Let us see. That blowhard, Jim Cramer, says that President Barack "World" Obama is alreadyon track toward destroying more wealth than any other President in American history. That would be more convincing if Jim Cramer, even more than Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh, was not basing this totally upon Obama's failure to stop the stock market slide--inother words, Obama's faioure to give the computer casino gamers on Wall Street enough plausible hype to offset reality. That said, almost anybody with brains knows that Obama, Pelosi and Reid are leading us to disaster. There is no way the leftist agenda Obama is pushing--to the left of any previous government in U.S. history--can work.
John McCain (I heard him, because I listened to his interview on Hannity just to hear what he had to say on the idiocy of "cap and trade: that massive "global warming" tax on our industrial civilization and electric utilities being proposed by President Obama. Well, McCain still refused to abandon the fraud of "global warming, but did become a total hypocrite. McCain said that he is totally against this massive "cap and trade" tax that Obama is proposing in the middle of a severe recession. You will remember that Obama basically promised, in the campaign, to use this "cap and trade" tax to put every coal plant in America out of business. He said this meant raising our electric bills. Everybody ignored it. McCain pretty much ignored it, in that he failed to mount an all out attack on Obama's disastrous use of "cap and trade" as a massive new tax on those American businesses not favored by our present central planners. McCain was too busy trying to convice everyone he was just as much against "global warming" (that total fraud) as Obama and the mainstream media. McCain did that simply to appeal to the mainstream media (utter stupdity, since they trashed him anyway) and to "moderates". If McCain had come out strongly against using "global warming" as an excuse for a leftist attack on capitalism, and if McCain had also come out against the Paulson and GM bailouts, McCain might well have won the election. Still, McCain, too, is right. Even if there were a little something to "global warming" (you are an idiot if you think that there is any evidence it is a "crisis" like this severe economic recession, you can't put a massive new tax on American business at this time. It is insanity. That is, it is insanity unless your real agenda is not to "save" capitalism, but to impose a leftist, central planning agenda on the country. That is Obama's real agenda, as well as that of Pelosi and Reid. But what credibility does McCain have on this, when he failed to make the case when running for President. So help me, Obama told people what he was going to do. If you failed to listen, whose fault is that?
It might have helped you listen, of course, if McCain were not too busy attacking conservatives to actually tell voters how bad Obama was going to be. There is a reason I did not vote for McCain (or Obama). McCain shows I was right every time he opens his mouth.
MSNBC actaully told you how insane this is. Oh, you have to have me translate. But MSNBC told you, nevertheless. Nope. I do not see anything MSNBC does--the only sane policy for an outfit that bad, but I have the same policy on CNN< Politico.com and the rest. Since I have left AOL, you can add AOL News to the list of leftist agenda "news" I ignore. I digress (only sort of).
MSNBC had on its website that "cap and trade" will be a "new source" of government revenue. How is that for honesty? There you have it in a nutshell. Obama, and leftists in general (outside of a few fanatics) couldn't care less about "global warming". It is just a means to expand government, at the expense of the private sector. It is also a handy source of revenue. That is, leftist purport to think it is a source of "new revenue. But remember what Obama told Joe the Plumber: revenue is not the point; "fairness" (government power) is the point.
Is "cap and trade really a source of "new (lol) revenue? Of course not. No "new" revenue is being created. It is merely a tax on old revenue. That is, it is no different than a discriminatory tax on the present revenue of disfavored (greenhouse gas producing) industries. It is no different than taxing, say, lawyers at a higher rate than other people. It is just a new tax, not a "new" source of government revenue. The only source of government revenue, until socialism/fascism/socialism fully takes over and officially proclaims all money as government money, is private money generated by businesses and individuals in this country. It is even worse thatn that. Obama (see Cramer) intends to destroy entire present industries, and the revenue of entrie present industries.
The way that "cap and trade" works (and the details keep changing) is that the cneral planners (government) decides how much grenhouse gases the operations of disfavored businesses "should" be allowed to produce (for the disfavored businesses, this will be an amount less than they are now "emitting"--as we are emitting CO2 by exhaling). Then a punitive tax is imposed on those businesses causing "too much" green house gas emissions. Oh, and businesses will be allowed to "purchase" green credits from more environmentally "responsible" businesses (translation: from businesses faovored by the central planners). If you conclude this is an invitation to massive fraud and abuse, as people exaggerate their "green" credits, you are absolutely right. Madoff could have made money in this setup without even breaking the law (but providing just as little benefit to the country in manipulating this particular extortion scheme).
This all indicates that Obama's budgets, and words in general, are a total fraud. How can you generate more tax money in 2010 or 2011 with more capital gains taxes? Who has captial gains. The new business taxes will further reduce the "profits" of business. So how will the new business taxes raise revenue. They cannot. But then Obama, Pelosi and Reid do not care about revenue. They care about a leftist agenda. If their present agenda does not "work" (as it cannot), they will just propose "more government control" as the "solution". That is how leftists work. What is amazing is that they keep getting away with it.
