Government’s Role

Tax Plan: Obama Wants Women Out of The Workplace

In an Op-Ed Piece in the WSJ Obama’s two economic advisers, Jason Furman and Austan Goolsbee outline the domestic terrorism that is the standard Democrat taxation strategy. To bring the propaganda from the O-blivious campaign the New York Sun editors adds the commentary

Mr. Obama’s two economic advisers, Jason Furman and Austan Goolsbee, have an op-ed piece in today’s Wall Street Journal, and it isn’t pretty. To begin with, they propose bringing back the 39.6% top income tax bracket, an increase from the 35% current top rate. On top of that, he’d impose a new payroll tax on those top earners of 2% to 4%, bringing their marginal tax rate to as high as 43.6%. Add to that the top New York City income tax rate of 3.648% and the top New York State income tax rate of 6.85%, and the nominal marginal income tax rate mounts to a staggering 54%. Because Mr. Obama proposes to put the capital gains and dividend tax rate at 20% even for the “rich” — a mere 33% increase over the current 15% rate — expect to see plenty of high earners scurrying to find creative ways of structuring their income as capital gains or dividends rather than as earned income.

Meanwhile, the most astonishing sentence in the op-ed is this one: “His plan would not raise any taxes on couples making less than $250,000 a year, nor on any single person with income under $200,000.” It amounts to a declaration of war on two-income families, a marriage penalty of punitive proportions. If those two single persons with income just under $200,000 get married, Mr. Obama is going to hammer them with a huge tax increase. If the second earner, who in many cases is the woman, is going to have to give 54% of what she earns to the government, she might as well stay home with the children. Mr. Obama may be able to get away with symbolic slights to women, such as not picking Senator Clinton as vice president. But punishing them with confiscatory taxes for participating in the workforce at a high income level moves the slight into the realm of substance.

Those Responsible, Part 1: Lehman Brothers Board

Let’s remember these names, to keep them out of the business world until they die. Perhaps we should send them a card each September 15th…

“For your invaluable direction and wisdom while on the board of Lehman Brothers (invaluable of course in the sense that we’ll never really know the level of destruction your contribution (or lack thereof) waged on the U.S. economy). Best Wishes on dealing with your total failure! As opposed to so many others, you went out at the very bottom of your game.

Sincerely,
America”

“Nine of them are retired. Four of them are over 75 years old. One is a theater producer, another a former Navy admiral. Only two have direct experience in the financial-services industry.

“Meet the Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. external board directors, a group of 10 people who, perhaps unknowingly, carried the health of the world’s financial system on their shoulders the past 18 months…”    –Dennis K. Berman on WSJ.com

Lehman Brothers Board of Directors

Richard S. Fuld, Jr.
Chairman and CEO

Michael L. Ainslie
Private Investor and Former Pres. and CEO of Sotheby’s Holdings

John F. Akers
Retired Chairman of IBM Corp.

Roger S. Berlind
Theatrical Producer

Thomas H. Cruikshank
Retired Chairman and CEO of Halliburton Company

Marsha Johnson Evans
Rear Admiral, United States Navy (Retired)

Sir Christopher Gent
Non-Executive Chairman of GlaxoSmithKline plc

Jerry A. Grundhofer
Chairman Emeritus and Retired CEO of U.S. Bancorp

Roland A. Hernandez
Retired Chairman and CEO of Telemundo Group, Inc.

Henry Kaufman
President of Henry Kaufman & Company, Inc.

John D. Macomber
Principal of JDM Investment Group

Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae, one root of evil is Barney Frank

The shockingly oblivious Democrat from Massachusetts Barney Frank has proven himself to be one of the most vehement protectors of crap management and a record-breaking flusher of others’ wealth. Thanks for the new $200+ billion invoice. And for the liberals and conservatives out there, I don’t want to hear another word about the 10 billion/month we’re spending in Iraq attracting and subsequently pulverizing extreme Muslims. Barney Frank and his kind just waged a single day war on the taxpayer (read “rich white conservatives”, not the “working people”) to the price tag of 18 months in Iraq.

Asked about Treasury’s modest bailout condition that the companies reduce the size of their high-risk mortgage-backed securities (MBS) portfolios starting in 2010, Mr. Frank was quoted on Monday as saying, “Good luck on that,” and that it would never happen.

