American Diabetes Association says Obama’s tax increase is “only 5%”
The American Diabetes Association called me today, "not to ask for money." In the course of the conversation, the lady from the American Diabetes Association said that Obama's tax increase is "only going to be about 5%. It's not that much."
My mother died of pancreatic cancer and I generally do support charities that deal with diseases of the pancreas (including being on the founding board of PanCan), but since the American Diabetes Association thinks that it is "not that much" they'll be the ones who realize that the "not that much" comes out of their budget. But since it is "not that much" the American Diabetes Association won't miss it.
When a charity calls today, this is what I am going to say when they ask for money:
Oh, didn't you know that we have a new President in Washington? I suggest that now that he has declared that he is the best person to decide who "needs" the money more that you and I call the White House and see if you can beg from them. His tax increases are taking my charitable donations. The choice is simple: vote freedom or statism/socialism.
Now, I'll still be donating, but it will be to charities that (a) support freedom, and (b) don't sit at the trough of the federal government claiming handouts from the rest of us at the point of a gun.
A New Era of Responsibility, 1.75 trillion deficit
I think the title says it all:
"A New Era of Responsibility, 1.75 trillion deficit"
$3.552 Trillion total spending or about $25,000 per taxpayer.
See the pdf file: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/fy2010_new_era/A_New_Era_of_Responsibility2.pdf
Obama will tax the ‘blackest/whitest” 2%?
Imagine if President Obama proposed taxing the blackest or whitest or gayest or straightest or most religious 2% of all citizens at a higher rate than the rest of the population. Would anyone stand for picking on a minority like that? Would anyone stand for singling people out like that?
Now replace blackest/whitest/gayest/straightest/most religious with something like "most talented" or "most successful" and no one has a problem with it.
So much for the concept of equal treatment under the law. So much for equality.
Freedom is endowed by our creator, every person's right, and results in the most efficient system available. Increased government control limits your freedom and eventually it will limit it enough that you have none left and it will be too late to respond.
Obama, Geithner, and Daschle’s rules for the IRS
No one making less than $250,000 under Barack Obama’s plan will see one single penny of their tax raised
No one making less than $250,000 under Barack Obama's plan will see one single penny of their tax raised, whether it's their capital gains tax, their income tax, investment tax, any tax.
Joe Biden during Vice Presidential Debate, October 2, 2008
Obama Advisors want higher gas taxes…
"If anything, we need higher gas taxes.'' - Alice Rivlin, former Clinton White House budget office, now Barack Obama supporter, May 6, 2008
Hillary Clinton and John McCain agree that the Federal gas tax should be eliminated for the summer. Barack Obama advisors argue for a higher gas taxes. Experience shows that one who is willing to raise one tax or not cut taxes is much more likely to raise others.
Hey Rivlin, it is our money. Donate more if you wish yourself. Put your money where your mouth is, or is that too much to ask?
Patrick Henry needs a bit of revision today!
My liberal cousin ends his emails with this wonderful Patrick Henry quotation:
" . . . I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death! - March 23, 1775"
All the while he supports policies such as these:
1. Government run health care. So much for the freedom of doctors and patients to work together on their fees and treatments. You'll be told what health care you can have and the doctor will be told how much he or she will be paid for it. Patrick Henry would want freedom for both. (Yes, insurance needs to be reformed, but again, the answer is freedom - freedom for insurance companies and people to buy from each other instead of having the government stand between the two. And freedom to take your insurance with you if you change jobs.)
2. Minimum wages - there is no freedom to negotiate your own wage. Both the employer and employee are restricted by government. Patrick Henry would not like this.
3. Redistribution of earnings. Let us say exactly what this means instead of using double-talk: you take some money from someone who works and give it to someone who needs it, supposedly, more than you do. Instead of you owning the products of your labors by right, you own them by sufferance of the majority. Patrick Henry would not like that and neither would the Constitution.
So, Patrick Henry needs a little revision today because although Patrick wanted liberty for everyone, today's liberals only seem to want it for approved people and approved areas:
. . . I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me AND EVERYONE ELSE liberty, or give me death!
The liberal version seems to be:
. . . I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me AND NO ONE ELSE unless I approve of them liberty, or give me death!
The only answer is freedom and that implies an economic system that is based on freedom. There is no debate between capitalism and statism, it is a debate between freedom and statism. And statism is any philosophy that uses the state to greatly restrict your freedom to live your life as you please.
Remember that 'business' does not pay taxes, they merely collect them from the consumers and pass them along to Washington. Businesses pass along any taxes to you. The rhetoric behind "tax business" is obfuscation to get more money for Washington to spend in trying to buy your vote.
Barack Obama-’I deserve a tax increase’
"And [Buffett] has said, and I think a lot of us who have been fortunate are willing to pay a little bit more to make sure that a senior citizen who is struggling to deal with rising property taxes or rising heating bills, that they've got the coverage that they need." Barack Obama, November 11, 2007 (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/11/11/obama-i-deserve-a-tax-increase/)
Barack, just as we said to Warren Buffett - if you really believe what you say about paying more in taxes, why haven't you been doing so? No one is stopping you. So, why haven't you paid more for the past 2 or 10 years? Why aren't you starting to pay more today? The Social (In)Security System would love it. The hypocrisy continues.Just remember that Congress' retirement does NOT come from Social Security, Senator Obama. What does Congress know that they don't want the rest of us to know?
AMT, Republicans and Socialist Charles Rangel
With all the grousing about the AMT (Alternative Minimum Tax) and the plans to ?¢‚Ǩ?ìdo something?¢‚Ǩ¬ù about it, the following factors must be considered. Charles Rangel, Democratic Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s plan is to raise taxes (don?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t worry, you won?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t be left out) elsewhere to ?¢‚Ǩ?ìpay for?¢‚Ǩ¬ù reducing the AMT. First, Charles, you don?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t have to borrow money to ?¢‚Ǩ?ìpay for?¢‚Ǩ¬ù a tax cut. You borrow money to spend. Everything else is just dissembling and an attempt to confuse people. Power-hungry politicians love to use words like that
Buffett says taxes are too low, but doesn’t pay more himself
Echoing his comments in June, Warren Buffett is complaining about tax rates as being too low. The relevant question is: has he done anything about it or is he just being a hypocrite, again?
Let?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s see what Buffett has actually done instead of said: Buffett is giving away is fortune (http://money.cnn.com/2006/06/25/magazines/fortune/charity1.fortune/). Good for him, great choice, it is nice that he has the right and freedom to do as he sees fit with the money he has earned. Too bad Buffett doesn't think that others should have that same freedom.
What precisely is Buffett doing? He is giving his fortune to tax-exempt foundations. So, if you REALLY want to pay more taxes, Warren, why do this?