Look at the higher individual taxes, going into effect in 2011. My brother has lost his business (Shippers Trnspoirt--that trucking business that could have been save with 2 millino dollars as my brother already have a working plan but not enough cash left to carry it through). Meanwhile we are bailing out AIG to the tune of 180 billion dollars. That might be enough to bail out every small business in America--at least hose with a plausible business plan, like my brother. My brother will not be paying those new taxes. His business is gone, and he may be on unemployment (being supported by the "rich" group to which he no longer belongs).
Then there is my older daughter. She was one of the "rich"--making $170,000 at a big Boston law firm--while working maybe 60 80 hours per week. And my older daughter has those law chool loans she got to enable her to become a lawyer. She has now been laid off, along with 20-25% of the entire law firm. Those kind of layoofs are now cascading through the big law firms--especially in the "money center" areas. My older daughter will not be paying any increased taxes. She will be another supported, for at least awhile, by all of those "rich" people out there. You say the "rich" people themselves are losing money? You get the point. These increased taxes are not going to raise revenue. They may decrease revenue, and decrease revenue is gong to take place anyway because so many people are no longer part oft he "rich". My older daughter will find it hard to avoid a 30% to 50% pay cut. If she had bought a house--to the limit of her income, as so many did, then she would ot be able to afford it.
My younger daughter, just out of law school, is an even more impressive example of the insanity of the Age of Obama. My younger daughter works for a large New York City law firm. She is, again, one of the "rich". She is hardly making it. She has all of those loans and credit card bills that got her to the point of finally making money (this October). She is still employed, at a large salary (about $165,000). However, her husband is unemployed, because of the economy in New York City. He had to (in this age of feminsm) follow my younger daughter to New York City. It gets worse.
My younger daughter pays Federal taxes, which Obama is trying to raise (although she may not immediately see a raise, if her husband stays unemployed--without even unemployment insurance). She pays New York state income taxes. Why she did not come back to Texas, I will never know. My younger daughter then pays New York City taxes!!! She gets to keep less than half of what she earns (especially on the margin). It gets worse.
My younger daughter--a likely Obama target--is working 80-100 hours per week (no exaggeration). This is the equivalent of two ordinary jobs. She does not even hardly see her husband. Will her marriage survive this? What kind of life does my younger daughter have, and she is not even getting ahead (with the taxes and debts). If she is laid off, in one of these rounds of layoffs, my younger daughter is toast.
My younger daughter (really a good part of my family) should be a poster child for the Age of Obama. She is targeted, or likely to be eventaully targeted (if not laid off, in which case many others like her will be targeted) to pay for all of those trillions Obama is spedning. Aside: Why shoudl anyone live in New York City, California, or any of these other leftist "meccas"? Beats me. My younger daughter has little life, and her marriage is under extreme stress.
Now you can say that my younger daughter made her choice. However, you can say that AIG, GM, the banks, and all of those homeowners who bought houses they can't afford, made their choices too. Further, my younger daughter is now trapped (by the economy). She may be willing to sacrifice for future benefit. But if she wanted to get out, she could not (other than by joining the "poor", and being laid off).
Is the Obama/Democrat attack on my younger daughter, and people like her, "fair"? Who says? Worse, for the country, do you think you younger daughter is gong to be stlupid enough to keep working 80 to 100 hourse per week, if Obama and the Democrats start INCREEASING her taxes? Don't be silly.
That is why tax increases do not necessarily, and in practice generally do not, actually increase government revenue. They drive people to do one of three things:
1. Move away from where taxes are high.
2. Avoid the taxes--leagally, and not just by not paying them, like Democrats.
3. Make less money. That is, don't work so hard.
McCain never made this case--did not even come close. President Bush did not make this case. I am not sure that even Limbaugh, Hannity, et. al. are effectively making this case. That is because they have become obsessed with Wall Street, capital gains, reducing corporate taxes by extreme amounts, etc. (including that stupid "payroll tax holiday"). This is really a betrayal of the Regan revolution to a SIMPLE tax system with lower TAX RATES (28% top rate, which should be for corporations and individuals; 15% rate for captial gains and "middle class--could even drop this rate to 12%; and 0--now, under Obama, the rate paid by fully half of the country as the "rich" are being asked to pay it all). Look at my younger daughter if you want to see how unfair a punitive tax system on the "rich" is.
P.S. Above not proofread or spell checked (actually a chore for me--eyesight). I am simply too tired, and it is too long (I know, a reason for you not to read it, but there is some valuable information in this entry, in my humble opinion). I will try to at least spell check the entry later.