There you have the Fannie Mae problem in profile. Mr. Frank wants you to pick up the tab for its failures, while he still vows to block a reform that might prevent the same disaster from happening again.

At least the Massachusetts Democrat is consistent. His record is close to perfect as a stalwart opponent of reforming the two companies, going back more than a decade. The first concerted push to rein in Fan and Fred in Congress came as far back as 1992, and Mr. Frank was right there, standing athwart. But things really picked up this decade, and Barney was there at every turn.

READ MORE

Oh, and the best part? Many of the irresponsible people who got into houses they never could have afforded may get to stay in those houses, on my dime. You’re welcome. Now grow up and use your brain next time. The formula is as follows:  work your tail off, get promoted, work your tail off, get promoted, buy a house you can afford in good times and bad, work your tail off, retire. I’m keeping it simple, because buying twice the house you can afford — just because some greedy (and stupid) bankers dangled the carrot — means you can’t follow complex.

Oh, and the greedy bankers? Here’s some for you. We must have experienced a decade of MBAs on Wall Street who were apparently the drunken weak link on their teams in school. Oh, except for the Goldman Sachs guys, they were the ones doing the work.

Do I sound angry? Yeah, I’m angry.

Obama’s ‘Community Organizer’ Days, More Insight

The Community Organizer’s New Clothes

There’s a piece by James Taranto of the WSJ today about Obama’s “Community Organizer” days that shouldn’t be missed.

…community organizing consists of helping elect Barack Obama president! This fits right in with Obama’s claim, noted here yesterday, that he is more qualified to be president than Palin is to be vice president because, whereas she has run a mere town, he has run a campaign for himself.

The community Barack Obama has organized is, in [the Obama campaign manager’s] own telling, the community of those who admire Barack Obama. He is mayor of Obamaville and aspires to be president of Barackistan. At the center of it all is a man who, like Hans Christian Andersen’s naked emperor, may or may not believe that his veneer of accomplishment is real.

READ IT IN FULL HERE

also…

Why Obama’s ‘Community Organizer’ Days Are a Joke

Michelle Malkin provides some interesting insight into the non-profit-status-abusing company for whom the “exciting new guy” Obama used to work.

Nobody is mocking community organizers in church basements and community centers across the country working to improve their neighbors’ lives. What deserves ridicule is the notion that Obama’s brief stint as a South Side rabble-rouser for tax-subsidized, partisan nonprofits qualifies as executive experience you can believe in.

What deserves derision is “community organizing” that relies on a community of homeless people and ex-cons to organize for the purpose of registering dead people to vote, shaking down corporations and using the race card as a bludgeon.

Very worth a read… THE FULL ARTICLE HERE

Democrats Maintain Prison of Poverty in U.S. Cities

Looking for still more proof that Democrat social and fiscal strategies (hehehe) fail? Please take a few minutes to read Glenn Beck’s excellent article on the poorest U.S. cities and their governments. Yep, you guessed it…

Five of the 10 cities with the highest poverty rates (Detroit, Buffalo, St. Louis, Milwaukee, Philadelphia and Newark) have had a Democratic stranglehold since at least 1961: more than 45 years. Two of the cities (Milwaukee and Newark) have been electing Democrats since the first Model T rolled off the assembly line in 1908.

Two cities, 100 years, all Democrats.

If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result, the asylums in those cities must be as full as the soup kitchens.

READ MORE

It would be nice to have a research staff to collect all of this kind of info for my humble publication, but I’m a staff of 0.05. I guess I’m just glad someone’s got the resources and time to call out the island of misfit toys we know as liberals.

Obama, Abortion Extremist

Scary review of Obama’s abortion views based no on what he claims, but what he does on the record. A portion of the article follows but please follow the link after to read the entire article. It’s surprisingly sad how little regard these people have to human life.

Asked by Pastor Rick Warren when a baby gets rights, Obama said, “I’m absolutely convinced that there is a moral and ethical element to this issue.” This is a crashing banality couched as thoughtfulness. If Obama is so sensitive to the moral element of the issue, why does he want to eliminate any existing restrictions on the procedure?

In 2007, Obama told the Planned Parenthood Action Fund that the Freedom of Choice Act would be the first piece of legislation that he would sign as president. The act would not only codify Roe v. Wade, but wipe out all current federal, state and local restrictions on abortion that pass muster under Roe, including the Hyde Amendment prohibiting federal funding of abortion. This is not the legislative priority of a man keenly attuned to the moral implications of abortion.

