Obama Unveils Deficit Reduction Plan, ‘Buffett Rule’ Tax On Millionaires


Redistribu­tion is theft. Taken to its logical extreme, and the kulaks are liquidated­.

Rob your neighbor so the government can decide what to do with his money, and maybe give you some of it. Envy is ugly.

And it’s stupid.The President’­s plan will also increase the complexity of the already insane tax code, But as half of American don’t pay any income tax, it will appeal.

A flat tax would be fair and consistent­, but it will never happen due to the base emotion of envy.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “Obama Unveils Deficit Reduction Plan, ‘Buffett Rule’ Tax On Millionaires

  1. Your most inane post yet, Stonefree – comparing Obama’s idea that the highest earners should pay more taxes to the liquidation of the Kulaks! Oh please!!!! Are you one of those high earners – I think not.
    Interesting study reviewed in The Economist recently about why those who don’t have much – but a little more than others – would rather see their own financial status decreased rather than let poorer people increase their status. I believe the conclusion was that it is a form of envy, and really sick. Could you tell us, Your Smartness, why millionaires should pay a lower percentage of tax than their secretaries? And if you’re going to come back with the stupid cliche that we shouldn’t tax the “job creators”, pls explain why there was a net decrease of jobs created during the Bush years of lowering taxes for the top earners? Oh, I forgot, we can’t talk about that because you were sleeping during the Bush years and seem to have a Internet induced amnesia for that dismal period.

    • Inane? Surprising that inanity would arouse such passion.

      Comparing Obama’s “plan” to liquidation of the kulaks? Read it again: I said the emotion behind both is the same, and I stand by that. There were plenty of Russians happy t point to their more prosperous neighbors.

      I for one, do not resent the rich simply for being rich. That someone has more than I does not diminish me.

      No, I certainly am not, nor never have been a high earner. This make makes me a class traitor in not supporting the President’s plan, which is mathematically futile, compared to the deficit.

      What is it with Obama supporters and Bush? It’s getting to look a bit weak, as even some of the President’s supporters in the commentariat have noted of late, He wanted the job, and while he could say things turned out to be worse than he thought they were, that too would be weak, because anyone observing the Bush Presidency’s fiscal and economic policy, especially towards the end, would have been well aware of the damage. I was, as no doubt were you.

      As for you reference to “internet induced amnesia,” whatever that means exactly, I’ll take it as a reference to Bush supporters in general, rather than an ad hominem attack, which are always a sign of panic in a debate.

      It would be nice if Obama supporters could realize that dislike for Obama is not prima facie evidence of love for Bush

  2. I believe you said previously in a discussion about the cost of the Iraq war that you weren’t on Bush’s case because you were “sleeping”, meaning not politically aroused during the Bush years. And as far as criticism of Bush being “weak”, that seems to imply that we must forget the past mistakes; I believe one of Bush’s former spokesmen dismissively called it “re-litigating the Bush years”. That’s what I meant with ‘internet induced amnesia’ because 95% of what’s on the web has been published in the last 15-20 years. So Obama “wanted the job”? That means we can forget the Republican tax reduction giveaways to his supporters that have hugely contributed to the fiscal mess we are now in? What’s not fair about that? Plenty!

    • Bush, neo-cons, and RINOS aroused disgust in many conservatives, as did McCain’s candidacy, resulting in a disconnect that may have put Obama over the top.

      It does get tiring keeping up. In my own case, I was onto Islam and jihad in the 80s, but then forgot about it. I had a family to raise.So if your point is citizens who disconnect form poetics may get nasty surprises, I would agree.

      As for the wars and such, the dead are dead, and the money’s gone. What matters is now and the future.
      The way it works is, what happens on your watch goes to you. Some might argue for example that Clinton benefited from the end of the cold war and embracing centrist-right policies originated by Republicans, such as welfare reform. Maybe so, but it doesn’t matter; things were not bad on Bill’s watch, and his presidency is generally considered a success. As Obama’s most likely will not.

      Fair? This is politics!

    • As to the “tax giveway” there is plenty of dispute a to how much “revenue” was “lost.” I use quotation marks to point to the implication in much of the argument that earnings belong to the government unless earners can demonstrate otherwise..

      And there is the question as to whether much of the spending should have taken place, paid for or not.

      However, I’m not inclined to go over OMB reports at the moment, as I’m sitting at an outdoor cafe in Singapore, drinkingTtiger beer, and watching Chinese girls in short skirts and shorts strut by.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s