bob K.| 12.18.10 @ 6:46PM
Sadly, this is not a recent occurrence in our country. This trend has been going on for many, many years. It is only in the details where our social welfare policies differ from those of European countries. And both of our parties were complicit in this and frankly speaking the majority of the electorate accepted them.
The hue and cry that caused the results of this election came about because of the extreme way this administration wanted to expand these programs during a time of economic
recession/depression, and their selective method of deciding who would be hurt by these new policies and who would benefit from them!
Sid Vicious| 12.18.10 @ 3:35PM
For all the self-righteous bellowing we've heard about "the rich" during the past two years, neo-socialists have a uniform habit of whistling past That One's $5.5-million income during 2009 with excuses that typically involve "royalties" from the proceeds of his book sales. They also clearly don't like to be reminded that Uhhhbama and wife earned 3.7 TIMES as much as George W. Bush and wife did over the most recent five years for which tax returns are available for each couple– $14.9 million versus $4.03 million.
I believe Eric Arthur Blair would call this "doublethink."
epignosis| 12.18.10 @ 4:28PM
This always happens. They get stinking rich. They ensconce themselves in a private compound with security guards, servants, cooks, and chauffeurs.
Next they start to dispense advice regarding the disposition of other people's money.
It is amazing how one's point of view will change when they become financially and physically secure.
Please advise them to endorse their check to 'United States Treasury', then remain quiet.
mzk1| 12.18.10 @ 4:49PM
I get so angry when I read about these hypocritical billionaires, who complain about their taxes being too low but don't send in a check to the treasury.
"What's mine is yours and what's yours is mine is ignorant;
What's yours is yours and what's mine is yours is pious;
What's mine is mine and what's yours is mine is evil" (Talmud, Torts, Syaings of the Fathers)
proreason| 12.18.10 @ 8:12PM
The dirty secret is often hinted at but never stated clearly, although this article approaches it.
There is a class of billionaires and near billionaires who pay virtually no taxes, because as the author says, they take so little income as a % basis of their fortunes, that their taxes are barely noticable. Most also participate in the rich man's tax shelter...municpal bonds, the reason there is no chance that any state will ever go bankrupts.
There are some in that class who have earned their fortunes and paid a lot of taxes on the way up, but there are many more who have inherited their fortunes, and do NOTHING for society or the economy, other than to spend money. Most of them pay 0 (yes ZERO) in taxes. Many of them are parasites, fortunate remora fish who just happen to have been born in a good spot and who have teams of lawyers who ensure they will never have to contribute a dime in taxes.
Note, if you haven't already, that taxes are on INCOME. The uber-wealthy class avoid that nasty detail, for obvious reasons.
And yet where does the tax burden fall? Surprise, it fall hardest on the people who actually do contribute to socienty and the economy, the entrepreneur class who don't begin to have the fortunes of the uber useless rich.
Buffet earned his money, but that doesn't mean he isn't a fool about a lot of things....and a massive hypocrite. He isn't giving his money to the government is he?
Bob K.| 12.18.10 @ 9:24PM
Good post!
It brings to mind a well known quote by Willi Schlam who co-founded "National Review" magazine with William F. Buckley, Jr. It is one of the late WFB,Jr's favorite quotes.
Here it is: "The trouble with Socialism is Socialism. The trouble with Capitalism is Capitalists!"
Oldefarte| 12.19.10 @ 11:00AM
YOU ARE COMPLETELY INCORRECT! Whether an individual is extremely wealthy or moderately so, the ESSENTIAL POINT is that THE MONEY BELONG TO THAT INDIVIDUAL, NOT TO THE GOVERNMENT AND NOT TO SOCIETY AT LARGE! Those with extreme incomes do support society [through government taxiation] as their large amount of taxes paid constitute the majoriety of governmental receipts/funding, not the lower income bracketed individuals [whose taxes are either nil or significantly minor/low]. Furthermore, the weathy invest their surplous funds into businesses, stocks, bonds,etc, all of which economically multiply the money inside the private sector of the economy and which are used to supply others with jobs, income from same,etc. The problem is not the wealthy and THEIR INCOME, but rather the indigent/lower class of individuals that feed off of the government's welfare system of payments, and if not for the wealthy and moderate income producers and their tax payments to government, would vertually stave to death. Furthermore, these indigents consistantly produce more and more children that they personally cannot afford to financially support, therefore leaving it up to government to do so. These individuals are the problem with society, not the wealthy who support not only themselves but these indigents as well!!!!!!!!!!
Bob K.| 12.19.10 @ 6:18PM
Oldefarte,
You can continue howling like a King Lear, at the immutable forces of history, democracy and populism, that caused this state of affairs. (DeTocqueville discussed and predicted this as long as170 years ago.) Or you can enjoy the upcoming holiday. Certainly the people living today who are the beneficiaries of this largesse which is the result of all of the cumulative elections in our Democracy over this time period will be enjoying this holiday! Reversing this trend will not happen overnight I expect.
Meanwhile I wish you and yours a very happy holiday!
Harry| 12.19.10 @ 2:11AM
It has always been a mystery to me how Obamagot rich enough to challenge for the Presidency in the first place. It is not cheap to run for any public office, let alone that one.
vip2020 | 12.19.10 @ 5:46AM
How Many Roads Must A Man Walk Down Before He Admits Hes lost?
martin j smith| 12.19.10 @ 7:58AM
The best way to "deal" with class warfare is to keep pumping info of all the rich Communists and their symps on and on and on till the VOTERS get the idea that the class warfare is a bunch of crapola. This is starting to ahppen anyway but it must be keep going on.
Typo Correction| 12.19.10 @ 8:21AM
Shouldn't that read:
So much, then, for the claim that she, or the cleaner, would pay a higher rate than the indignantly under-taxed billionaire
Douglas (Doug E) Brafford| 12.19.10 @ 8:02PM
Tax rates don't matter. It's all over. America is a goner ! Our only chance is a Palin presidency !
Game On| 12.19.10 @ 11:42PM
We abandon their currency - they wither and die - freedom and liberty survive.
Bob K.| 12.20.10 @ 12:15AM
George Soros made his billions in currency manipulations.
Sex with men| 12.20.10 @ 3:11AM
1) put obama in a pharoah hat
2) say matt damon swore a pharoah oath
3) ??????
4) profit!!!!
Bob Miller| 12.20.10 @ 3:49PM
The battle cry against this Pharaoh should be "Let go of my money!"
REB| 12.21.10 @ 12:33AM
Not that it matters but why does it seem like all the commie mega rich are old stupid white guys for the most part?
mwinkey.com | 12.21.10 @ 7:40AM
Our Store mainly engaged in sales of Windows and Office product key. All products are fully authorized by Microsoft directly. Mwinkey'Store will provide the full range of products. Buy our products you will enjoy the cheap prices and professional service.you can find our store with follow keywords.
weddingdress | 7.1.11 @ 1:06AM
1) put obama in a pharoah hat
2) say matt damon swore a pharoah oath
3) ??????
4) profit!!!!