At Saddleback, Obama said determining when a baby gets rights is “above his pay grade.” Leave aside that presidents usually have an opinion about who deserves legal rights. If Obama is willing to permit any abortions in any circumstances, he’d better possess an absolute certainty about the absolute moral nullity of the fetus.

He told Warren that he favors “limits on late-term abortions, if there is an exception for the mother’s health.” But the exception he wants is so broad it makes the restriction meaningless. Obama opposed the partial-birth bill that passed the House and the Senate, 281-142 and 64-34 respectively, and has criticized the Supreme Court for upholding the law.

It’s not just partial-birth abortion where Obama is outside the mainstream, but on the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act — the occasion for his televised accusation of lying.

In 2000, Congress took up legislation to make it clear that infants born alive after abortions are persons under the law. The National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League opposed the bill as an assault on Roe, but it passed the House 380-15. Back in the Illinois state Senate in 2001, Obama spoke out against and voted “present” — effectively “no” — on a similar bill, aligning himself with the tiny pro-abortion rump of 15 congressmen.

READ IT HERE

McCain Proves Superior At Saddleback

I hope everyone had a chance  watch the forum with McCain and Barry Oblivious. If not, please do so below. While Obama was struggling to begin half of his responses with uhhh, ummm, I, I, I think…, McCain had clear ideas with conviction in them and his whole presence was much more impressive than I expected. It’s good to see the relatively unscripted side of these two (though of course they both have somewhat memorized positions on all of these issues).

Obama

Part 1Part 2Part 3Part 4Part 5Part 6

McCain

Part 1Part 2Part 3Part 4Part 5

Related articles…

Barack Obama, Abortion Extremist by Rich Lowry

Who Really Cares, Right vs. Left in Charity & Service…

In “Who Really Cares: America’s Charity Divide – Who Gives, Who Doesn’t, and Why It Matters”, Arthur C. Brooks uses hard data to prove that, when it comes to charitable giving, conservatives – especially religious conservatives – are far more generous than liberals, who seem to believe that “compassion” begins and ends with voting for government handouts.

  • Conservative households in America donate 30% more money to charity each year than liberal households, even in spite of lower average incomes
  • Conservatives are also more generous in other ways, such as blood donations, and volunteer work. In fact, if liberals gave blood like conservatives do, the blood supply in the U.S. would jump by about 45%
  • People who mistrust big government give more than those who rely on the government to take care of the poor. This includes giving and volunteering even to traditionally “progressive causes” such as the arts and the environment
  • Conservative “red” states give away far more of their incomes than liberal “blue” states do
  • Religious people give away four times more money each year than secularists. This is not just because of giving to churches – religious people are 10 percent more likely than secularists to give money to explicitly nonreligious charities
  • Religious people are far more generous than secularists with their time. For instance, a religious person is 57% more likely than a secularist to help a homeless person
  • Religious people are also more generous in informal ways, such as giving money to family members, and behaving honestly
  • A working poor family without welfare support gives, on average, more than three times as much money to charity each year as a family with the same total income that receives welfare support. In other words, poverty does not discourage charity in America — but welfare does
  • People raised in intact and religious families are more charitable than those who are not. For instance, married parents are 9 percentage points more likely to give money than divorced parents, and 29 points more likely than never-married parents
  • Charitable giving spurs the economy: at the national level, a $1 increase in giving per person stimulates a $19 increase in GDP per capita
  • Americans give far more money and are far more likely to volunteer their time than citizens of any European country. For example, the average American family gives three and a half times as much as a French family, seven times as much as a German family, and 14 times as much as an Italian family
  • Charitable giving and volunteering improve physical health and happiness, and lead to better citizenship — whereheas many government policies that discourage private charitable behavior have negative effects

While Politicklish.com takes no money from sales or interest in this book, and is certainly not trying to sling the book for the author (who we don’t know from anyone), we’re always in favor of exposing data to the public, and this book’s full of data. Read for yourself if you like.

Socialist vs. Capitalist Systems, Great Old Clip

It’s strangely timely and relevant still today, right?

I know what some will say… so let’s all say it together… The propaganda I agree with is good propaganda!

But being one who cherishes the existence of absolute truth, there is a better way for pretty much everything. Feigning open-mindedness only gets you into the popular clubs, it won’t gain you substance.